Reporters Seek Easier Access to Obama’s Federal Staff
by Jennifer Brown

Members of the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ) aren’t happy with the hoops they have to jump through to talk with Obama’s federal staff, and have asked the President to end certain restriction so that journalists can have an easier time getting answers from government, says firstamendment.org.

On March 4, 2009, the AHCJ sent out a press release arguing that the policies that require journalists to get approval from public affairs officers before they’re allowed to interview government agencies has got to go, according to the AHCJ website.

The AHCJ also sent a letter to Obama on Feb. 26, 2009, outlining the problems with the current interview process, claiming it hampers transparency and also keeps the public in the dark on subjects that citizens have the right to know. The AHCJ went on to ask the President to prohibit the use of permission forms for interviews, and to stop public affairs officers from monitoring interviews.

The AHCJ argues in their press release that by keeping this kind protocol when it comes to interviewing government agencies brings about a chilling effect to the country. The AHCJ claims that public affairs officers have ignored or denied interviews with journalists, and have also have given a long lag time between granting the interview with the government agency and actually going through with it. The AHJC also says that having public affairs officers monitor interviews prohibits federal staff to give valuable “off-the-record” information to journalists, which again keeps the public from knowing pertinent information about our government.

Despite this, the AHCJ told firstamendmentcenter.org that they recognize that Obama called for greater transparency of the government when he first took office, and hope that he’ll listen to their requests.

Question:

1. Do you think that these public affairs officers are actually bordering on being unconstitutional because they’re withholding or making it hard for journalist to get certain information that the public has a right to know, therefore chilling political speech? What kind of suit could the AHCJ bring against the federal agencies that make it extremely difficult for journalists to get information?

Guards and detainee at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq on Dec. 12, 2003.

© 2006 Associated Press

Pictures of Detainee Abuse to be Released

by Jennifer Brown

The US Defense Department will release pictures depicting the abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan that took place during the Bush administration, according to firstamendmentcenter.org.

The order release the photos is a response to a Freedom of Information Act suit filed in 2004. The American Civil Liberty Union said that these photos show that prisoner abuse was happening in places other than Abu Ghraib. The ACLU believes these photos are necessary to give the public the full scope of what’s really happening to war prisoners.

“These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU, said in a press release. “Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.”

The Bush administration had been fighting to keep the photos under wraps ever since the ACLU had asked them to be released in 2003, claiming that the photos would bring about public outrage and also violate the U.S.’s obligation to the Geneva Convention.

However, last September the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s arguments and decided these photos held enough interest to the public that they had to be released. On April 23, 2009, the Justice Department issued a letter signed by Acting U.S Attorney Lev L. Dassin stating that the government must give full discloser of the photographs and reiterated the court’s refusal to rehear the case.

The photographs will be released on May 28.

Questions:

1. What cases could be argued about how the chilling of speech to make the point that this could be unconstitutional?

2. The Bush administration argued these photographs would cause public outrage. What exception to the federal FOIA could the Bush administration argue?

3. As far as distribution of the photographs goes, what rights do you think the people who were photographed have? Do those photographed have a case for libel?

© 2005 Associated Press (Photo by Mary Altaffer)

Papers Could Go Non-Profit
by Jennifer Brown



In an effort to curtail the decline of daily newspapers, Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., proposed a bill last month that would allow papers to become non-profits similar to broadcasting stations, according to firstamendmentcenter.org.

The bill, called the Newspaper Revitalization Act, could be a double-edged sword. The pluses of this bill would be that the advertising and subscription revenue papers bring in would be tax exempt, and that contributions supporting coverage could be tax deductible.

"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said in a press statement. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."

The downside of this bill is that while papers would still be able to cover all issues including political campaigns, papers would not be able to make political endorsements.

Cardin says in the press release that this plan is more for the small local papers and not the powerhouse conglomerates. He also admits this may not be the perfect plan, but it could help keep the newspaper industry alive.

Question:

1. Would newspapers not being able to make political endorsements chill political speech and be a breach of First Amendment, which states “government… shall make no law that abridges the freedom of speech or press”?

2. Even if not allowing papers to endorse a political candidate chills political speech, if this is the only way to save newspapers, do you think the government has an argument to enforce their act? Would the government be able to trump freedom of the press in order to protect the industry, like they’re able to withhold information in times of extreme national security?

Linking to copyrighted material: Fair Use?

by Dan Cailler

According to a recent New York Times article, the Associated Press says it will start suing websites that use its content without paying for it. AP executives are concerned with engines like Google and Yahoo that link to sites which reproduce AP's articles whole or in part.

According to an article by Mike Masnick at Techdirt.com the AP said, "We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," to which Masnick questioned what these 'misguided theories' were and said that "search engines aggregating info and sending people to your site has been ruled fair use before"

The AP says this isn't about fair use, "its about a bigger economic issue at stake." The real issue seems to be an old business model meeting head to head with a changing world of technology. But the AP isn't alone in its concerns:

In a related story at InfoWorld.com, the French news agency, Agence France Presse, is being removed from Google's news service. The AFP had filed a lawsuit against Google because of a copyright infringement due to the Google's inclusion of AFP stories and content in its Google News. Having won, AFP's content is being removed, but many think separating itself from such a powerful search engine will only hurt it in the long run.

• Is Google's usage of, and linking to, stories produced by the AP and AFP fair use? Which of the 4 tests for fair use would hurt or help Google's case?
• Is it reasonable for services like the AP or AFP to submit stories on the web and expect people to not link and share that information, or to expect people to pay for it when someone, somewhere will always be passing it along for free?

Google Street View: Invading Privacy?

(©2008 Associated Press)

by Dan Cailler

Every day, more and more roads are being digitally mapped by Google's Street View Vans, capturing images of people, their cars, their homes, and anything else within eyeshot of private and public streets.

According to the AP, a London-based group, Privacy International, argued that Google Street View breached people's privacy. But the Information Commissioner in the UK has refused to shut down the service, despite complaints. The Commissioner said that "picturing people on street view was no different to filming faces of football fans..."

According to a CNET news article, a couple in Pittsburgh, PA, tried to sue Google for taking a photograph of their home. They claimed Google vans ignored a private road sign, but images from the van itself showed to such sign. Google, in response to these claims of invading privacy, said, "today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," according to an article at Itnews.com.

There are now even websites (mashable.com, for example) dedicated to displaying the odd and amusing things captured by Google's vans - like pictures of ladies sunbathing, men urinating in public, patrons entering/exiting sex shops, and other things which, in Google's defense, are done IN PUBLIC.

But despite Google's policy to blur our faces and license plates, people do not like the fact these vans are out there.

• Is Google's capturing and documenting of public images somehow violating privacy rights? Google says it will remove any image by request of those whose image and property appears in Google Maps; but should Google be forced to obtain consent from everyone before publishing these 'public' images?
• It seems that the concept of privacy naturally evolves alongside technology. Do state legislatures need to redefine privacy with modern technology in mind? Is the concept of 'public property' without jurisdiction?...i.e. Do people in other states and countries have the right to see what traditionally only your fellow neighbors used to see?
• Do the benefits of Google maps outweigh the privacy issues? What about the privacy torte Custom and Usage? Does Google's documenting of the civilized world through pictures consider 'typical use' of public property?
  

Animal Cruelty to become Unprotected Speech?

(©1999 Associated Press)

by Daniel Cailler

Tony Mauro, legal correspondent for The First Amendment Center, wrote that the Supreme Court agreed "to consider reviving a 10-year old federal law which makes it illegal to produce, sell, or possess depictions of animal cruelty created for commercial gain."

If the Court votes in favor of the proposed law, depictions of animal cruelty would lose first amendment protections, like that of fighting words, obscenity and child porn.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down the law, last year, because they said the government interest in the proposed ban was not "of the same magnitude as protecting children." The appeals court also said the law was too broad, despite an exception for depictions that have "serious religious, political, scientific, education, journalistic, historical or artistic value."

Footage of a bullfight would be illegal if this law passes, despite the sport's immense popularity.

Robert Stevens, a documentary maker in Virginia, was sentenced to 37 months in prison for videos he had made showing the right and wrong way to raise pit bulls, according to an article published by the Associated Press. His video contained dog fight footage in Japan, among other scenes. Despite his claim the videos were educational, he was found guilty, but then the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. Stevens had originally argued that the law was "viewpoint discrimination,' since the same footage would be legal in the hands of dogfight protestors.

• Is there enough of a compelling Gov't interest (of the same magnitude as protecting children, for example) with which possessing/distributing depictions of animal cruelty could be made illegal?
• If a particular type of speech is banned for some, shouldn't it be banned for all? Images of child pornography couldn't be used in an anti-child-porn campaign, despite its good intentions, so how could the same footage of animal cruelty be legal in the hands of an activist yet illegal in the hands of other people?

Secret memos now not-so-secret. Is that good?

By Ben Gellman-Chomsky

Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's secret memos have now been released to the public. (AP Photo)

In a move cheered by the ACLU, the Obama administration released four secret memos Thursday from the Justice Department. According to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, the memos concerned interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, and constituted proof of the legality of the techniques as far as the Bush administration was concerned.

The ACLU had been seeking access to these memos, as well as other opinions, under the Freedom of Information Act in federal court. The decision was made at the deadline, as the Obama administration had agreed to decide on a course of action by Thursday.

It remains to be seen whether this creates a precedent for the White House. In his statement, President Obama said, "The exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States."

Most of what the memos described was already public, and had been very damaging to the American reputation abroad, especially in foreign relations.

Questions:
1) Would making the memos public while the interrogation techniques were in use have been protected under the 1st Amendment? Or would it sufficiently create a "clear and present danger"?
2) Is government transparency a more vital need than national security? Should the FOIA make us able to reach these documents? We didn't find out, as the White House released them willingly, but what if it HAD gone to a legal fight?

American Apparel: He didn't need OUR help

By Ben Gellman-Chomsky


The AP reports that the spat between Woody Allen and American Apparel took a turn for the nastier Wednesday. The clothing company's lawyer said that their billboard couldn't have hurt Allen's reputation, because he's already wrecked it.

The actor doesn't want his face associated with the clothing company known for sometimes using very racy images in their ads. He's suing them for $10 million dollars, which was about two-thirds of the budget for his most recent film.

AA's lawyer, Stuart Slotnick, fired back, saying, "Woody Allen expects $10 million for use of his image on billboards that were up and down in less than one week. I think Woody Allen overestimates the value of his image.

"Certainly, our belief is that after the various sex scandals that Woody Allen has been associated with, corporate America's desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is."

Slotnick said he wasn't being mean and that the scandals legitimately affect Allen's drawing power as a sponsor. He cited the Michael Phelps marijuana fiasco as proof of this.

Questions:
1) Is American Apparel allowed to use the image without Allen's permission? Can he restrict the use of his image (from his film Annie Hall), or can AA do what they please?
2) Can Slotnick's statement be considered a defamation of Allen? Or is it just mean?

No webcast for RIAA trial

By Ben Gellman-Chomsky



When the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals hears a high-profile music downloading case, it won't be letting in cameras of any kind, including webcasts. The court announced yesterday that it's decided that the presence of web cameras does violate an existing ban on cameras in the courtroom.

The decision may be a blow to the defense for Joel Tenenbaum (above, left), who's being sued by the RIAA for sharing songs on the Internet (they're only prosecuting for seven). If they win, he could pay up to $150,000 per song. Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson (above, right) has joined Joel's defense team, lending some star power to the case.

Nesson had pushed hard for the webcasts, as they would have let an Internet audience (likely to be sympathetic to the defendant) into the courtroom. Although the RIAA is no longer pursuing downloaders, they've continued in this case, likely because they would lose face if they backed down.

Questions:
1) Who is helped by the exclusion of the cameras from the courtroom?
2) If the public is unable to see the case, which has attracted a larger-than-usual amount of media attention, is it a violation of Mr. Tenenbaum's 6th Amendment right to a speedy and public trial?

‘Mexico’s Madonna’ to Sue for Defamation

(© 2009 Norceca)

By Amanda Damiano

An international pop superstar is suing a Mexican television network and entertainment television show host for conspiring to attack her reputation, according to the Miami Herald.

Gloria Trevi filed a lawsuit in Hidalgo County district court against Mexican network TV Azteca, its U.S. affiliate Azteca America, and Pati Chapoy, host of "Ventaneando."

According to the article, Trevi, who is considered "Mexico’s Madonna," entered the music scene in the 1990s with songs about sexual independence and provocative dance movies. She was arrested, along with her manager and a backup singer, in 2000 for allegedly luring young girls and sexually abusing them. She spent nearly five years in prisons in Brazil and Mexico before being acquitted on charges of kidnapping, rape, and corruption of minors.

The article points out, Trevi, now staging a musical comeback, believes the TV network tried to sabotage her through a campaign of slander, libel, and defamation, because she refused to sign with the network. In addition, she says that the network spread rumors about her being spotted with a drug cartel leader.

Questions:

-If you were representing Trevi, how would you prove falsity?

-If you were representing Trevi, how would you prove injury?

Reporter Appeals to Guard Sources

(© 2009 Detroit Free Press)

By Amanda Damiano

A Detroit Free Press reporter is making an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to protect his confidential sources, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

If journalist David Ashenfelter cannot convince a judge why he protected his sources, he can be held in contempt in former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino’s Privacy Act lawsuit against the government. Although Ashenfelter has invoked the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the judge has ordered him to further explain his reasoning.

Ashenfelter’s attorney Herschel Fink argues that his client is not legally obligated to testify based on the Fifth and First Amendments.

According to the article, Ashenfelter says that if he were to testify about his sources, he could make himself vulnerable to criminal prosecution for a number of crimes including conspiracy, theft and receipt of government information, and violation of the Espionage Act.

Questions:

-Given the Fifth Amendment, do you think Ashenfelter should have to testify?

-If you were representing Ashenfelter, what would be your strongest legal argument?

Recording Equipment Returned to Reporter

(© 2009 American Public Media)

By Amanda Damiano

A WAMU reporter has been given back the memory card from his recording device, according to an Associated Press article discussed on First Amendment Center (Freedom Forum).

Radio reporter David Schultz attended a public forum on April 7 at the Veterans Affairs Department in Washington. The program provided an outlet for veterans to express their concerns with their healthcare.

According to the post, when Schultz invited one veteran into the hallway for a recorded interview, a hospital public affairs officer demanded that he turn over his recording equipment if he and the veteran did not sign consent forms to conduct the interview on VA property. Fearing his arrest, Schultz handed over his recording equipment.

The Associated Press reported that VA spokeswoman Katie Roberts said the VA stepped in "to protect the privacy" of their patients. Yet after calls from lawyers for WAMU and journalist groups, as well as letters of protest from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the VA returned Schultz’s recording equipment.

Questions:

-Based on Chapter 18 "Newsgathering" by Charles N. Davis from W. Wat Hopkins’ Communication and the Law, would the VA be considered public or private property?

-If you were representing Schultz, what would be your best argument?

Entertainment Columnist Leaves Fox

(©2009 Fox News)

By Chelsea Halvorson

Fox News chief entertainment columnist Roger Friedman is no longer employed by Fox, according to the Associated Press. Why? Simply for giving "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," a positive review. There was just one problem: Friedman reviewed a pirated copy of the film.

The movie is not scheduled for it's official and legal release until May 1, but the leaked version began appearing online last week according to the Associated Press. The AP quoted Friedman saying that he didn't intentionally look for the movie online, but rather that he "encountered the movie during an unrelated Internet search and pressed 'play' to watch it."

The AP quoted Fox News on Monday saying that the company's representatives and Friedman "mutually agreed to part ways immediately." And although this early review gave very positive feedback on the pirated copy of the movie, the AP reports that the review was removed from the site on Friday. The AP quoted 20th Century Fox saying that the source of the film would be prosecuted, and it said that both the FBI and Motion Picture Association of America are investigating the leak of the film.

Questions:
- Is Friedman guilty of copyright infringement? Why or why not?
- If he had watched leaked clips of the movie on YouTube or another peer-to-peer file sharing site, do you think the outcome would have been the same? Why or why not?
- Does Fox News have a legal obligation to remove Friedman's post from their website? In doing so, does this violate any of Friedman's legal rights as a journalist?

Blogger's Laptop Confiscated

By Chelsea Halvorson

A blogger's laptop was confiscated when the police searched his home in mid-March, according to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, (RCFP). Along with his laptop, the blogger, Jeff Pataky says that police also took his wireless router and various paper files from his home according to the RCFP

Pataky runs the site BadPhoenixCops.com, a site that is critical of of the police department in Phoenix, Arizona. The RCFP says that Pataky has run the police site for about a year, and he says that it focuses on the chief, Jack Harris, and the way he manages his officers. Pataky thinks the raid on his home was in response to both his critical writing on the police and to a civil rights lawsuit he filed against the department after he faced assault charges (dismissed last spring) in an unrelated domestic case, according to the RCFP.

Although the officers did have a search warrant according to the RCFP, Pataky is now involved in a lawsuit against them. Since the raid occurred in mid-March, he has been talking to his lawyer about adding another claim for the confiscation of his computer and files to the pending lawsuit, because searches and seizures of journalists' work is against the federal Privacy Protection Act.

Questions:
- Because Pataky is writing a blog, do you think that he has legal grounds for claiming federal Privacy Protection? (The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 makes it "illegal for police or other government officials investigating a crime to search for or seize work products or other documentary materials possessed by a 'person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication' when the person is not suspected of a crime," (Hopkins, pg 338). )
- Although they had a search warrant, did the police officers have a legal right to take Pataky's computer? Why or why not?

Possible Court Shield for Journalists

(©2005 Associated Press Photo by Charles Dharapak)

By Chelsea Halvorson

Under a bill approved on March 31st, 2009, reporters who decline to reveal confidential information may gain limited protection in federal court, according to the First Amendment Center.

The bill, called H.R. 985 but more commonly known as the Free Flow of Information Act, would allow the court to require journalists to reveal confidential sources in the following circumstances:

• If revealing a confidential sources could prevent an act of terrorism against the U.S. or its allies, prevent significant harm to national security or to identify a perpetrator of a terrorist act
• If revealing a confidential sources could stop an imminent death or significant bodily harm
• If revealing a confidential source could identify someone who disclosed a trade secret, health information on individuals, or financial information that is confidential under federal laws
• If revealing a confidential source could identify, in a criminal investigation, someone who disclosed properly classified information that caused or will cause significant harm to national security, (First Amendment Center)
  

If those requirements ARE met, the person seeking such information from the confidential source must show that the public interest in revealing the source outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating information, according to the First Amendment Center.

Supporters of this bill say that this will help balance the right of the public in gaining essential information. They also argue that it will increase the federal government's ability to protect Americans from both terrorism and violent crimes. Opponents of this bill, on the other hand, say it could harm national security and hinder criminal investigations by creating special rules for journalists, according to the First Amendment Center.

Question:
- Many states have a shield law that protects reporters. However, with confidential sources, there is no protection against the federal government; this can put reporters and sources in uncomfortable situations with negotiating confidentiality AND knowing what kind of protection they have. If this bill IS passed, what could this mean for journalists? Would the passing of this bill help change what kinds of stories journalists potentially go after?

McCain Appeals Jackson Browne Case

By: Sarah Harrison

(© 2008 The Associated Press)

Photographer: Mario Anzuoni

According to a Find Law article Senator McCain and the Republican National Committee have decided to appeal the rulings allowing Jackson Browne to sue them for using his song during the presidential campaign.  During the presidential campaign, McCain issued an advertisement using Browne’s song “Running on Empty.”

  The “Running on Empty” advertisement uses Browne’s song throughout the 33-second ad as a background to the commercial.  The advertisement was not broadcast nationwide and was pulled following Browne’s initial objection.  The campaign ad in question was an attack ad that claimed Obama lacked a plan to lower gas prices and therefore Obama himself was “running on empty.”  McCain did not retrieve a license for the use of Browne’s song.

In late August, Browne sued McCain and the RNC for a violation to his right of publicity, requesting more than $75,000 in damages, according to the Find Law article by Deborah Nathan.  According to Browne, the ad suggests that he endorsed and associated with the McCain campaign, when he in fact closely aligns himself with liberal causes and Democratic candidates.  Browne alleges copyright and trademark infringement as well in his suit, and is requesting the further use of “Running on Empty” in any form. 

According to Robert Bennett, Chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, the legal action “is a big to-do about nothing.” However, in late March, McCain and the RNC requested a dismissal of the suit citing the fair use doctrine, and are planning an appeal if necessary. 

 

Questions:

1.  The fair use doctrine permits the use of copyrighted works for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.  How, and under which of these instances, would the defendants use the fair use doctrine to prove their case? 

Be Careful what you Comment on

By: Sarah Harrison

(© 2009 The Associated Press)  

Photographer: Kiichiro Sato

Ohio State University recently decided to reopen the university Facebook page for comments after temporarily blocking all wall posts.  OSU prohibited all facebook comment posts to the university's page after recent negative attention to the page and university.   That attention came in March when the Associated Press reported that OSU President E. Gordon Gee, “known as an influential cheerleader for green energy jobs” is also a member of one of the environmentalists’ top energy targets- Massey Energy Co. 

  In response, OSU graduate student Mark Stickle posted a question on OSU’s Facebook page asking for help understanding Gee’s connections.  OSU immediately responded to the negative attention by deleting the original postings by Stickle and blocking all further comments from appearing on the well of the university’s Facebook page.  The black began on April 1st.

By April 3, the university chose to reopen its page to all further comments.  According to the university, officials “are trying to stay on top of the social media trends and value the participation [they] are receiving.” 

 

Questions:

1.  What implications could the ban on Facebook have for further media regulations and free speech?

2.  What legal basis would the graduate student have for arguing that his comment could not be deleted?  What legal basis could the university use for the ban on the facebook comments for its page?

Not Every Journal Entry will Remain Private

By: Sarah Harrison

According to the Reporter's Committee for the Freedom of the Press, Cynthia Moreno, a University of California at Berkley student, published a journal entry to her MySpace page expressing vehement distaste for her hometown Coalinga, California.  The entry remained on her page for approximately one week, before she voluntarily removed it. 

However, a local principal Roger Campbell, saw the posting and sent it to the Coalinga Record for publication.  The paper published the entry along with Moreno’s full name.  The MySpace entry reportedly caused such a stir in the local community that, according to the Reporter's Committee for the Freedom of the press, in the court's opinion, the “Moreno’s family received death threats.”  In fact, as a result, the family “eventually moved away,” the Reporter's Committee continued.

Now the Moreno family is filing suit against the newspaper and Principal Campbell for invasion of privacy under the embarrassing public fact tort and for “the intentional infliction of emotional distress.” 

After losing in lower court, the Moreno family has taken the case to the appellant court in California to once again try their case.  According to court representatives, as reported by the article, “in order to successfully prove invasion of privacy . . . the plaintiff must show that private information was disclosed.”  However, since the information was taken from MySpace, a public social network, the court is having trouble believing that this information was in fact private.  

 

Questions:

1.  Since MySpace is a public social network, was Cynthia’s entry private information, or is the information private since it is posted solely to her personal page?  What implications would this then have for the publication of her entire name, since her identity is clear on MySpace? 

2.  If the case continues, the Moreno family will need to prove that the principal’s actions were “extreme and outrageous” in order to prove infliction of emotional distress.  How could the family make such claim?

 

A Volkswagon Ad Gone Bad

by Barbara L. Jackson


The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) an independent regulator for advertisements, sales promotion and direct marketing in the UK. has pulled a Volkswagen ad from viewing because the ad, which features scenes inspired by the Jason Bourne and Matrix films, has breached several broadcast and TV advertising codes. According to the Media Law Professors Blog, the ad opens with the chief engineer being violently punched in the face by another version of himself; the rest of the ad is a fight sequence between him and multiple versions of himself. Volkswagen explains that the message of this ad is that sometimes the only one you have to beat is yourself.

The ASA found the following breached:
Advertising Standards Code rule 7.4.7 (use of scheduling restrictions)
Rules on the Scheduling of Television Advertisements sections 4.2.3 (treatments unsuitable for children)

TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.1 (Offense) and 6.2 (violence and cruelty), 7.4.1 (mental harm)

The ASA stated “despite the absence of blood or other injuries, the punches, kicks and other fight moves were realistic in appearance and involved ordinary people in an everyday setting”. The ASA felt that these scenes were too violent for children and could possibly evoke in them a desire to “copycat”.


-If this ad were broadcast in the U.S. what might some legal implications be for nixing it? What might some counterarguments be for keeping the ad?

-Does this video present any other legal issues?


Petitioning to Enact Rihanna’s Law
By Barbara L. Jackson

In the aftermath of the Rihanna, Chris Brown media frenzy surrounding Brown’s alleged abuse of the pop-singer online petitioners as well as petitioners in the state of California are pushing to have Rihanna’s Law passed.

This law seeks to make illegal the release of photos of battered victims to the mass public. During the Brown and Rihanna case, TMZ, a celebrity paparazzi driven form of media, got a hold of a photo that was reportedly leaked by the police department. Investigations are still being carried out to find the source of the leaked photo.

The photo formed questions about crossing the line of the public’s right to know and the privacy of a public figure. The protection of names in low profile cases is similar to the protection of photographs in high profile cases. Although these individuals are public figures they still deserve some form of privacy as far as the law is concerned.

-What legal recourse can Rihanna or other celebrities take if a photo of them, taken during an investigation, is leaked?

-Public figures give up a degree of privacy, but does the released photo of Rihanna cross the line of her privacy?

FCC to review "fleeting gesture"

By Vijeta Kadarmandalgi

(© 2009 The Associated Press)

While the FCC is still dealing with the issues of a "fleeting expletive" in the case, FOX v. FCC, now it is taking on another case which is similar and, yet, completely different. During this year's Golden Globes, while Mickey Rourke was receiving his "Best Actor" award for his role in "The Wrestler," the director of the movie is seen giving Rourke the middle finger. NBC confirmed that the gesture was shown and NBC did not cutaway from "the finger" but, the broadcast was blacked out in the west coast.

The FCC is now reviewing this situation to see if it is indecent or obscene, according to the article. According to the FCC, for something to be considered indecent it must be"language or material that, in context, depicts of describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."

- According to the legal definition of "indecency" and "obscenity" should the FCC sanction fines against NBC for not cutting away from it?

- Legally, what could NBC use as a defense against any FCC sanctions? What case would support their legal argument?

Judge issues gag order at trial

By Vijeta Kadarmandalgi



A current issue going on in Victorville, Calif. According to an article in the Victorville Daily Press, on Monday a judge asked a reporter not to print the name of a witness in an on-going case.


During a preliminary hearing for Richard J. Swank - a former substitute teacher charged with sexually abusing his son repeatedly - the judge called a Daily Press reporter, the defense attorney, and the prosecuting attorney to the bench and told the reporter, Patrick Thatcher, not to print the last name of Swank's son. According to the article, the son testified in open court and the reporter acquired his name through legal means - in this case, just being present at the trial.


According to the article, though the son's name was not said in open court, he wore a badge with his full name on it. According to the California First Amendment Coalition, if the judge wanted to keep the son's name out of the paper the judge should have had the son remove the name tag but, any means to prevent the reporting of information obtained legally is a violation of the First Amendment.



- But, what is the line between a person's right to privacy and freedom of press?


- The truth is that the abuse happened when the son was a child, but he is now an adult. Legally newspapers are fully in their rights to report his name. Was the judge within his rights to ask the reporter to withhold the son's name?

Juror "googled" case into a mistrial

By Vijeta Kadarmandalgi

(© 2009 The Associated Press.)
According to an article in the New York Times, about two weeks ago, a juror in a high-profile drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had done personal research on this case on the Internet, while serving as a juror. This is a direct violation of the legal rules about being a juror. But, the bigger shock, was finding out that eight other jurors had done the same thing. The judge, William Zloch was forced to declare a mistrial on a case that had been going on for aobut eight weeks.

According to the Times article, the use of Blackberrys, iPhones, the Internet is not allowed and is wreaking havoc on trials around the nation, forcing judges to declare mistrials. According to the law, jurors are not supposed to have any knowledge of any information about the case not presented in court.

Jurors are requird to reach a verdict based on the facts that the judge has deemed admissible in court. The jurors are not supposed to be swayed by any outside information but, with the current technology, jurors can send and recieve information about a case with the touch of a button leaving judges and lawyers frustrated.

- It is hard to monitor jurors at all times because with the Internet readily available on cell phones, jurors can "Google" and "tweet" during their bathroom breaks. When this happens, is this a violation of the defendant's sixth amendment - right to a fair trial?

- If the juror "tweets" and "facebooks" private information about the defendant during the trial, can the juror be sued for defamation? Technically, the definition of defamation is the dissemination of any embarrassing information to anyone but the person the information is about.