Walmart losses in its war against Smith's websites

Picture by Robert E. Klein, Nov 8th 2002
Courtesy of the Associated Press

Charles Smith, a 50-year-old computer store owner from Conyers, Ga., set up his Walocaust website and later a Wal-Queda site, in his Walocaust site he sold T-shirts with the motto:"I (heart) Wal-ocaust." Associated Press. Walmart responded to this by sending letters to Smilth asking him to stop selling the T-shirts through his website which they claimed violated the company's trademark.Walmart then sued Mr.Smith.
Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. rejected the claims by Walmart, stating that it is unlikely that Mr Smith's websites and products will be confused with Walmart's real products.

Posted by Janet Kemboi

First amendment defeats defamation suit.

Picture by Pat Wellenbach, June 28th 2006
Courtesy of the Associated Press

Joyce Schelling of Orland lost in a defamation law suit that she had filed against the then Rep. Kenneth Lindell who represented the District 41 in the Maine House of Representatives. Schelling had sued for defamation after Lindell had wriiten a letter in the Republican Journal that claimed that Schelling only backed a bill because," it was designed to line the pockets of special interest groups who seek to financially gain at the expense of Maine's overburdened tax payers." Associated Press.
Schelling said that Lindell's letter was embarrassing and caused her anxiety and loss of sleep. Lindell argued under Maine's anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation(SLAPP) statute, that his free speech right were being violated.

Posted by Janet Kemboi

Do you think they are entitled to read the report?

Picture of the Great Salt Lake in Utah,
by Douglas C.Pizac, October 26th 1999
Courtesy of the Associated Press

The parents of a woman who was killed in Salt Lake City last year were denied access to a court report that includes an interview with a man who sold the gun to their daughter's killer. Federal Judge Dale Kimball, refused to release the report. The judge said on Monday that he was not going to release the report despite the fact that the circuit court and the U.S. Attorney's office in Utah said he had the powers to do so.
The court ruled that Judge Kimball has the discretion to release the report but it said it would leave the ultimate decision on the disclosure of the report to the judge.

Posted by Janet Kemboi

Advertising Self-regulation in action.

Picture by Dan Loh, September 13th 2002
Courtesy of the Associated Press


The National Advertising Division referred advertising for Nutro MAX dog food to the FTC after Nutro Products Inc failed to discontinue an advertising claim after repeated requests from the NAD. AdLawBy Request.

Nutro foods claim was made in its point-of purchase advertising, the claim stated that the product, NutroMax dog food was ”made from parts of chicken you feed your own family.” This was challenged by Nutro food’s competitor Hills Pet Nutrition,Inc.
The NAD opened an inquiry on this case in October 2007. Nutro foods claimed that it had stopped making this claim. Based on this, the NAD closed the inquiry. However, the NAD received a report from Hills Pet Nutrition Inc, that Nutro Foods was still making the “feed your own family claim.” Nutro food responded to the attack by assuring the NAD that it expected that all the point-of –purchase advertising claims would be out of the market by the end of January 2008.



Posted by Janet Kemboi

"Attorney General of New Jersey is interfering with our user's freedom of speech." Says, JuicyCampus.com

Picture by Thomas Kienzle, Septemeber 17th 2002
Courtesy of the Associated Press

JuicyCampus.com, a college gossip website that publishes anonymous and often malicious gossip about college students, has accused the Attorney General of New Jersey Anne Milgram of interfering with its user's freedom of speech rights. This accusation came after the Attorney General launched a consumer fraud investigation on the website.
An unsigned statement from the website reads; "JuicyCampus has not violated any laws." Members of the website are now posting defamatory statements about the Attorney General.(Associated Press) A peak in to JuicyCampus.com reveals a post with a heading that reads: "I f***ed the NJ Attny General in the ass last week."
The Attorney General's office has not responded or made comments on any of the attacking posts from JuicyCampus.com.

Posted by Janet Kemboi

Supreme Court Looks At "Fleeting" Expletives

Photo Courtesy of Associated Press Images (Photographer Rick Bowmer (c) 2001)

The First Amendment Center reports that thirty years after FCC v. Pacifica, the Supreme Court is tackling the question of “fleeting” expletives in broadcast and cable media. “Fleeting,” or accidental expletives have been dealt with unclearly since Pacifica, and newer FCC regulation has brought the issue back into the limelight. The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the FCC could not issue indecency fines against Fox following obscenities aired during the 2004 Billboard Awards because their use was “fleeting.” Nevertheless, the FCC appealed to the Supreme Court, and is now having its case heard.

The current case, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, arises in a much different era. Many argue that cable and satellite are virtually indifferent from over-the-air broadcast T.V. Some also question the FCC’s increasingly stricter policies as direct results of the current Bush administration. Whatever the case, the Supreme Court will soon decide on growing questions of decency in certain media.

Post by Gabriel Kassel

New York State Legislature Looking at Online Data Privacy

The New York Times reports on a bill being pioneered by Richard Brodsky, a N.Y. state assemblyman, regulating how online advertisers track users. The plan is to give online users an “opt-out” ability so they can choose whether advertisers can track their habits or not. Currently, advertisers have a relative free-for-all in tracking users online. While privacy advocates have instigated tighter controls over individual user information, what is done with that by the advertiser information is still unregulated.

The Times points out how a bill like this shows the clout a state government can have in the online realm. The bill is not the first in the country, but clearly the most broad in dealing with online ads. If the bill were to pass, companies such as Google and Yahoo would be forced to apply them nationally, since segregating users by state is impossible. Microsoft, another titan of online advertising, is all for tighter restrictions with the hope of ousting their top competition, Google.

Brodsky is still working to finalize the bill, but is actively seeking advice from large online advertisers. Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft all are lobbying strongly in Albany. The final form and scope of the bill will have significant impact on how advertising is conducted online.

Post by Gabriel Kassel

"Naked Cowboy" Sues for Trademark Infringement

The Naked Cowboy in Times Square


Photo Courtesy of Associated Press Images (Photographer Robert F. Bukaty (c) 2002)

Robert Burck, a.k.a. “The Naked Cowboy,” a prominent street performer in New York City’s Times Square, is suing the Mars Company for trademark infringement. Mars ran a video billboard depicting an animated M&M with the likeness of the Naked Cowboy. Burck is claiming trademark rights over the Naked Cowboy persona which he has licensed to many companies before this case.

With the ad now taken down, the question remains if Mars can defend its action proving the M&M character was a parody which could not be confused with the actual individual. Precendent goes both ways with a case brought by Tommy Hilfiger against a pet perfume named “Timmy Holedigger” being unsuccessful and another case between Vanna White of Wheel of Fortune and Samsung showing that even if the likeness would not be confused it still infringes one’s identity. The website "AdLawByRequest.com" point out the result will likely redefine a fine line in advertising law between parody and trademark infringement.

Post by Gabriel Kassel

Biggest U.S. Spam Suit Settled

Photo Courtesy of Associated Press Images (Photographer Lucy Pemoni (c) 2004)


ValueClick, Inc., an online advertising company, has settled for $2.9 million with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in what is the largest claim against an online advertiser since the CAN-SPAM act was passed in 2003. The act limits advertising from making deceptive claims when delivered through e-mail.

The company sent e-mails promising “free gifts” to attract users to websites, at which point the user would have to opt-in for satellite television or other services to receive any kind of gift. The FTC has also found ValueClick’s management of user data problematic. Along with the monetary settlement the company is taking an approach to mitigate and remedy problems with their ad formats and technology, and minimize fallout for the company. Nevertheless, a small dip in stock price occurred following news of the settlement.

Post by Gabriel Kassel

Largest Wireless Spectrum Auction in U.S. History: Closed

Photo Courtesy of Associated Press Images (Photographer Mark Hancock (c) 2003)

Bidding is closed for what has become the largest wireless spectrum auction in FCC history, netting the government just under $20 billion. Included in the auction were packages of spectrum on both national and regional levels important in extending and improving wireless services across the nation. The most coveted auction item, known as the “C Block,” encompassed the biggest chunk of nationwide spectrum and ended at $4.74 billion.

These spectrum groups promise improved quality of service and higher bandwidth while requiring less power to transmit. Over 200 companies competed in the auction including telecommunications and information powerhouses such as AT&T, Verizon, and Google.

"The check is in the mail," as Engadget (one of the most widely read tech Blogs) points out, and all that remains is for the FCC to finalize details of the transactions and provide deadlines for the build-out of these new services.

Post by Gabriel Kassel

Family files freedom of speech lawsuit against school district

by Analicia Jaramillo

Photo courtesy of Associated Press Images

14-year-old Donald Miller was suspended from Penn Manor High School in Lancaster, PA for wearing a t-shirt to school that read "Volunteer Homeland Security" on the front and "Special issue Resident Lifetime License — United States Terrorist Hunting Permit — Permit No. 91101 — Gun Owner — No Bag Limit" on the back. The t-shirt also included an image of military weapons.

Miller's family claims he was wearing the shirt to honor his uncle who is currently in Iraq. Miller was suspended for two days after school officials asked him to wear the shirt inside out and he refused.

His family is now suing the school district, claiming this was a violation of their son's free speech rights.

School officials countered this argument saying that they have implemented heightened security measures after the Columbine tragedy and that the restriction of shirts like this serves only in the best interest of the students while they are in school

Students freedom of religious expression protected

by Analicia Jaramillo

The Oklahoma House passed legislation protecting students' right of religious expression in school. Several individuals have objected saying this measure will only ignite problems in the classroom.

Republican representative, Dan Sullivan said this legislation was passed in order to provide equal opportunity for students to express his or her religious beliefs, which he feels can be done without imposing those beliefs on the other students. This was passed solely as an effort to allow students the right to express their views and do so without retribution.

Students will have the right to form organizations and have all the same rights as other extra-curricular and secular organizations do.

Opponents of this measure argue that by passing this legislation it will encourage students to express beliefs that are contradictory to the "traditional Christian views" the school currently upholds.

Those opponents also feel that because students already have a legal protection to pray in school, this measure is pointless.

High school principal bans use of Confederate Flags

by Analicia Jaramillo

Photo courtesy of Associated Press Images

Fort Hill High School Principal Stephen Lewis has banned students from displaying the Confederate flag on their vehicles or clothing. Lewis says the ban was issued in order to respond to the recent racial tensions affecting several of his students.

The use of the flags allegedly lead to altercations between several of the white and black students on campus. Lewis noticed the increase use of racial slurs among the white students both in school and online through websites such as MySpace.com. As a result, he felt it was best to ban the display of the Confederate Flag, as they were encouraging the use of racial slurs and encouraging students to harass the black students on campus.

Some of the students involved in these altercations were suspended because of the use of racial slurs, which then outraged several other white students. They then began to wear the flags in protest of the ban.

Courts rule for a right of access to secret plea agreements

by Analicia Jaramillo


The federal appeals court ruled on whether or not to make public plea agreements in two different cases, one regarding a drug cartel defendant and the other regarding a businessman accused of money laundering. The San Diego Union Tribune requested access to this information, thus prompting the courts to deliberate over the public's right to access.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski stated that the issue involved was a compelling government interest involved that would override the public's right to access. Chief Kozinski claimed that a plausible government interest may be the safety of those involved in the two cases. As a result, the panel ruled to keep the documents sealed.

U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns originally ruled to maintain the seal on the documents due to possible risk to the individuals involved in the cases, but later lifted this ruling and unsealing several of the documents, saying the risk was less severe than previously assumed.

The Tribune continues its battle in the court in the hopes to have more of these documents unsealed, arguing that it is the public's right to access, especially in cases such as these.

Judicial Complaints to be made public

by Analicia Jaramillo

Photograph courtesy of Associated Press Images

This past Thursday, the Judicial Conference of the United States implemented a new set of rules regarding the investigation of complaints filed against judges.

Chief Justice John Roberts, as chair of the 27-judge body, began discussions regarding the publication of judicial complaints after suggestions made by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee. These new rules serve as a way to make these complaints more open to the public, allowing the public to retrieve information regarding the specific complaint filed as well as the judge in question.

Having implemented these new rules, the hope is to make these complaints public record and allow for greater clarity in the judicial process.

Sunshine Week commemorates FOIA

by Naomi P.



Cartoon by John Cole, courtesy of SunshineWeek.org


This week, March 16-22, is Sunshine Week.

During this week, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; also called the “sunshine” law) and open government are promoted though discussions and related activities.

Sunshine Week is co-sponsored by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE). Other organizations across the country are participating by hosting events.

Information about and resources for Sunshine Week are available on the official website.

Oklahoma blocks online access to public court documents

by Naomi P.

In related news, The First Amendment Center posted an AP report that the Oklahoma Supreme Court is banning or restricting access to public court records and documents that are available online, effective June 10, 2008.

The court’s rationale, as explained in a partial dissent by two of the justices, is that since not all Oklahoma counties have their documents online, no one should have access to the ones posted by the counties that do, until all counties are 'up to speed'.

Documents may still be obtained by going to the actual courthouses. However, personally identifiable and other information may be blacked out, in the interest of privacy issues, as required in the same ruling.

Offensive ads by UK agency ordered discontinued

by Naomi P.

A March 13 post on The Media Law Professors blog says that The Advertising Standards Authority in England ruled that several ads produced by British ad agency Jemilla for hair product Ghd by Sephora should be discontinued in their present incarnation because they were offensive to the Christian faith.

Other ads from the same campaign, which has quasi-religious overtones, have also received complaints, but are not affected. One of the allowed print ads can be seen on the Sephora website.

The Advertising Standards Authority is an industry self-regulating body and not part of the government of the UK.

Right of access rules work in attacked reporter's favor

by Naomi P.

If journalists need proof that having respect for the rules of access is for their own good, and the importance of 'keeping the camera rolling,' consider what happened this week to Charmayne Brown, a broadcast news reporter from WSPA-TV in S.C.

Brown stood across the street from a crime scene, following up on a story about a suspect in a murder. As she and her cameraman wrapped up, four people--some members of the suspect’s family--crossed the street, verbally attacked and physically beat her. A nearby cameraman from another station, covering the same story, caught the incident on tape. Because Brown was on public property at the time, the law is on her side.

One of the accused attackers and the family of another one of the accused have since issued an apology.

Fines blocked for reporter who would not reveal sources

By Naomi P.

AP photo of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill


Former USA Today reporter Toni Locy won a reprieve this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia from having to pay a huge contempt of court fine while her case is on appeal.

Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, about whom she wrote after John Ashcroft mentioned him as “a person of interest” in the anthrax attacks of 2001, filed a civil suit in which he demanded the names of Locy’s anonymous sources who confirmed or provided details about him.

Rather than sentence her to jail time for refusing to name her sources, as is usual in such cases, the lower court ruled that beginning Tuesday, she was to pay a fine of up to $5000 a day.

In an even more unusual move, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton also barred USA Today or anyone else, for that matter, from paying or otherwise assisting with the fine.

But while she is breathing a tentative sigh of relief, the rest of the press community holds its breath. If she loses the appeal, the case will set a precedent that could allow the court to force reporters into punitive bankruptcy and could foreseeably destroy the field and purpose of journalism, particularly investigative journalism. Journalists and even politicians are calling for a federal shield law.

Should sports marketing contracts be open?

The Associated Press reported Saturday that sports-marketing contracts with universities are "trade secrets" and schools are legally allowed to keep the amount of money that they receive through the contracts a secret.  Oregon's two largest universities are neglecting to make these records public.  The public interest is outweighed by the amount of benefit that the schools receive through these marketing contracts.  The school has released past and present records but has blacked out portions of the contracts that list the guaranteed annual amounts received, stating that contractors may offer less if they know how much the school has settled for in the past.  This has raised concerns among students and the community, since other schools seem free to admit this information, and these are technically public records.

Megan Humphreys

"Do Not Deliver" Bills follow Do Not Call

The Associated Press reported Sunday that in Maryland four free-delivery newspapers would begin to stop delivering to customers that do not want them.  This would be made possible by the publishing of a phone number in the paper that homeowners could call to stop the delivery.  This would be one of the first bills of its kind.  The proposed bill came after homeowners began to complain that the free newspapers littered their neighborhoods and did not stop when canceled.  The papers involved will be The Examiner, the Carroll County Times, the Gazette, and the Merchandiser.   There are currently discussions regarding whether this will hurt the growth and expansion of free newspapers.

Megan Humphreys

Michigan argues over who gets access to voters information

The ACLU has filed action against the Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land on behalf of the Green, Libertarian, and Reform parties of Michigan stating that it is illegal to allow on the two major parties in Michigan, the Democratic and Republican, access to voter information and responses, the Associated Press reported.  The parties are claiming that this violates the Constitution's first and fourteenth amendments by limiting the information to only two parties and by limiting the news media from reporting on matters of public interest that relate to party preference.  The injunction asks that the court declare the law unconstitutional.

Megan Humphreys

Wiki allowed back online

The Associated Press reported that the wiki website wikileaks.org, was granted the right to reopen again in the United States on Saturday.  The website claims to have posted over 1 million leaked government documents, including the operation manual for the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.  The website was originally shutdown when it was accused by Julius Baer, a Zurich-based bank, of posting account information stolen by a former employee.  This raised free speech concerns when it was considered whether the legal measures carried out were "constitutionally appropriate," rather than just removing the sensitive information.  The Associated Press and the ACLU were among the several organizations that filed briefs on the case.

Megan Humphreys

Prince Returns Home after US Media Leak

According to British news media, the Guardian, Prince Harry returned to the UK Friday following a US media leak of his current front line military post in Afghanistan.  The news was leaked through the US media outlet The Drudge Report, as well as online outlets.  The British media outlets were all previously aware of the prince's deployment in Afghanistan, but had struck a deal with the Ministry of Defense that would provide photographs and footage of the prince while deployed.  The media outlets were urged not to release the information right away should a foreign media outlet expose the story first.

Megan Humphreys