Military's Independent Paper Faces Ban on Political Speech

© 2008 Associated Press
Photo by Visar Kryeziu

by Michelle Halpern

The military’s independent newspaper, the Stars and Stripes, faced a restriction on free speech when Pentagon officials told the paper it couldn’t perform post-election coverage, wrote Dave Mazzarella on the Stars and Stripes website.

Writers for the paper were assigned to go to common areas on the military bases and cover the reactions of the election’s outcome as voting was being tallied by internet and television media. According to The New York Times, however, the Department of Defense barred reporters from doing so, stating that it wished to avoid “engaging in activities that could associate the Department with any partisan election,” since servicemembers in uniform can be seen as representing the opinions and viewpoints of the DoD.

Pentagon officials also stated that because commercial media were not being allowed to travel to military bases for election coverage, that Stars and Stripes should be held to the same standard. The Stars and Stripes argued that unlike commercial media, the paper has a unique purpose to provide news to troops in a way that is different from other forms of media because the paper’s staff works on site at the military base offices.

The DoD made clear that it was denying permission to conduct post-election coverage not only in the paper’s Pacific sector, but worldwide.

In disregard to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs’ (OSDPA) restriction, Editorial Director Terry Leonard told reporters to go forward with the election coverage on the big night. Reporters were advised by Leonard to respond peacefully if asked to leave the base common areas by authorities.

According to the Stars and Stripes website, only three bases in the end faced issues with the Pentagon’s ban--one in Japan and two in South Korea. The paper has not run into any conflict regarding the issue since election night, but staffers remain concerned about the precedent that this ban might set for future political speech.

(c) 2002 Associated Press Photo by Dan Loh

by Taylor Engler


Earlier this month a University of Delaware student, known as Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against statements on the Web site JuicyCampus.com, alleging libel. She is now withdrawing from the suit and the courts have escaped a test of The First Amendment's protection of anonymous online speech, according to an article on the Web site for The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Juicy Campus was founded in 2007 by a graduate of Duke University, Matt Ivester, and allows posters to anonymously write gossip about fellow students under tabs specific to their university, according to an article on CNN.com. The majority of the site is negative gossip, centering around promiscuity, prejudice, abortion rumors, and physical appearance. This form of online "bullying" can be extremely detrimental to students emotionally, according the the CNN article.

In the case, Jane Doe v. John Does 1-5, the Delaware student accused five anonymous posters of writing libelous information about her sexual history on the Web site, according to the Reporters' article. Juicy Campus itself is protected from lawsuits through the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which protects Web sites from comments written by third parties when the Web site has no hand in the speech, according to the Reporters' article.

While the Web site promises its posters 100 percent anonymity, a poster can be tracked down through their IP address in extreme situations. In early 2008, a Colgate University student was charged with harassment for writing a post on Juicy Campus threatening a mass shooting, according to an article on UticaOD.com. The student was tracked down by the Web site because of the seriousness of the threat.

While the Web site is protected and will not face discussions in the courts in this case, students across the county are speaking out on the issue according to an article on The First Amendment Center Web site. Students at Pepperdine University voted to ban the site from their campus earlier this year, although the administration did not take action because of First Amendment issues, according to the article.

I never feel guilty for a form of speech. The First Amendment is so important in this country in providing a place where students can speak

, said Ivester in the Reporters' article.

Courts not to get juicy this month

(c) 2002 Associated Press Photo by Dan Kuh

by Taylor Engler


Earlier this month a University of Delaware student, known as Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against statements on the Web site JuicyCampus.com, alleging libel. She is now withdrawing from the suit and the courts have escaped a test of The First Amendment's protection of anonymous online speech, according to an article on the Web site for The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Juicy Campus was founded in 2007 by a graduate of Duke University, Matt Ivester, and allows posters to anonymously write gossip about fellow students under tabs specific to their university, according to an article on CNN.com. The majority of the site is negative gossip, centering around promiscuity, prejudice, abortion rumors, and physical appearance. This form of online "bullying" can be extremely detrimental to students emotionally, according the the CNN article.

In the case, Jane Doe v. John Does 1-5, the Delaware student accused five anonymous posters of writing libelous information about her sexual history on the Web site, according to the Reporters' article. Juicy Campus itself is protected from lawsuits through the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which protects Web sites from comments written by third parties when the Web site has no hand in the speech, according to the Reporters' article.

While the Web site promises its posters 100 percent anonymity, a poster can be tracked down through their IP address in extreme situations. In early 2008, a Colgate University student was charged with harassment for writing a post on Juicy Campus threatening a mass shooting, according to an article on UticaOD.com. The student was tracked down by the Web site because of the seriousness of the threat.

While the Web site is protected and will not face discussions in the courts in this case, students across the county are speaking out on the issue according to an article on The First Amendment Center Web site. Students at Pepperdine University voted to ban the site from their campus earlier this year, although the administration did not take action because of First Amendment issues, according to the article.

“I never feel guilty for a form of speech. The First Amendment is so important in this country in providing a place where students can speak,” said Ivester in the Reporters' article.

Supreme Court To Hear Case about Campaign Financing

(AP Photo/Kevin Glackmeyer)


By Sarah Kestenbaum

The Supreme Court of the United States decided Friday Nov. 14 to grant cert in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, according to the SCOTUS Blog and the Washington Post. The conservative advocacy group, Citizens United, is upholding that there should be an exception to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act when applied to a feature-length movie naming a Presidential or Congressional candidate.

The “electioneering communications” provision of the Campaign Reform Act bans corporations (including non-profits) and labor unions from using monies from their own treasuries to fund ads for or against federal candidates if the ad appears on the radio or television during election time.

“Hilary: The Movie,” funded by Citizens United about Senator Hilary Clinton, was released only to theaters and on DVD for fear that the Federal Election Commission would apply the ban to the movie if it aired on TV.

The issue is whether forms of expressions traditionally protected during an election, such as a movie, are subject to the FEC bans as well. A federal District Court ruled that the movie about Senator Clinton was similar to the kind of radio or TV ad that would be subject to the ban if aired on television because it is interpreted as a call to voters to not support the candidate.

Although the Congressional and Presidential elections are over, the case is still being heard because Citizens United has said it plans to produce and use similar movies in future elections.

The case will most likely be argued in the session that begins Feb. 23 and continues through March 4.

Military Court Orders Judge to View CBS Tapes

Dennis Wuterich arrives in San Diego for a hearing in front of a military court in August 2007. © 2007 Associated Press.
Photo by Denis Poroy
Story by Mike Schottenstein

CBS is not out of the water in its quest to keep from having to turn over outtakes from an interview it conducted with a marine last year, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Reports (RCFP). A judge will have to review the tapes from a CBS interview requested by the U.S. government, the Armed Forces Court of Appeals ruled Monday in a 3-2 decision.

CBS interviewed Matt Wuterich and aired the interview on 60 Minutes last year. Wuterich has been charged with "dereliction of duty" and "involuntary manslaughter," according to the RCFP. Wuterich was leading a military convoy in Haditha, Iraq, in 2005 that killed 24 Iraqis, including women and young children after a roadside bombing, the RCFP reports.

The government, believing the outtakes from interview might help in its case against Wuterich, got a subpoena requesting CBS hand over the tapes. CBS claims the tapes are privileged and Wuterich's story to the government was the same as what he said on the tapes, so it should not have to turn them over.

A military judge agreed with CBS and refused to make it honor the subpoena without even viewing the tapes himself to see if they did actually contain useful information. The Court of Appeals remanded the case because they decided the judge should have looked at the tapes before making his ruling, the RCFP wrote. The judges did not rule on whether the tapes fell under reporters privilege.

According to the RCFP, the majority decision said, "[The outtakes] constitute a potentially unique source of evidence that is not necessarily duplicated by any other material."

D.C. Circuit Dismisses Contempt Order Against Reporter

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton
© 2008 AP Images./Haraz N. Ghanbari




By Laura Brandon

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a contempt order against a former USA Today reporter for refusing to provide her sources for her stories about the anthrax attacks in 2001, according to an article from the First Amendment Center.

A judge previously ordered reporter Toni Locy to pay $5,000 per day out of her own pocket as part of her contempt order. Those fines were thrown out along with the contempt order.

The contempt order resulted when Locy refused to identify her sources as part of Steven J. Hatfill’s lawsuit against the federal government.

Hatfill, a former Army scientist, was identified as a person of interest in the anthrax investigation but was later exonerated by the Justice Department. He sued the federal government for violating his privacy by talking to reporters.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who presided over the civil case, ordered Locy to reveal who had given her information about Hatfill. But Locy said she could not remember who the specific sources were.

Judge Walton then ordered Locy to reveal all the sources related to her anthrax stories. When Locy refused, the judge charged her with contempt and ordered her to pay the fines.

The contempt order was thrown out after Hatfill settled his lawsuit with the Justice Department.

Federal Judge Rules White House Office of Administration Exempt from FOIA Laws

By Emma Dovi

(The White House sign which is the backdrop for all White House Press Briefings.)


(c) 2008 Associated Press (photo by J. Scott Applewhite)

On November 14, 2008, a three-judge panel ruled that the White House Office of Administation does not have to answer to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws, according to the First Amendment Center. This ruling could potentially be protecting the confidentiality of e-mails that seem to have gone missing from certain White House Offices in the Administrative division. The search for these mystery e-mails first surfaced as an issue during the Valerie Plame case about her leaked identity as a CIA agent. E-mails from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney were sought after by prosecutors only to discover that they were nowhere to be found.

The White House Office of Administration allegedly failed to put an e-mail archive into place, which in turn failed to document hundreds of e-mails. Anne Weismen, chief counsel for Citizens Responsibility and Ethics in Washington says the White House does not have the right to be exempt from producing these documents. Thomas Bondy, Justice Department lawyer, arguing for the White House, claims that these documents should be protected as part of "the importance of the Office of Administration, saying that President George W. Bush is the head of it," according to the First Amendment Center.

Democrat sues Tenn. Republican for libel on blog

By Marisha Kelly


Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, right, with Rep. Jimmy Eldridge, R-Jackson, left, at a committee meeting in Nashville, Tenn. on May 25, 2005.


(c) 2005 Associated Press (Photo by Mark Humphrey)

Democratic state House candidate Roger Byrge has filed a $750,000 libel suit against Republican state Rep. Stacey Campfield, according to an Associated Press report posted on Tennessee’s Elizabethton Star Online.

Byrge, who lost last week’s East Tennessee race to Rep. Chad Faulkner, stated that Campfield wrote false comments on his blog that he had numerous arrests on drug charges.

According to the report, the following Oct. 12 comments are no longer posted on Campfield’s blog:

"Word is a ... mail piece has gone out exposing Byrge's multiple separate drug arrests including arrests for possession and drug dealing (I hear the mug shots are gold)."

But a printout of the original posting has been included in the lawsuit’s file.

According to the AP, the lawsuit filed in Jacksboro stated that the blog posting "caused damage to the plaintiff's reputation, damage to his standing in his community, personal humiliation and great distress."

House Democratic Caucus political director Keith Talley told the AP that the comments were “an obvious example of Republicans doing anything or saying anything to get elected.” Talley said these “kind[s] of smear tactics” may have led to Byrge’s loss in the race.

Campfield told the AP he has not seen the lawsuit.

"I know a little bit about the First Amendment, and I just don't see him having a basis for damages," he added.

MLK Estate Strives to Stop the Sale of Unauthorized Obama-King Merchandise

© 2008 Associated Press
Photo by John Bazemore

By Sandra Plasse







T-shirts and other merchandise depicting an image of King and Obama with slogans such as “The Dream Is Reality,” have become popular since the campaign and historical election of Barack Obama. The New York Times reported that Isaac Newton Farris, the head of the nonprofit King Center in Atlanta and Dr. Martin Luther King’s nephew, says the estate plans to sue merchants who continue to use his uncle’s symbols alongside Obama.

The King family is excited about Obama’s victory but wants to protect Dr. King’s name and estate, the article reports. However the estate doesn’t plan to sue merchants for about a month in order to allow vendors to stop selling the merchandise at their own discretion. Farris says he expects to license some merchandise in the future that will portray Obama and King together.

“King’s writings, likeness, and voice are considered intellectual property, and almost any use—from graduate thesis papers to TV documentaries—are subject to approval by his estate,” explains AP writer Errin Haines on newsvine.com.

Farris says the estate wants to maintain their rights over King's image. “If you don’t protect and assert a right to an image, you can lose the right to that image," says Farris. On Lawbeat, Professor Obbie acknowledged that the articles published neglect to inform the reader about how intellectual property rights work. Obbie suggests that future stories should answer the question— “Could the King Center look the other way and not undercut its future IP (intellectual property) rights?”

Critics suggest that the estate is too overprotective of King’s legacy, and that it will be extremely hard to stop all unlicensed production of the images. However, Farris says that the estate must protect its rights as well as its entitlement to a percent of the profit. “We do feel that if somebody’s out there making a dollar, we should make a dime.”

Virtual Sticks and Stones: When Free Speech Turns Hurtful

Online Community Forum Shut Down After Users Go "Too Far"
By Amy Bonanno

(c) 1999 Associated Press
Photo by Ben Margot

A Minnesota newspaper shut down a popular online community forum on its website after its publisher said some users "went too far." Hey Martha, was a forum on The Free Press where readers could debate issues in live time. In other words, visitors could respond to comments immediately after they were posted.

During the recent election season, regular visitors of Hey Martha, said the blogger was attacked for her political statements.

The paper reported its publisher, Jim Santori, saying most people using the forum chose to remain anonymous and some "went too far" in their criticisms. This includes the use of swear words, though Santori did not give specifics.

The Free Press quoted Santori's original hopes for the site. "In particular, I was hopeful we would have a civil discourse on matters where we disagreed," he said. But, Santori said, the anonymity factor, like that of some other online forums, complicated things. "Unfortunately, allowing anonymous posts on the forum opened up the opportunity for people to attack others with impunity. It got so bad that, in some cases, I found people fearful to engage in dialogue because of the actions of others."

Free Press issued several warnings and kicked some people off the forum. However, Santori said these people were able to log back on using different computers. He's now looking for an online application that will allow the newspaper to block users who violate forum rules.

For now, readers can still comment on individual stories posted on The Free Press website but the comments will be reviewed before being added.

Santori said he's not trying to stop free speech. He said he just wants forum users to be "more responsible for what they say."

Press pass problems

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, 2007)

By Paige Dearing

Three journalists are suing the New York Police Department for denying to renew their press passes that earned them access to invitation-only press conferences, according to the First Amendment Center.

Featured in an AP article posted to the First Amendment Center website, the lawsuit questions the police department’s press press application process as well as their definition of “journalist.” The police department refused the pass requests by David Wallis, Rafael Martinez-Alequin and Ralph Smith because the police believed that the men did not regularly cover breaking news for major news organizations and would not need the access.

The three plaintiffs are all online freelancers, writing for either their own websites or working as a blogger.

Police Official LT. Eugene Whyte issued a statement stating that their requests were rejected because the three writers were unable to prove that they were employed full-time by news gathering organizations that required coverage of breaking news events on a regular basis, as reported in the article.

Summum Monument Causes Free Speech Debate

(© 2001 Associated Press,
Photo by Rick Bowmer)

By Maren Guse

The Supreme Court heard a case involving Summum, a small spiritual group, that wants to place a religious monument in a public park in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, according to the New York Times.

The Supreme Court is to determine whether the city violated the First Amendment protection of free speech. The Court is accustomed to thinking under the First Amendment right of freedom of religion in connection with the 10 Commandments, however, this case is being reviewed as a freedom of speech issue. The monument was to be placed next to the 10 Commandments, which the city had no problem allowing in the park.

The church argued that the city was censoring ideas and that government cannot “discriminate among donated private monuments in public parks than it can among speeches and leaflets.”

NYPD changes videotaping policy

(© 2004 Associated Press, Photo by BEBETO MATTHEWS)

By Lauren Bertolini

According to the First Amendment Press Center, the New York Police Department will no longer encourage officers to videotape all political demonstrations. An internal NYPD order was issued on the subject in April 2007 but it has only recently been reported.

The issue began when the New York Civil Liberties Union fought the NYPD's decision to videotape the 2004 Republican National Convention, claiming that it went beyond the NYPD's power. Soon after in September 2004, the NYPD enacted a new policy allowing officers to use photo and video equipment to "record images in situations outside of ongoing criminal internal investigations, standard evidence collection or processing procedures."

The NYCLU filed a claim against the NYPD in 2005 with U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight. Haight oversees the Handschu Consent Decree, a result of a 1971 case regarding the videotaping of legal political activity by the Black Panther that was videotaped by the NYPD. It created a set of guidelines for when the NYPD would be able to record political activity.

The police claim that the surveillance is a means of combatting terrorists and does not violate protesters' First Amendment Rights, according to the First Amendment Center.

ACLU sues high school over newspaper censorship

(Copyright AP Photo/Alan Diaz, 2007)

By Sammy Kanter

Administrators have shut down the school newspaper at Fallbrook High School in San Diego County after censoring two articles, and they now face a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.  

According to the Associated Press and the First Amendment Center, the ACLU said the school violated the free-speech rights of the students by censoring the articles, eliminating the journalism class, closing down the paper, and cutting the faculty adviser.  The ACLU also asked for a court order to prohibit censorship by school or district officials of future publication of the two articles, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The first article, scheduled for publication in the Tomahawk last November, involves the superintendent's decisions involving the school and the nearby wildfires in October 2007.  The second article was an editorial criticizing the Bush administration's support to teach abstinence in sex education classes.  Principal Rod King said the first story was inaccurate, and the editorial's language and tone seemed too mature for a student to write.

An attorney for the district, Dan Shinoff, said the school cut the journalism program in relation to state budget cuts that predated the controversy.  

A state Senate bill passed in late September protects high school and college teachers and advisers from retaliation by their administrations upset by student speech.  This lawsuit, filed on Nov. 10 in San Diego County Superior Court, asks for the newspaper class and faculty adviser to be restored. 

New Fair Use code calms educators' legal fears

A viewer looks at the YouTube Web site on computer screens in New York, Aug. 17, 2006. YouTube is a video sharing service that already claims more than 100 million video views per day and more than 65,000 video uploads daily. (AP Photo/Cameron Bloch)

By Paige Dearing

Teachers can use copyrighted content in the classroom without permission legally thanks to a new Fair Use code which was released Tuesday.

According to Newswise Arts and Humanities News, The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education allows educators to use copyrighted media, such as YouTubes or websites, in critical thinking exercises without fear of legal consequences.

The Copyright Act of 1976 introduced Fair Use as a way for people to use copyrighted material without permission when the social value outweighs the cost to the copyright owner.

The new code clarifies the standards of digital media usage for educational use, which were addressed in the 2007 The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy report.

The code was developed by the National Association for Media Literacy Education, the Action Coalition for Media Education, the National Council of Teachers of English, the Visual Communication Studies Division of the International Communication Association, and the Media Education Foundation.

Jena Six court proceedings should have remained open, records still unavailable

© 2008 Associated Press photo by Alex Brandon

Jan. 21, 2008--Protesters march through Jena, La. on the MLK Jr. holiday.

By Abha Gunjal

According to the First Amendment Center, a state appeals court decided that a Louisiana judge had no authority to keep the juvenile court proceedings of Mychal Bell, a defendant in the “Jena Six” case, closed. Bell, a minor, was one of six black students charged with attempted murder in the beatings of a white classmate after discovering nooses hanging from a tree outside Jena High School. Bell ended up pleading guilty to a lesser charge, of juvenile second-degree battery.

The Associated Press, among other news agencies, had filed suit to keep Bell’s proceedings open—a suit that was originally refused by District Judge J.P. Mauffray, head of the Louisiana 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal in Lake Charles. Though the judge who opened the case had not gotten Mauffray’s permission to do so, the court did not recognize Mauffray’s decision to close the proceedings in the first place.

Bell’s case falls under a law that allows open court for juvenile cases that involve violence or felonies, which makes the fact that he is a minor irrelevant, stated the court. The decision, released Nov. 6, is only a partial victory for news and media outlets—the matter of whether or not Bell’s records being available to the media still remains in question.

The arrest and trials of the “Jena Six” brought widespread outrage around the country and led to over 20,000 people protesting in the town of Jena in Sept. 2007. It was considered one of the largest civil rights marches in decades.

Judge dismisses libel case against 'public figure'

© Associated Press 2002
April Brown

By Dara Kahn

According to the Cranford Chronicle, on Friday, November 7, Superior Court Judge Marianne Espinosa dismissed a libel suit brought by Sebastian D’Elia, Union County director of public information in New Jersey, against Tina Renna, founder and president of the Union County Watchdog Association, a 501(c)(3) organization whose goal is to “[monitor] the activity of county government and advocat[e] change to eliminate waste, corruption and incompetence,” according to the “mission statement” section of the organization’s website.

The case began when Renna posted an entry in April 2006 entitled “County Hacks are Soulless Psychopaths” on her blog, The County Watchers, which compared D’Elia to Adolf Hitler and questioned his sexual orientation. Seven months later, in November 2006, D’Elia filed a libel suit against Renna, another County Watcher member Patricia Quattrocchi, a Garwood resident, and the Elizabeth Reporter, which had printed the blog entry as commentary.

Judge Espinosa found that Renna’s blog did not defame D’Elisa because he was a public figure who was not able to prove he was damaged by the blog post. Phillip Morin III, Renna’s attorney, released a statement Friday that said even if the blog was libelous, he had failed to prove he was damaged.

"The decision further demonstrates that Internet bloggers can challenge the actions of government officials and receive the same protections afforded to the traditional media,” Morin said, quoted in the Cranford Chronicle article.

This case follows previous battles between Renna and D’Elia in print and in court, between a watchdog of policy and spending, and a spokesperson for the county.

“Joe the Plumber” Records Subject of Controversy

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., left, talks to plumber Joe Wurzelbacher in Holland, Ohio, Sunday, Oct. 12, 2008. 

(c) 2008 AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

By: Amanda Bernasconi

 

 According to the First Amendment Center, the governor of Ohio has placed Helen Jones-Kelly, an agency director of thntere Ohio Department of Job and Family Services appointed in December of 2006, on paid administrative leave.  This comes as a result of controversy surrounding state computers being used to find personal information pertaining to Samuel J. Wurzelbacher aka “Joe the Plumber”.  The governor claims this leave is not a result of speculation involving “Joe the Plumber.”  Reports from his office insinuate rather, that she has been suspended due to the possibility that a state computer or e-mail account was used to assist in political fundraising. 

           

            Jones-Kelly admits the records held by the Department she directs were reviewed just after October 15 but in a “routine manner”.  State Inspector Tom Charles is investigating if Jones-Kelly in fact improperly acted in authorizing the search of Wurzelbacher records.   When writing to State Senate President Bill Harris, Jones-Kelly stated that records had been checked due to Wurzelbacher’s suggestion that be may buy a business and it was determined he owed back taxes.  As a result, Jones-Kelly claims that she along with the department wanted to be sure that appropriate actions be taken if it was concluded that Wurzelbacher owed child support, received public assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes.  The state employee asked to run the computer background check is said to have believed Wurzelbacher himself had requested them.  In an article published by the First Amendment Center they note that these records were never made public or released to the media. 

For the Full Story; http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20866

Students get FBI documents through FOIA

(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) Photo of David Halberstam

By: Stephanie Ohol


According to the First Amendment Center, a group of graduate students at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism obtained FBI documents about the late Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author David Halberstam. Then they published the documents on the school’s website. The students were able to obtain the records by filing a Freedom of Information Act request.

The students discovered that the FBI had been tracking the journalist for more than two decades. The FBI monitored Halberstam’s reporting and his personal life from about 1965-to the late 1980s. The associated press article stated, “the agency released 62 pages of a 98-page report on the writer, citing security, privacy and other reasons.” The articles also said it was unclear when the FBI began watching Halberstam, “though the first documents made public date from 1965, when he was a Times correspondent in Poland during the Cold War.”

The documents showed that the FBI watched his reporting from overseas and his first marriage to a Polish actress. “The files included published reports of Polish officials expelling Halberstam and his wife from the country because of his news stories about Poland's communist leaders. It also included stories written by Halberstam and telephone company records of calls to him.”

The documents also showed that “FBI agents considered interviewing Halberstam, but never state why they wanted to talk to him or whether they ever did. The last document released is dated 1987.” The article said the FBI declined to comment for this story but a spokesman did say, "the FOIA speaks for itself."

Back in the 1950s-1970s the FBI used to monitor groups that were believed to have communist and socialist ties like the Ku Klux Klan and civil rights groups.

In 1964, Halberstam won a Pulitzer for his coverage of the Vietnam War while working as a reporter for The New York Times. He also wrote The Best and the Brightest, a best-selling book critical of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.

Judge asked to block deposition in Salt Lake City FOIA Case

By Laura DeJoseph

© Associated Press 2004 (Photo by Donna McWilliam)
Photo of Terry Nichols.

According to First Amendment Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigations requested the 10th Circuit Federal Appeals Court stop a request to videotape Oklahoma City bombing conspirator, Terry Nichols, as well as inmate and death row acquaintance of of Timothy McVeigh, David Paul Hammer for a deposition in court.

The request comes from Jesse Trentadue, brother of Kenneth Trentadue, who died in an Oklahoma City prison. Trentadue is trying to find evidence to explain his brother’s death. The brother’s death was ruled a suicide by hanging, but his body was covered in over 40 injuries and bruises after an interrogation where Trentadue believes his brother was mistaken for an associate of McVeigh.

Trentadue hopes that by questioning Nichols and Hammer he will be able to find out about FBI documents that he may then request and be given more answers about his brother’s death.
US District Judge Dale A. Kimball granted access in the

State Freedom of Information Act request this week. Judge Kimball’s only condition was that the two inmates were willing to cooperate with Trentadue, which they are.

US Attorneys disagree with the decision to allow the deposition, saying that FOIA laws cover documents, not necessarily people.

On November 4, US Attorneys requested that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals consider the case.

Oakland Tribune photojournalist arrested

© 2006 Associated Press
Photo by: Nick Ut
High School Immigration Protest in

Los Angeles, CA



By: Taj R. Chrisp

On Friday in Oakland, California an Oakland Tribune photojournalist named Jane Tyska had her video footage confiscated while she was filming students who were participating
in a protest federal immigration policy.
Tyska was documenting the protest outside of the Fruitvale BART, and then after thirty minutes of documentation she was arrested by an Oakland Unified School District police officer.
According to the Oakland Tribune, Officer Art Michel claims that he was trying to control protesters when Tyska was accused of interferring with his duties which could have incited riots or other problems.
According the the Executive Director of the California First Amendment Coalition, Peter Scheer, police are usually not allowed to take what is seen as evidence without a warrant or subpoena.
As of now it is unclear whether or not the Alameda County District Attorney's office will press charges.

Florida Supreme Court Rules in Favor of No False Light

Photo by: Dave Martin
(c) 2000 Associated Press

People gathering outside the Florida Supreme Court

by Katlyn Morahan

According to the Tampa Tribune, the Florida Supreme Court has made two recent decisions that have stopped people who live in Florida from suing newspapers for false light.

The first case was between Edith Rapp and Jews for Jesus. Rapp's stepson had alluded in the Jews for Jesus newsletter that his stepmother had become a convert to Christianity. Rapp claimed the writing portrayed her in a false light, however in the trial court Jews for Jesus argued that a reasonable person would not be offended by the description in the newsletter. The trial court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed and said the content did not put Rapp in a false light. The Florida Supreme Court then ruled that false light claims could not be made in the state because of the vague concept.

The second case involved the Pensacola News Journal and road contractor Joe Anderson. The newspaper had published a story saying that while Anderson had been on probation for mail fraud, he shot his wife by accident resulting in her death. Anderson said the story cost him a well-paid contracting job and portrayed him in a false light. The trial court ruled for Anderson, but the First District Court of Appeals overturned the verdict. The Florida Supreme Court then used its earlier ruling from the Rapp case an rejected Anderson's appeal.

The recent decisions do not release Florida newspapers from the responsibility of not publishing defamatory statements, however the decisions will put an end to many of the trivial lawsuits Florida newspapers have recently had to defend.

Photographer’s videocamera confiscated and not returned after being arrested for crossing the line two weeks ago.

AP Photo
(c) 2007 Shari Vialpando

By: Stacey Foster

A Chicago freelance photographer was arrested and his videocamera and still cameras taken from him, the Reporter’s Committee Freedom of the Press says. Police say photographer, Mike Anzalde, refused to stay behind the police line marked with yellow tape about two weeks ago.

According to The Pioneer, a newspaper, Anzalde says the police officers remarks are “absolutely untrue… The video would prove it.” However, the police kept the videocamera because the incident is now "an ongoing investigation." The two still cameras were returned, but the memory cards holding the photos were erased.

At the time of the breaking news Anzalde was covering; he was standing across the street from the incident with his press credentials in the car, The Pioneer said. A police spokeswoman came over while Anzalde was talking with neighbors and gathering the story. She told him he was “not allowed to photograph a crime scene.” Anzalde replied, “fine.”

Later, according to The Pioneer, a family member involved with the breaking story came on scene. Andzalde took out his videocamera. The same spokeswoman came over and reiterated her request - this time she also asked him for his press credentials which he didn’t have on him - but in his car. He was then arrested.

Andzalde was held for nine hours, according to The Pioneer. He was charged with resisting or obstructing a police officer. He is scheduled to appear in court November 19.

Judge to review wiretapping memos

Photo: Charles Dharapak

© 2008 Associated Press

Pictured: Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. 

By Kyle Austin

The Justice Department, by order of a federal judge, will turn over memos relating to the warrantless-wiretapping program instituted by President George W. Bush in 2001, the Associated Press is reporting.

The memos reportedly contain a legal basis for the Justice Department to institute the controversial wiretapping program, in which the government could listen in on telephone calls of citizens without a warrant. The Justice Department had previously kept the memos classified, citing both an attorney-client privilege and the idea that releasing the documents could harm national security.

U.S. District Judge Henry Kenney Jr. will review the documents and release any information that does not jeopardize national security or violate attorney-client privilege. He said that arguing for classifying the entire set of documents based on attorney-client privilege “too vague,” without being able to see the documents themselves, the AP reported.

The documents must be produced by the justice department by Nov. 17. The order comes in response to lawsuits filed by civil liberties groups in 2006, after the wiretapping program was first reported.

Grieving mother wants her daughter's murder kept out of the news

Photo by: Christof Stache © 2008 Associated Press

By: Caitlin Hogan
According to The Forum, Penny Ripplinger held a press conference Thursday with local Fargo media outlets, begging local newspapers, television and radio stations not to use police reports about her daughter’s death. Her daughter, Whitney Carlson was murdered by the girl’s brother Sergei Isaac Carlson in July 2007.

“By the media obtaining and possibly using this information, my pain and privacy and my baby girl would be exploited for the sake of selling newspapers and gaining listeners to your airwaves,” said Ripplinger.

The recent attention to the case stems from Carlson’s sentencing to life in prison with the possibility of parole on October 23. Following the trial, Ripplinger and her family were disappointed to learn that The Forum, a Fargo newspaper, and KFGO AM radio requested police documents and evidence, including Carlson’s confession and Ripplinger’s 911 phone call. The documents became public record after the sentencing.

KVRR and WDAY, local television stations, requested police documents before the Ripplinger’s press conference and KVLY/KXJB, another local television station, made requests after the press conference.

According to Matthew Von Pinnon, a Forum editor, requesting the entire police file in a murder case allows the media to have a full understanding of the incident. At this time, the police files have still not been released to the newspaper.