AP Photographer Remains Detained for No Charges

(c) AP Photo/The Salt Lake Tribune, Rick Egan, File
Bilal Hussein

By: Trina Joshi

A captive journalist spends his second year in the U.S. military detention without a hope of release, according to Reuters.

The U.S. military accused Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi journalist for the Associated Press, of being accomplice to the Iraqi insurgents and detained him for no charges for two years.

The military refused to release Bilal Hussein, despite an Iraqi judicial committee’s order to release him. The committee dismissed all the accusations of terrorism against him.

The military spokesperson, Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Marshall, contended that the Iraqi committee’s order did not apply to Hussein because he is in U.S. military custody.

My questions: i) Doesn’t the First Amendment protect foreign journalists who work for an American news organisation? If not, why?
ii) Doesn’t the First Amendment protect a journalist form being detained without any charges?
iii) Is the U.S. military powerful enough to disregard an order of another country’s judicial committee?

Immunity to the Web Hangs in Balance

By: Trina Joshi



The latest ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th cir.) denies immunity to Web site roommates.com for seemingly discriminatory content under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, according to a Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press report.

Until this ruling, the section 230 of the CDA did not hold a Web publisher liable for any third-party content that had objectionable contents and might appear discriminatory to some readers.

The Web site in question here has no unlawful information/content that may deprive it of complete protection under the section 230 of the CDA. However, the interactive format of the Web site, like the drop-down lists, asks certain questions that might offend some.

The dissenting judge said that this ruling has baffled the Web publisher about how far they deserve to be left alone.


My question - Is certain content on the Web subject to scrutiny?
Does this ruling challenge Judge Dalzell's stand on immunity to the Internet?


Reminder - Dalzell assigned the maximum scrutiny to the Internet and said that it is entitled to "highest protection from governmental inturion."

FOIA Prevails Again

By Emmy Llewellyn

Citizen Action won the ruling made by Judge Robert Brack regarding the release of documents on nuclear waste sites, monitoring of sites and a 10-year plan for activities at Sandia National Laboratories, according to an article by the Associated Press and posted in the First Amendment Center.
In 2006, the activist organization sued the National Nuclear Security Administration using the Freedom of Information Act to get the information. According to FOIA, once petitioned, agencies must respond to a request within 20 business days.
Citizen Action sought the documents out of concern for Sandia National Laboratories' waste landfill.
The NNSA repeatedly did not respond to requests for the documents made by Citizen Action, and then would not say why the documents could not be released. According to the article posted by the First Amendment Center, Brack said in his ruling that, "FOIA requirements apply with equal force to situations involving national security, sensational or complex issues."

The Mars Company Fights Back

(c) 2005 Associated Press, photo by Adam Rountree

By Emmy Llewellyn

According to ADLAW by Request, the Mars Corporation was sued in February by New York City's popular Naked Cowboy, Robert Burck, over trademark infringement and appropriation when they posted an advertisement of an M&M in Times Square wearing similar attire to the Naked Cowboy.
Recently, Mars said that the Naked Cowboy obtained his trademark fraudulently, and referred to a January 1, 2008 statement that shows Burck said he was using the Naked Cowboy Design Mark on several products including aprons, Halloween costumes, footwear, pajamas and jeans. Mars says that he never used his trademark on any such items and therefore submitted a false statement when registering the trademark.
As well, Mars claimed that Burck has not used his trademark in three years, and in order for a trademark to be protected, it must be used.
Will the Naked Cowboy have to saddle up and go home?

Should the Eliot Spitzer Investigation be Made Available to the Public?

By Emmy Llewellyn

(c)2008 Associated Press, Picture by Tim Roske

P. David Soares, the Albany County district attorney, petitioned Gov. David Paterson to release "executive privilege" so that the investigation on former Gov. Eliot Spitzer could be made available to the public, according to Alanna Malone of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The information that would be released encompasses the investigation on "Troopergate," which took place last year, when Spitzer and his staff tried to discredit Republican state Senate Leader Joseph L. Bruno. In October 2007, the Commission on Public Integrity released evidence that one of Spitzer's aides could have been forced to lie in a statement submitted while under oath. This Investigation, called "Investigation D," is what the D.A. wants to make public.
Currently, Gov. Paterson's office is seeking the advice of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as to whether Spitzer still has privileges in keeping this investigation quiet, or whether Gov. Paterson can, in fact, made the investigation public at all.

New York Legislature passes the Libel Terrorism Protection Act

By Emmy Llewellyn

It all started when Saudi Arabian businessman, Khalid Salim a Bin Mahfouz, won a judgement in a defamation suit against Rachel Ehrenfeld, an author from the United States, in a British court. Previously, Bin Mahfouz has sued for libel 36 times in British courts, according to The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The bill was initiated when the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state did not have "jurisdiction" over Bin Mahfouz when he won the suit against an American author in a British court.
This new law would help protect American journalists from these types of lawsuits in governments outside of the United States that do not offer the same freedoms that journalists get under our First Amendment.
This bill reinforces that the First Amendment protects our free speech values even when they are challenged on foreign soil.

Out with Public Relations, In with the News Media!

By Emmy Llewellyn

(c) 2008 Associated Press, Photo by A.J. Mast

According to the New York Times, when the New York Knicks franchise hired Donnie Walsh from Indiana as the Knicks' new president, they did not expect him to lessen the restrictions that Madison Square Garden Chairman, James Dolan, instituted on the media in 2001.
Currently the Knicks' policy on dealing with the media is the most restrictive one for any team in the National Basketball Association, according to the New York Times. All Knicks' franchise assistants have to confer with the public relations department before agreeing to an interview or even speaking with the news media.
Dolan originally placed this policy to present a consistent front for teams in the Garden with dealing with the media, according to Richard Sandomir of the New York Times. The reports and interviews were consistent and different reports weren't being given by many people within the Madison Square Garden Arena.
Walsh declared that the new media policy would be less stringent, but did not elaborate. This could mean the end of the public relations step in the Knicks' process of dealing with the media!