The 698 Update

2009-04-24T19:48:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-24T19:41:00.000-07:00

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

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?

2009-04-24T19:29:00.000-07:00

© 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?

2009-04-23T15:44:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-23T13:18:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-23T12:28:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-17T19:39:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-17T19:32:00.001-07:00

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

2009-04-17T19:09:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-16T18:21:00.001-07:00

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

2009-04-16T17:54:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-16T17:19:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-10T16:29:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-10T14:58:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-10T13:56:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-09T08:24:00.000-07:00

McCain Appeals Jackson Browne Case

By: Sarah Harrison

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?

2009-04-09T08:17:00.000-07:00

Be Careful what you Comment on

By: Sarah Harrison

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?

2009-04-09T08:00:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-04T18:32:00.000-07:00

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"

2009-04-04T13:10:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-04T12:38:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-04T12:06:00.000-07:00

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.

AP Too Hot to Handle

2009-03-29T22:22:00.000-07:00

By Cristina Luiggi

The Associated Press filed a lawsuit against All Headline News Corp. (AHN) in February accusing them of copying and rewriting AP articles and selling them to other news outlets, according to the AP.

What has generated attention is not the charge of copyright infringement, but the court’s acceptance of AP’s claim of “hot news” misappropriation.

According to the court’s memorandum, the AP is resting on a 1918 U.S. Supreme Court decision, dubbed the “hot news” doctrine, which found that, because the AP had spent time, effort, and money gathering the news, it should be protected from “free-loading” competitors.

That is, other news organizations taking their news and profiting from it. This gave the AP a quasi-property right – separate from copyright – on its time-sensitive breaking news.

An article published by the Wiley Rein LLP firm, said that "this is the first time that a court has applied the "hot news" doctrine to content on the Internet."

Questions: Because the time-sensitivity of the news qualifies it as "hot news", how can the court define what constitutes as breaking news in the Internet? In other words, for how long after a breaking news story is published online is it protected by the "hot news" doctrine? Can bloggers that are re-reporting on recently published AP stories be held accountable under this doctrine?

YouTube: A Copyright War Zone

2009-03-29T14:07:00.000-07:00

By Cristina Luiggi

Consider these three videos that were posted on YouTube:

1. A girl playing the piano and singing the Christmas carol, “Winter Wonderland.” (See this YouTube video)
2. A man teaching sign language to the 1980s song, “Waiting for a Girl Like You.”
3. Music video of A-Ha’s “Take On Me” without the actual lyrics, but with a man singing about what’s happening in the video. (A genre dubbed “literal videos”.)

All three videos were removed from the site because of copyright infringement according to a New York Times article. These removals are part of an ongoing conflict between Google-owned YouTube and Warner Music Group (WMG), which owns the copyright to all three songs.

The dispute began when YouTube refused WMG a portion of the advertising revenue in exchange for permission to stream its music videos. Not only has WMG removed its artists’ official music videos, it has extended the measure to all user-generated content that uses its music.

According to the United States Copyright Office, the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute has a four-part test to determine whether the copyrighted material was used fairly. It includes determining the purpose of the work – whether it’s for personal profit or the advancement of knowledge. Whether or not a work has been transformed considerably from the original version is also evaluated in copyright cases.

A lawyer from an Internet civil liberties group argued in the NYT article that videos such as the “Winter Wonderland” video fall under fair use because “they are non-commercial and include original material produced by the user.”

Although the user who posted the video does not make money off it, lawyers from WMG argue that Google does make money from the site and therefore the video should be considered commercial.

Question: Should these videos be considered commercial because the website that hosts them makes money off of them even though the users who generate them do not get a dime? How “original” should they be so they’re not accused of copyright infringement?

The Woes of "Sexting"

2009-03-28T21:31:00.001-07:00

© 2004 Associated Press

By Cristina Luiggi

According to an AP story, a 14-year-old girl from New Jersey posted 30 nude pictures of herself on MySpace for her boyfriend to see. When the county sheriff was notified, the girl was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. If she's convicted of distribution of child pornography, she would have to register as a sex offender and could face up to 17 years in jail.

The article says the accusation seems to have no legal precedent. However, there have been a number of cases in other states involving teens sending “provocative” pictures via cellphones.

A New York Times article follows a case from Pennsylvania involving semi-nude pictures of three teen girls taken during a slumber party. The district attorney warned the girls that if they didn’t attend classes on pornography and sexual violence, he would file charges of sexual abuse of a minor. The three girls refused.

The girl’s parents filed a federal lawsuit against the district attorney claiming the pictures were not child pornography and that the girls didn’t consent to having their picture distributed. There is also the issue that the pictures were obtained from confiscated cellphones – and the Fourth Amendment protects the personal information contained in cell phones.

According to another NYT article, a federal judge commented that the children were being considered both the victims and perpetrators. The distict attorney's lawyer countered that state law “doesn’t distinguish between who took the picture and who was in it.”

Questions: Can the DA prove that the teenagers who sent nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves through text messages are engaging in child pornography? Would this change whether the pictures were published online or sent over a wireless phone?

Facing Facebook

2009-03-26T19:18:00.000-07:00

By: Jessica Nahmias

The newest disclaimer on Facebook could be this: “Your Facebook page may be used against you in a court of law.” In what the Toronto Star considers a “precedent-setting decision”, an Ontario man was ordered to answer questions about the content of his Facebook page in an ongoing court battle.

John Leduc claims he was injured in a car accident back in 2004. He sued Janie Roman, the woman with whom he had the accident, for damages, claiming his quality of life had been impacted since the accident.

Roman and her lawyers believed content posted on Leduc’s Facebook page contained information to prove that his quality of life, had not, in fact, been impacted in a negative manner.

Justice David Brown of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice said Leduc must submit to cross-examination by Roman’s lawyers about the content of his page on the argument that, “Facebook profiles are not designed to function as diaries; they enable users to construct personal networks… with whom they can share information about themselves,” concluding that Leduc’s Facebook page, “likely contains some content relevant to the issue of how Mr. Leduc has been able to lead his life since the accident,” The Toronto Star reported.

Assume this case took place in the USA: - What privacy rights can Leduc claim in order to maintain the privacy of his Facebook page? - Is there an expectation of privacy when one uploads photos, videos, or text to Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Blogs, etc? - Should courts have the power to compel people to divulge the information on their Facebook pages? Should the content on these sites be valued evidence in a court of law?

Bagging Defamation for Good

2009-03-26T19:00:00.000-07:00

By: Jessica Nahmias

A case a New Jersey judge deemed an “inherent tension between defamation law and The First Amendment,” was recently thrown out because of defamation protection in satire, The Smoking Gun reports. Three women filed a lawsuit against publishers Simon and Schuster, et al, for their appearance in the book “Hot Chicks with Douchebags.”

The book is a spinoff of the website Hot Chicks with Douchbags, which explores the “dark cultural trainwreck of hottie/douchy commingling.” Author, Jay Louis, known as “Douchebag1” on his site, says his site and book are about poking fun at “douche-[expletive] and the hotties who love them.”

The women whose photographs appear in the book filed a lawsuit claiming defamation, alleging their reputations were damaged because of their appearance in the book. The women were photographed at clubs and were not provided with, nor asked for, consent forms.

But recently, Judge Menelaos Toskos ruled that Jay Louis’ 2008 book was “replete with obvious attempts at satirical humor”, and as such, dismissed the case.

Soccer star Christiano Ronaldo has been called a "douchebag" on the site by the author, Jay Louis

- If someone’s picture is taken with consent, and then later used in the context of satire, should said person be allowed to claim defamation if he/she feels his/her reputation has been hurt?
- What implications does the Judge’s decision have on defamation? How far can satire go without being considered defamatory?

Shielded by Shield Law

2009-03-26T18:50:00.000-07:00

By: Jessica Nahmias

(C) 1973 Associated Press
Pulitzer Prize winning journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein at The Washington Post, May 1973

Even before Watergate and “Deepthroat”, journalists and the privacy of their sources have been a highly contested issue in courts of law.
And while New York State does have Shield Law, 14 states do not, including Texas.

A recent Houston Chronicle article reports that a bill was approved by a House committee in Texas, which was a compromise between media groups and district attorneys who have argued over shield law. The House committee voted 11-0 on a committee substitute version of the bill, which would allow journalists and their sources to retain “privilege against having to testify in court.” As part of the compromise district attorneys or trial lawyers would have access to already published material, however.

The Chronicle reports that the history of this particular battle harkens back to Texas prosecutors who argue that gathering evidence is more important than a journalist’s privilege to private sources. However the compromised version of the bill, which is supported by various Texas news organizations and would give journalists protection from revealing confidential sources, was passed after a 12-hour meeting, temporarily appeasing the parties involved, the Chronicle article said.

- Should all states have shield laws? Why or why not?
- As journalists, what do you feel is more important, protecting sources or cooperating with authorities?

Barring Crime Scene Photos

2009-03-20T07:45:00.000-07:00

By Leigh Paynter

Florida has long been known as a progressive state in open government records laws, but recently Florida lawmakers are working on creating new exemptions to the laws as reported by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The latest exemption is in releasing crime scene photos to the public and media.

The Current Law - "Under 1993 amendments to the Sunshine Law, public records and meetings of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches and each agency or department are open unless exempted by statute. Fla. Const. of 1885, art. I, § 24. Exemptions must be narrowly drafted and justified by public necessity. § 24(c).

The state Sunshine Law defines public records as "all documents, . . . tapes, data processing software. . . or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics." Fla. Stat. § 119.011(1)." The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

One potential new exemption would be barring the public from viewing crime scene photos that depict dead people.

In 2005, a state appeals court granted the media, specifically The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, WFLA-TV, Tampa Tribune, and The Herald, access to the videotape and photographs of the murder and autopsy of 11 year-old Carlie Brucia.

Carlie Brucia (family photo)

© 2004 The Associated Press

The news agencies did not wish to copy, reproduce, or publish the photos. They only wanted to examine the evidence.

The trial court sealed the photos at the request of Brucia’s father, stating that the mere viewing of the photos would be too distressing to Brucia’s family. The photos showed Brucia nude from the waist down, battered, and some decomposition.

The RCFP printed the Court of Appeals Judge Altenbernd's decision:
"The broadest issue in this case is whether the State can rely upon secret evidence to obtain a conviction for a capital offense. Although Mr. Smith's trial has been broadcast on television and conducted in an open, public courtroom, these specific items of evidence have been concealed from all members of the public and the press, which is inconsistent with the purpose of public court proceedings."

Joseph Smith on Sentencing Day

-During the Joseph Smith trial for the murder of Carlie Brucia, the state offered a large number of crime scene and autopsy photos into evidence. The jury viewed everything. Does the public and/or the press have the right to this evidence?

Florida Candidate's Records Withheld

2009-03-20T06:57:00.000-07:00

By Leigh Paynter

John Nicolette, a candidate for Dade County Commission, owns 14 properties in Pasco worth more than $4-million, according to The St. Petersburg Times. But the county’s online property records databases have nothing on Nicolette.

Nicolette is a Tampa firefighter. There is a public records exemption that shields the home address of public safety officials. So now the public is denied access to Nicolette’s investment properties, which tell the location, value, and taxes paid on each land Nicolette owns.

Nicolette said he believes the records should be easily accessible. He listed all of his properties in a campaign disclosure form.

The St. Petersburg Times reporter found Nicolette’s tax information by requesting the documents in person and getting a Times lawyer involved.

Under Florida law, public safety officials can request that their personal information, including their home address, telephone numbers, and photographs, be blocked on virtually any record. The exemption was designed to protect them from anyone wanting to do them harm.

Is withholding Nicolette’s property investment records a violation of the law?
What are some of the public benefits of having Nicolette’s information made public?

Fixing FOIA

2009-03-20T05:58:00.000-07:00

By Leigh Paynter

The Associated Press requests more documents than any other news agency in the United States. Recently, the AP has hit a hurdle in obtaining CIA documents on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy - and these documents were made available in their entirety two decades ago.

Since his first day in office, President Barack Obama promised to fix the hurdles in current Freedom of Information Act, telling government agencies to be prepared to open more filing cabinets.

The Associated Press reports on itself on Yahoo!News that it couldn't be more delighted. It files hundreds of requests for federal and state documents each year. Here are some of the ways The AP has used government documents to inform the public:

© 2003 The Associated Press (Photo:Diane Bondareff)

The AP reported on Hillary Clinton’s affairs and actions with businesses who later contributed to her husband’s charity while she was senator from documents it made public and later became key issues in Clinton’s secretary of state confirmation hearing.

© 2007 The Associated Press (Photo:Chris Miller)

The AP was the first to reveal that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin spent state money on trips with her children that were not for official business. Palin had to reimburse Alaska $10,000.

© 2007 The Associated Press (Photo: John Bazemore)

And the AP uncovered documents that showed the Federal Food and Drug Administration had concerns over the Georgia peanut processing plant that started the salmonella outbreak for nearly four years.

But sometimes the AP is less successful in obtaining documents and records.

© 1973 The Associated Press, © 1962 Portrait The Associated Press

The AP recently requested copies from the CIA’s 1960’s documents about then-congressman, Gerald Ford’s investigation into President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

© 1975 The Associated Press (Photo: Charles Tasnadi)

The CIA is refusing to disclose the full memo written by FBI senior official Cartha DeLoach, citing national security concerns.

But the uncensored 45 year-old memo was released to the public nearly two decades ago. In the uncensored version, Ford says he heard a CIA report that Lee Harvey Oswald was paid by the Cuban consulate in Mexico City to assassinate JFK. This has since been debunked by JFK scholars.

The Labor Department has since sent The AP a letter stating that it didn’t want to spend money making copies of records that might no longer be needed. The Labor Department shipped the letter by Federal Express for $10.50. A photocopy is 42 cents.

Do the censoring of these documents by the CIA fall into a fair exemption to FOIA?
Is the Labor Department's response to the AP justifiable?

Judge Rules in Favor of Newspaper

2009-03-14T15:59:00.000-07:00

By Megan Rowls
© 2009 Associated Press

An Arkansas court ruled in favor of “fair report privilege” for the Courier Newspaper after being sued. According to the Associated Press the newspaper wrote an article that appeared on the front page about a man named Ryan Whiteside. He was charged for allegedly raping a woman. Whiteside sued the paper for defamation. Whiteside was in the news the previous year for finding the body of a murdered beauty queen. When police later found that Whiteside had no sexual relationship with the woman and did not pursue charges the Courier Newspaper already published the story. Whiteside says the newspaper rushed to print the story because he was involved in finding a murdered beauty queen.
Under "fair report privilege” journalists are protected from getting sued for publishing information from reports based upon police records even if the police report turns out to be false. According to the Associated Press Whiteside has not decided yet on if he will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

· If Whiteside decides to appeal the ruling what will he need to prove to win the case?
· Does the “fair report privilege” only protect reporters from unknowingly printing false statements about public officials?

Tennessee Newspaper publishes list of gun permits

2009-03-14T13:37:00.000-07:00

By Megan Rowls

The Poynter Institute reports, The Commercial Appeal newspaper in Memphis, TN published a list of names of people who have permits to carry concealed weapons. The article was about how many people who have concealed weapon permits have committed violent crimes. Now the Tennessee legislation in considering making it a felony for publishing the state lists of people who have permits to carry conceal weapons.

The newspaper has received a lot of criticism for publishing the list. According to the Poynter Institute, people believe the list could cause more criminal activity. Others believe it is an invasion of privacy.

According to the Poynter Institute, permit records are public information and the news paper had the right to publish the list.

· How can Tennessee lawmakers make it a felony to publish names from the concealed weapons, even if it is public records under FOIA?

· With growing concerns of criminal activity increasing, could the list be categorized as material that should be withheld from the public?

Pictures of War Caskets

2009-03-14T12:47:00.000-07:00

(Photo: Associated Press)

By Megan Rowls
© 2009 Associated Press

According to CBS News for the past 18 years people did not see pictures of caskets draped with the American flag coming home from the war. The ban was placed by former President George H. W. Bush in 1991 during the Gulf War. Now President Barack Obama wants to reverse the policy. According to the CBS News article President Obama wants families to make the decision on whether or not the press can be allowed to come to the ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base, where the caskets arrive from war.
According the CBS News article other countries allow their citizens to see their soldiers come home in caskets. The only photos taken of the caskets coming home have been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Some people disagree with President Obama’s decision others believe the world should see the fallen soldiers.
• Did President George H. W. Bush abridge the First Amendment by stopping the press from taking photographs of the caskets?
·What exceptions under FOIA can the pictures be withheld?

School Officials and a Circuit Court of Appeals Take a Book from Libraries

2009-02-15T19:50:00.001-08:00

By Brittni Smallwood
© 2006 The Associated Press
(Photo: Virginia Rosen)

A book known as “A Visit to Cuba” will be take removed from Miami libraries. According to an article in the First Amendment Center website a three-judge panel of the 11th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted in favor (2-1) of the book being taken from schools in the Miami-Dade Country School Distrist. The judges ruled that their decision does not infringe upon First Amendment rights because according to them the book shows a misrepresentation of life in Cuba.

The school district has issues with the book because to them it depicts children in Cuba in a distorted way. The book has Cuban children smiling while in communist uniforms, meanwhile it fails to mention the issues of the country. The school district said the book was brought to the attention of the Board about three years ago when a parent made a complaint. The parent was a former political prisoner in Cuba.

One Federal Judge advised that the school district should bring in books that showed different perspectives of Cuba.

• Does the bookseller have a right to argue the books existence on Miami Library Shelves? What if the author says their book is a depiction of what Cuba really is, especially to them, regardless of what others say?
• Does the town or the upset father have a right to remove literature from shelves, even if it is not accurate; it’s providing a different look of Cuba?

Foreign Rules could put Google Execs Behind Bars

2009-02-15T19:48:00.001-08:00

By Brittni Smallwood
© 2007 The Associated Press
(Photo: Uwe Lein)

A group of Google executive and lawyers face criminal prosecution in Italy on charges of violating Italian privacy laws. The dispute is over a video that shows teenagers making fun of a boy with Downs syndrome. According to Italian prosecutors, Google’s executives and lawyers took two months to remove the video. However Google officials say they removed the video immediately once they heard the complaint.

The Google executives and lawyers told Privacy Advisor they did not post video yet they are still the party being prosecuted. The company also does not monitor the content that is uploaded to Google video. According to the Privacy Advisor article, in Italy the internet content provider is legally responsible for what a third party posts, but in the US because of the Communications Decency Action, Section two thirty the service provider is not be liable.

Google Executives and lawyers compare the issue to mail service employees brought to court for hate speech letters sent in. They see the prosecution as a “direct attack on free, open Internet”.

If guilty the Google executives could face up to three years in jail.

• Because Google is an American Company should Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act apply…that the Internet content provider is not legally responsible for what the third party posts?

• Does this infringe upon First Amendment Rights in America or Free Expression Rights if you’re in Italy?

Juicy Campus Is No Longer

2009-02-12T18:09:00.000-08:00

By Kate Sheehy
© 2008 The Associated Press (Photo:Damian Dovarganes)

The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press(RCFP) reports that the controversial website JuicyCampus has announced it will no longer be online. Thousands of college students from all over the country could post crude comments about their peers anonymously. The RCFP says many college administrators and students expressed great concern over the language used to attack an individual’s character.

CEO of the website Matt Ivester gave a comment to the AP saying,

“In these historically difficult economic times, online ad revenue has plummeted and venture capital funding has dissolved," said Ivester who founded the site in 2007.

The RCFP reports that people posted comments on the site such as “biggest slut on campus,” and jokes about peoples’ weight were also common. However, this type of speech is legal by federal law under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The law states that the website cannot be held legally responsible for what is posted.

Juicy Campus spokesperson Steven Wilson told the AP that the site did not shut down because of public criticism.

The AP interviewed Andy Canales, Student Body president at Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA. According to the AP he was very vocal in his opposition to the JuicyCampus website.

· If you were going to advertise for this site, how would you argue that this speech is protected under the First Amendment and not hate speech?
· The Communications Decency Act says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." How does this apply to the JuicyCampus website?
· Think about this site in terms of William Posser's summary of privacy protection in terms of Tort law, or one person's responsibility towards another. Does this site disclose embarrassing facts about people? Is it false publicity? Think about how one would argue this site as a publication.

Controversial Pictures

2009-02-11T13:29:00.000-08:00

By Kate Sheehy
© 2002 The Associated Press (Photo: Frank Augstein)

The Reporter's Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP)and The New York Times report that members of Congress are asking President Obama, to review the policy of the Bush administration restricting media from photographing the coffins of dead soldiers. The regulation started in 1991 and applies primarily to the Dover Air Force Base, where most of the returned bodies of soldiers come through. Initially, exceptions were allowed. Then under the Bush Administration, this act became completely prohibited.

The RCFP reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he is seriously considering repealing the restriction. RCFP writes that Gates says taking pictures of the coffins is not a problem, if the feelings of the soldiers' families are respected. The RFCP states that Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg, has also written a letter to Obama requesting this policy be reevaluated.

“I respectfully urge you to work to bring an end to the misguided policies of the past that seek to hide the sacrifice of our soldiers and the public recognition and pride that should accompany it,” said Lautenberg.

President of Military Families United, John Ellsworth told the RCFP he believes that families of the soldiers should be the ones to decide if the coffin should be photographed.

· If brought to trial would regulations about photographing these coffins be considered under the Strict Scrutiny or Immediate Scrutiny test, in other words are the pictures directly or indirectly related to speech?
· What reasoning could you use to argue that under the First Amendment the press has a right to share these pictures with the public?
· Think about the Freedom of Information Act and whether prohibiting photographs falls under the exemption of National Security or Personal Privacy?

NBC's Hunt on War Criminals:Sensationalism or Journalism

2009-02-11T12:33:00.000-08:00

By Kate Sheehy
© 2008 Associated Press (Photo: Rob Carr)

The New York Times reports that NBC’s new series, which focuses on hunting down war foreign war criminals living in the U.S., is being questioned for violation of individual privacy. Working with a Rwandan government official, NBC brought accusations against a visiting professor from Goucher College in Maryland. Leopold Munyakazi has been suspended while the college investigates charges against him for genocide in Rwanda. The college president Sanford J. Ungar says that a producer from NBC sent him a letter outlining these charges last December.

The article in the New York Times refers to very similiar criticism of NBC over their investigative program, “To Catch a Predator." They went about trapping sex predators, exposing them on television before they had the opportunity to defend themselves. This resulted in the suicide of one of the accused.

Munyakazi denies the charges, according to the Times, saying that he actually saved people during the conflict. NBC’s actions have alarmed many federal and public organizations. The department of Homeland Security told the New York Times this could hurt their own investigations and ability to prosecute war criminals. The Human Rights Watch commented that they are concerned over the ethical tactics of the program.

“I was worried that a journalist was making false accusations, due to some extent to his close collaboration with the Rwandan government,” Executive Director Kenneth Roth said.

The Poynter Institute, a school for professional journalists, has raised issue with NBC’s journalistic integrity in working closely with a government entity. The institute told the Times that their issue addresses a journalist’s duty to work independently.

“Because it’s really important that our audience view us as independent — not carrying water for someone else,” ethics group leader for the Poynter Institute, Kelly McBride said.

Even Goucher College’s president, a former host for NPR, voiced concern to the New York Times about the ethics of the NBC producer and crew. He questions the strategy of the NBC producer’s way of getting information about Munyakazi. He says the station should have gone through the proper government officials here in the U.S., instead of working directly with the Rwandan government.

· What issues could be brought up under FCC regulations that this type of programming does not serve the public interest? That it does?
· Was it acceptable for the media to come onto the college campus and make accusations against Munyakazi in his place of employment? How may this violate the Freedom of Information Act?
· How may a gov. agency argue that a restraining order is necessary to protect national security? What test could be applied to prove or disprove that this reporting could cause danger to the public?

AP Alleges Copyright Infringement

2009-02-08T21:52:00.000-08:00

AP alleges copyright infringement

By Brittni Smallwood
© 2009 The Associated Press
(Photo: Damian Dovarganes)

A street artist Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press are in a debate about whether Fairy is guilty of copyright infringement. According to an article by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the AP says they own the copyright, and that they want credit and compensation for the photograph of Barack Obama.

Shepard Fairey is defending his art, saying that his actions were plausible because of the “fair use” doctrine of copyright law. The law states that under certain circumstances an individual is allowed to have limited use of copyright material without the copyright holder’s permission. Fairy admits that his red, white and blue “hope” image of Barack Obama was based on an image from an Associated Press photojournalist, Mannie Garcia.

Columbia University law professor Jane Ginsburg told the Associated Press that this situation makes her uneasy. The notion that someone can take anyone’s photograph and just use it, she says is pretty radical.

Shepard Fairey’s attorney defends him by saying the artist did not violate any rights or rules by creating a painting based on the photograph of Mannie Garcia. In her opinion Fairey used the painting for political use and not commercial.

• Is Shepard Fairey’s painting legal under the fair use test? Especially because Fairey says that his painting was used for political use and not commercial, even though Shepard Fairey received thousands of dollars for ebay purchases of these paintings with his signature on it.

• Even though Fairy made money off of the painting, if he created his image for the purpose of “serving the public interest by stimulating creativity as copyright law intended (Hopkins, 137)” then is his secondary use legal and of just cause?

Review Website Named In Suit

2009-02-07T09:20:00.000-08:00

By: Sarabeth Smith

The California Anti-SLAPP Project (CASP) filed a motion to strike the complaint of Yvonne Wong, a pediatric dentist, against Yelp!Inc. Yelp! is an internet site which publishes user recommendations and reviews of local businesses. Dr. Wong's complaint alleges that two posters defamed her by posting a critical review complaining that she gave their son laughing gas, failed to discover all of his cavities, and filled a cavity using an amalgam containing mercury.

CASP is a public interest law firm and policy organization dedicated to preserving free speech by upholding the right to engage freely in civic affairs. CASP assists those who have become targets of SLAPP suits. A SLAPP is a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” These lawsuits are often filed by corporations against individuals and community groups. While these lawsuits are usually unsuccessful, they burden the defendants with the costs of the suit.

According the the San Fransisco Chronicle, the suit was filed in December in Santa Clara Superior Court. California has had legislation in place since 1993 to combat these SLAPP lawsuits. Once the California anti-SLAPP is found to apply to the case, the law places the burden on the plaintiff to come forward with a legally sufficient and factually supported case.

In addition, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, immunizes website operators from the statements of third parties. However, Wong named Yelp! as a defendant because the company refused to take down the negative reviews. Wong’s attorney, John Terbeek said to the San Francisco Chronicle that he will probably will dismiss the charges against Yelp because he wasn't aware when he filed the suit that Web sites publishing third-party content are protected under U.S. law.

This is the second suit in California revolving around Yelp! for the publication of negative reviews. San Francisco chiropractor, Steven Biegel, settled a libel case against a former patient who posted a review on Yelp! complaining about Biegel’s billing practices.

If websites which allow third parties to post their own content exercise editorial control by adding or removing content, should they be liable for defamatory content?
If websites which allow third parties to post their own content take a hands off approach and do not mediate the content, should they be held liable for the content?
Is there a difference between the publisher and the distributor of information?

Campaign Speech or Free Speech

2009-02-07T07:26:00.000-08:00

By: Sarabeth Smith
Photo Credits: Regeilo Solis
Associated Press (2003)

Following a ruling from the Mississippi Supreme Court, former County Court Judge Solomon Osborne , 60, was reprimanded for a speech made during in his 2006 election campaign.
During a speech before a predominately African-American political action group, Osborne said, as quoted by The Greenwood Commonwealth: “White folks don’t praise you unless you’re a damn fool. Unless they think they can use you. If you have your own mind and know what you’re doing, they don’t want you around.”

While the judge claims that his comments were free speech, the Mississippi Supreme Court asserted that they went beyond the realm of protected campaign speech. Judge George C. Carlson Jr., wrote in his majority opinion that “Campaign speech expresses views on disputed legal and political issues and discussing the qualifications of the judicial office for which Judge Osborne was campaigning.”

However 3 of the 9 justices dissented from this opinion. They agreed that the judge’s comments were not appropriate, but they did address a political issue, that of race. The dissenters agree that punishing Judge Osborne’s speech is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3, Section 13 of the Mississippi Constitution. While the judicial office had been seeking a lifetime ban, Osborne was ordered to be publically reprimanded and order to pay $731, the costs of the hearing.

- The Court said “No one is compelled to serve as a judge, but once an individual offers himself or herself for service, that individual accepts the calling with full knowledge of certain limitations upon speech and actions in order to serve the greater good. A calling to public service is not without sacrifice, including the acceptance of limitations on constitutionally granted privileges.” Do you agree with this?

- Should judges and other public officials be treated differently than the general public in terms of speech?

- Should speech of judges and other public officials be treated differently in different locations? Say, the courtroom in comparison with the campaign trail.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell - The Public’s Right to know the Identities of Prop. 8 Donors

2009-02-06T06:50:00.000-08:00

By Sarabeth Smith
Photo Credit: (c) Associated Press
Photo by Rich Pedroncelli

According to the Associated Press, federal judge has denied requests to keep the names of donors to California’s anti-gay marriage initiative from publication. Pursuant to this decision, on February 2, nearly 14,000 donor's names were released to the public.

Proposition 8 overturned a 2008 state Supreme Court ruling which legalized gay marriage in the state of California. Proposition 8 was approved by voters in November of 2008 by 52%, effectively making gay marriage illegal in the state.

Under California’s 1974 Political Reform Act, the state can publishes the name and other identifying information of anyone who donates more than $100 to a campaign.

Supporters of the campaign filed a request for a preliminary injunction to block the then unpublished disclosure of late-stage donor names. The plaintiff’s also requested that already published names of donors be removed from the secretary of state’s website.

The plaintiffs claimed that public disclosure of the identities of donors would put those individuals at risk of harassment. Frank Schubert, a campaign manager for Project Marriage told the New York Times “Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8."

Despite these pleas, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled in favor of the state and denied the requests. The judge stated that the disclosure laws were meant to protect the public.

Consider the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Socialist Workers Comm., 458 U.S. 87 (1982), where the court held that the mandatory discourse of names and addresses violated the First Amendment rights of the Ohio Socialist Workers Party. Is this inconsistent with the Prop. 8 decision?

How can one establish that there will be a “reasonable probability” that compelled disclosure would result in “threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties”?

8th Circuit sides with Mo. school in dispute over Confederate flag

2009-02-03T06:54:00.000-08:00

By Chloe Sommers

Three Missouri high school students were suspended from school for wearing confederate flag clothing because of several racial incidents in school.

The students have now lost the suit against their public high school because of a 1995 dress-code policy saying, “dress that materially disrupts the educational environment will be prohibited," reports an online article from firstamendmentcenter.org. Some townspeople have taken discriminatory actions against some black residents, as recently as in 2005.

A few of the three students’ classmates dressed in confederate clothing in support of their friends that were suspended, not to incite racial discrimination. They argued that they had a right to wear it under the First Amendment. In August 2007, U.S. District Judge Jean C. Hamilton ruled on the side of the school officials, using the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1969 ruling Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. when they barred the Confederate symbol from campus.

The students appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at the end of January where the previous ruling was upheld. One of the judges said, “no other circuit [court of appeals] has required the administration to wait for an actual disruption before acting,” reports the online article.

In the spectrum of people covered by the First Amendment, where is the rights of high school students (no rights, some right, all rights...)

Can you think of any other offensive material students wear that is not illegal under the First Amendment?

N.J. Gov. Corzine E-mails to Remain Private

2009-02-01T15:29:00.000-08:00

By Chloe Sommers
Both photos © 2008 Associated Press (photos by Mel Evans)

The Associated Press article, N.J appeals court rules governor's e-mails are private, from the firstamendmentcenter.org is an example of how an appeals court can work as a last resort for a defendant.

In New Jersey, a lower court ruled that certain e-mails between New Jersey Gov. John Corzine and his labor leader ex-girlfriend, Carla Katz, be made public.

A judge read over the emailed communications before the ruling. But on January 12th, 2009 the state appeals panel reversed the decision, keeping the e-mails private. But more importantly, the Associated Press reports, "the appeals court was swayed by Corzine’s contention that the e-mails are covered by executive privilege, a concept that allows officials to withhold certain information in the interest of governing."

The Republican Sate Committee says the e-mails could show what, if any, influence Katz had in Gov. Corzine’s decision to stop the Legislature from tackling state worker pension and health-care reforms in 2007, reports the Associated Press.

Katz argued that the e-mails should remain private because they involved contract talks, which are exempt from Open Public Records Act requests. The Open Public Records Act comes from the Right to Know Law, stating “government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State, with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest…” You can read more about the law from the Rutgers website .

There are a few reasons, under the law, the Gov. Corzine could keep his e-mails private. Are one of these points for him.

Most state laws have an exception for communication that is “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Most laws except negotiations because publicity about them could harm the process. (How would one argue that they qualify as contract talks.)

The law also allows for executives to have some privilege over their work – otherwise people might not be candid in communication with them, or material that is still in deliberation might get out before it is fully decided. Does this situation qualify?

Federal Judge Strikes Down R.I Billboard Law

2009-02-01T14:02:00.000-08:00

By: Chloe Sommers

Rhode Island state law bans highway billboards that advertise for a business or activity that is not located on the same property as the billboard.

In an article from the firstamendmentcenter.org, the state of Rhode Island's recent attempt to restrict the content of a highway billboard was ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Anthony Vono, a designer of promotional materials, was brought to court for advertising for his commercial and noncommercial clients from a billboard located on his business' property off of Northbound Route 95.

T he Providence Journal online reports, at the time, in 2005, Vono's billboard was promoting a nonprofit welfare agency from the rooftop space he leases.

Vono's defense wass"that it is unconstitutional to base restrictions on whether the billboard is promoting on-premises or off-premises activities," according to the Providence Journal Online.

The case recently went to the U.S. District court, where Judge William Smith ruled the restriction of the billboard was unconstitutional. It violates Vono's free-speech rights because the sign was regulated based on the message and content.

What legal argument would one give for declaring this law unconstitutional?

Is this a restriction based on the content of the speech or is it a legal time/place or manner restriction?

Administration Attempts to Prohibit the Commercial Use of Barack Obama

2009-01-31T07:22:00.000-08:00

(c) 2006 Associated Press
(photo by Mannie Garcia)

By Alex Suskind

White House lawyers are currently in the process of trying to limit the commercial use of President Barack Obama’s picture. According to Bloomberg.com, the lawyers for the administration are attempting to accomplish this in a way that does not trample free speech or violate the First Amendment.

Some examples of recent marketing techniques by companies include Ikea's "Embrace Change" advertising campaign and Southwest Airlines "Yes You Can" sale. In addition, Obama's face has been on countless retail items such as tee-shirts, coffee mugs and basketball jerseys.

The rest of the Obama family has not been spared either. Recently, Ty Inc. released the Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia dolls, and claimed that they were not designed after the first daughters.

Jonathan Band, an intellectual property lawyer in Washington D.C., told Bloomberg.com that the Obama administration might have to examine the illegal use of the Obama brand on a case by case basis.

“Because he is the president of the United States...I think the First Amendment will be applied much more broadly with respect to people wanting to use an image of the president than it would be with typical entertainment figures or sports figures,” added Band in his comments to Bloomberg.com.

Some courts have recognized a property-like right when the name of a celebrity is used to market another product without prior authorization. Johnny Carson, the former host of The Tonight Show, successfully sued a company, which was advertising their toilets with Carson’s famous catchphrase: “Here’s Johnny.” What argument could you make, both for and against, regarding the President's ability to sue a company using his catchphrase, "Yes We Can" for an advertising campaign?

Would the same standard apply to Sasha and Malia Obama?

Limiting Cyber-Bullying

2009-01-31T07:01:00.000-08:00

(c) 2007 Associated Press
(photo by Mel Evans)

By Alex Suskind

According to the Free Expression Network, New Jersey State Attorney General Anne Milgram (shown left) recently sent a letter to all universities and colleges in the state of New Jersey, requesting that each school now include cyber-bullying into the schools code of conduct.

The Free Expression network defined cyber-bullying as “stalking, bullying, and/or sexual exploitation" via the Internet. Milgram referred to websites such as Juicy Campus, which have become forums for harassment by students. The website allows users to anonymously post gossip related messages about people or organizations on their respective campuses.

In her letter, Milgram further requests that the school issue a statement regarding its policy on cyber-bullying and make the necessary resources available for students who have been the victims of cyber-bullying.

According to the Free Expression Network, the request by Milgram is a first for the United States. Currently, only grade schools have been known to punish students due to cyber-bullying.

In response to Milgram's letter, three free speech organizations, the Student Press Law Center, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the New Jersey chapter of Society of Professional Journalists, sent a responding letter, warning colleges and universities that limiting speech under the term "bullying" could violate the First Amendment.

According to Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, speech is not protected when "by [its] very utterance [it] inflict[s] injury or tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace."* According to this definition, would speech on Juicy Campus be protected under the First Amendment?

What arguments can Milgram make, in which the prevention of cyber-bullying would not be a violation of the First Amendment?

*Quoted from Communication and the Law by W. Wat Hopkins

Judge Blocks Email Request by Reno Gazette-Journal

2009-01-31T03:17:00.000-08:00

(c) 2003 Associated Press
(photo by Joe Cavaretta)

By Alex Suskind

The Reno Gazette-Journal was recently denied access in a lawsuit that was seeking the release of Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons' (shown right) emails, according to an article from the First Amendment Center.

The article went on to state that the Gazette was originally seeking the email records due to a previous FBI investigation. The FBI was looking into allegations that Gibbons received money and lavish gifts from businessman Warren Trepp, in exchange for the governor's help in securing lucrative military contracts in Congress. Gibbons was eventually cleared by the FBI of any criminal wrongdoing.

The First Amendment Center added that the Reno Gazette had originally filed a public-records request with the governor's office, requesting the release of six months of email correspondence between Gibbons and ten individuals. When the newspaper asked for the emails, officials in the Gibbons administration told the Gazette to "take their word for it," that the emails were privileged and not allowed for public use.

Lawyers representing the Governor's office contended that the emails were not public records or did not exist. The state lawyers also stated that there were no emails between five of the ten individuals and Gibbons, during the requested time period.

Although Carson City Circuit Judge Todd Russell called for the release of six of the 104 emails requested, (all 104 were reviewed by a court master), Russell also contended that the rest of the emails were "personal, of a non-public 'transitory nature' or privileged," holding that most of the mail was confidential under Nevada law.

What are some of the legal reasons that give the governor the right to withhold this type of information?
Currently, all states have laws that require that local government records be open to the public. However, most of these laws were passed in a time before electronic records. Many states have found that there are physical complications when technology is included into these types of laws. What are some complications that prevent technology from being included in government access laws?
Since most states do not explicitly include email in government access laws, what arguments can you make, for and against, for including email in these laws?

Judge Explains His Tech Savvy Ways

2009-01-23T11:46:00.000-08:00

Feride Yalav

ABA’s Journal’s Debra Cassens Weiss wrote a blog about Judge Mark Bennett of Sioux City, Iowa who explains why he allowed a reporter to write a live blog during one of his federal criminal trials.

According to the blog, Bennett always prided himself on being up to date with technology. While practicing as a lawyer in a small law firm, he paid a large sum of money to be the first to have desktop computers in the office. Apart from this he was probably the first federal judge to ever have an e-mail address and he continues to read blogs on a daily basis.

Thus, with such a background, when Bennett received an e-mail from a reporter asking permission to use her computer during a tax fraud trial to post live courtroom updates online, he agreed. The reporter, Trish Mehaffey, was advised to sit in the back of the room so that her typing would not disturb the proceedings.

“I thought the public’s right to know what goes on in federal court and the transparency that would be given the proceedings by live-blogging outweighed any potential prejudice to the defendant,” Bennett said to the ABA Journal.

Mehaffey used a website called Twitter, a blog site based entirely on short status updates, which enabled readers to comment to the updates and for Mehaffey to answer their questions.

“Times are changing, and it’s all about the digital industry…It’s a way for us to meet the demands of our readers,” Mehaffey said to the ABA Journal.

• Is Mehaffey’s argument about the demands of the digital industry enough to account for a person’s right to a fair trial?

Judge Allows Blogs Updates in Courtroom

2009-01-23T10:55:00.000-08:00

Feride Yalav

The Daily Camera—a Boulder, CO newspaper—reported that Judge Lael Montgomery, a Boulder district judge, ruled that cell phones and computers will not be banned during the trial of Alex Midyette. Midyette is suspected of causing the death of his 11-week-old son Jason.

Lawyers on both sides of the case argued against the ruling saying that information released through blogging and text messaging could alert witnesses of what other witnesses were testifying to inside the courtroom. Such information, according to them, infringes Midyette’s right to a fair trial by altering testimonies due to the loose availability of information.

Montgomery responded to the arguments against her ruling by stating that she would instruct the jury to refrain from reading or viewing any of the information dispersed in media outlets as well as expecting the lawyers to tell their witnesses not to talk to one another or read any of the information posted about the trial, according to the Daily Camera.

Those in defense of Montgomery’s ruling perceive this move as a reconciliation between the first amendment and a person’s right to a fair trial. There is also a long tradition present in the courts of instructing jurors and witnesses to avoid information given by the media during proceedings which gives more credit to Montgomery’s move toward providing information freely to the public about the trial, according to the Daily Camera.

• Can the competing interests of the first amendment and a person’s right to a fair trial work together?
• Even if witnesses and jury members are instructed to ignore the media outlet information, how can the judge be sure that they do and that their judgments and testimonies are unbiased?

DA: Freeze Info To The Media In Maxwell Case

2009-01-21T09:46:00.000-08:00

by Caroline Trudeau

Oswego County District Attorney Donald Dodd is asking the court to block the lawyer of accused murder Alan Jones from releasing information to the media, according to The Post-Standard. Dodd is arguing that it could taint a potential jury.

Salvatore Lanza, who's representing Erin Maxwell's step-brother, has provided the media a forensics autopsy summary sheet, copies of potential witness statements, and of the investigation report.

Dodd told The Post-Standard that "any criminal case is not to be tried in the press." On the other hand, Lanza thinks the district attorney is trying to "stop the flow of information." He also thinks that, no matter what, it will be practically impossible to find any potential juror who won't have seen or read any information on this case.

The conflict in this situation is between the freedom of the press, and the right to a fair trial. Is there any danger to Jones' trial if the information was released in the media?
Should the media have access to all the information on this trial? under which considerations?
Is the DA's demand fair, considering that the "Supreme Court has made it clear that jurors need not be 'totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved' in a case to be considered impartial." Hopkins, W. (2009) Communication and the Law, Northport, Ala,: Vision Press, p. 344

Trial to be Broadcast Online

2009-01-21T09:21:00.000-08:00

Feride Yalav

A judge in Boston agreed to have a case against a Boston University graduate student accused of illegal music downloading to be broadcast to the Internet via webcam.

The live online coverage is the first of such a ruling in the federal judiciary because the Judicial Conference—which is responsible for the policies of the federal judiciary—has long banned recording devices in the courtroom, according to the Boston Globe.

US District Judge Nancy Gertner has agreed to allow the Courtroom View Network—which broadcasts live state trials on the Internet—to show one of the key hearings against the student, Joel Tenenbaum, by a group representing the US recording industry. Gertner argues that because the case is of such high interest, especially to young people, the usual ban on recording equipment in the courtroom should be set aside, according to the Boston Globe.

“In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet generation, the generation that has grown up with computer technology in general and the Internet in particular, as commonplace," Gertner wrote in an order published by the Boston Globe. “It is reportedly a generation that does not read newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information largely, if not almost exclusively, over the Internet.”

Tenenbaum faces potential damages of about $1million for downloading music illegally.

Does a judge have the authority to allow cameras in the courtroom?
Does live coverage eschew the citizen’s right to a fair trial?
Is the withholding of live coverage of a trial equal to withholding information from the readers of a newspaper? Do the people have a right to see the trial?
How does the coverage of a trial benefit/negatively affect the whole process?

DA's Office Bringing State Fair Protester In Appeal Court

2009-01-21T09:07:00.000-08:00

by Caroline Trudeau

Last week, the district attorney's office decided to ask for an appeal in the case against peace activist Ed Kinane, according to the Post-Standard.

Kinane was arrested last year at the Great New York State Fair for trespassing after "walking around the fairgrounds in a hodded orange jumpsuit with his legs shackled, wrists handcuffed and carrying a sign protesting the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay." He has been acquitted by Geddes Town Judge John Kinsella who rejected the charges saying Kinane had a First Amendment right to protest because he was on public property.

However, Assistant District Attorney Shawn Weed is arguing that the state fair is private because people have to pay a ticket to get in.

Was Kinane is his right and under which considerations?
What distinguishes free speech from fighting words, considering that soldiers were present on the fairgrounds?

Mafioso On Facebook

2009-01-21T08:48:00.000-08:00

by Caroline Trudeau

This week, The New York Times has revealed that many Facebook pages have been created in honor of Mafioso, including a page named “Fans of Toto Riina, a Misunderstood Man” dedicated to Salvatore Riina, the boss of bosses, arrested in 1993 and now serving multiple life sentences.

Those pages have raised a lot of indignation in Italy, where anti-mafia groups were created on Facebook, asking the network website to remove all pro-mafia pages. Some people have even compared those pages to sites honoring Hitler or Nazism. Senator Gianpiero D’Alia, senator of an anti-mafia commission, also asked Facebook to remove the pages, arguing in a phone interview with The New York Times that “we can’t accept in virtual reality what we don’t accept in real reality.”

Facebook has already taken down some pages based on the fact that they were violating the site’s terms of use. Those rules ban any content deemed as “harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnical or otherwise objectionable.”

In Italy, an investigation is ongoing to determine if those pages might be a new way to send coded messages between the members of the Mafia, or only unthreatening messages from fans.

What should be the standard or "test" used by Facebook about those kind of groups?
Like discussed in the Google's article, where is the limit between free speech and hate speech?
If authorities demonstrate those pages can be dangerous for the security of Italy, should Facebook take down the pages?

Preps Made If Reporters Arrested at Inauguration

2009-01-16T18:44:00.001-08:00

(Photo by Matt Rourke)

Police arrest protestors at Republican National Convention in September, 2008

by Barbara Fought
Because police arrested reporters covering protests at the Republican National Convention last summer, a journalism organization is offering a hotline and help to any reporters who might be swept up in any large-scale arrests of protestors next week at the inauguration.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press offers a tip sheet for reporters and will have attorneys standing by to help them.

What would you do if you got swept up in a big police action during a demonstration and police asked you to give up your camera, disc or notebook? Do you know what the law requires?
What if you're not arrested, but you have pictures or video that would help identify persons who threw rocks or committed other criminal offenses. Would you give your recording or disc to the police?
Is Feiner still good law today -- what is the line between lawful protest and endangering the public or inciting a riot?

Suit Filed over Marketing of Vitaminwater

2009-01-16T17:22:00.000-08:00

by Barbara Fought
A public interest group is coordinating a class action lawsuit against Coca-Cola, saying its claims about Vitaminwater are deceptive. Plus, The Center for Science in the Public Interest charges, all the sugar in the VitaminWater promotes obesity and diabetes. The Coca-Cola Company denies its marketing is deceptive.

In a US News and World Report column, "On Fitness," Kathryn Hobson writes that the label includes terms such as "acai-blueberry-pomegranatel," "power of triple antioxidants to help keep you healthy and fight free radicals," and " it is definitely au naturel." Thus, she says, consumers might assume VitaminWater has vitamins, few calories, contains some superfoods and is natural. Little of that is true, she says.

Where is the edge between a corporation's free speech rights and the responsibility of the government to protect its people?
If the antidote for "bad" or disfavored speech is more speech, then is the better course for such public interest groups to speak out about this and counter it with more speech, rather than to use the courts to try to punish Coca-Cola's speech?
The law outlines a 4-part test for deception: 1) likely to mislead, 2) a reasonable consumer, 3) about a material statement, and 4) causes harm. Do you think the plaintiffs can prove this?

Obama Taps Former FCC Attorney for FCC Chair

2009-01-15T18:21:00.000-08:00

by Barbara Fought

The president-elect has selected a Harvard classmate and former FCC attorney, Julius Genachowski, as the new FCC Chair, according to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. His appointment must be approved by the Senate. The Times reports that Genachowski helped draft telecom and technology policies for the Obama campaign.

Genachowski worked as a top advisor to the FCC head during the Clinton administration, and earlier clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justices Brennan and Souter.

Two key issues that the new FCC will deal with is whether to support "network neutrality," a policy allowing all traffic to flow on the Internet at equal speeds (rather than allow heavy users to pay more to get faster service) and the enforcement of indecency.

How does politics affect administrative law (one of the 6 types of law)?

Thousands of people in recent years complained to the FCC about increasing sexual content on over-the-air TV and the FCC responded by enforcing fleeting expletives and raising fines for indecency to $325,000 per instance. Do you think this is good public policy? How does US law on sexual content compare to other countries' laws?

Military's Independent Paper Faces Ban on Political Speech

2008-11-19T20:45:00.000-08:00

© 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.

2008-11-19T20:30:00.000-08:00

(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

2008-11-19T20:27:00.000-08:00

(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

2008-11-19T19:23:00.000-08:00

(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

2008-11-19T16:52:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-18T17:37:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-17T18:36:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-17T14:57:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-16T16:24:00.000-08:00

© 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

2008-11-15T14:29:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-14T16:28:00.000-08:00

(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 articl e 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

2008-11-13T14:58:00.000-08:00

(© 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

2008-11-13T07:12:00.000-08:00

(© 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

2008-11-12T17:38:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-11T17:54:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-11T14:21:00.000-08:00

© 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'

2008-11-10T20:40:00.000-08:00

© 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

2008-11-10T12:32:00.000-08:00

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

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

2008-11-10T10:19:00.000-08:00

(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

2008-11-08T08:04:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-04T20:37:00.000-08:00

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.