YouTube Bans Violence-Inciting Videos

© 2005 Associated Press

(Pictured: The news correspondent of this online newscast expressed support for an Al-Jazeera correspondent charged with collaborating with al-Qaida in 2005.)

By: Akiko Matsumoto

The video-sharing website YouTube will no longer entertain any terrorist training videos thanks to Senator Joe Lieberman.

According to The Associated Press and The Washington Post, Lieberman's criticism that the website was too open to terrorist organizations was taken into consideration when YouTube updated their "Community Guidelines." The new policy bans videos on terrorism training, videos that incite others to commit violent acts, and videos that act as tutorials for activities, such as making bombs.

In May, the Google-owned YouTube removed a few videos after Lieberman requested the company "immediately remove content produced by Islamic terrorist organizations." Many of the removed videos were branded with the logos of al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups, but the company refused to take down most of the videos on the senator's list.

YouTube stated in May, "While we respect and understand [Lieberman's] views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view."

The tighter restriction suggests a shift in YouTube's stance while counterterrorism officials question the effectiveness of their latest action. Officials argue that less online propaganda would be "good news," but Al-Qaida's strong online presence is not limited to YouTube and online videos have helped investigators to monitor terrorists in the past.

Son of "Voice of God" Headed to Court

Photo by Paul Sakuma

© 2008 Associated Press

(Image of John Madden's video games. During a show about the games, John Facenda's voice was used.)

By: Emily Arrighi

According to firstamendmentcenter.org, the son of football announcer and “Voice of God” John Facenda will have the opportunity to bring his case in front of a jury.

Facenda’s voice was used in a show about a John Madden video game. The show was aired eight times. Facenda’s contract allows the NFL to use his voice except for commericial endorsments.

The 3rd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals said that his voice was used for what they considered a commercial based work. However, the NFL felt that his voice was used in an “artistic endeavor” which would be protected by the first amendment. The Court also did not agree with the NFL’s claim that it’s copyright is more powerful than states contract law.

“In its Sept. 9 opinion Facenda v. NFL Films, Inc., the appeals court granted the NFL a partial victory on the issue, reversing the lower court finding that there was a likelihood of confusion about whether Facenda was endorsing the game and leaving the question for jurors.”

The NFL said that they are ready to present the facts to a jury.

Facenda died in 1984 after working twenty years as the voice of NFL films.

Virginia Anti-Spam Law Reversed

Photo by Abigail Pheiffer
© 2005 Associated Press

(Pictured: Jeremy Jaynes (left), a high profile spammer with his attorney David Oblon (right) after his sentencing in 2005.)

By Donna Ho

According to The Associated Press, the Virginia State Supreme Court has declared the state's anti-spam law unconstitutional. The anti-spam law was created in 2003 to prevent people from receiving masses of unwanted e-mails. The court's ruling reverses the conviction of Jeremy Jaynes, who argued the law violated his free speech protections under the First Amendment.

In 2004, Jaynes was convicted for sending millions of emails through an AOL server in Loudoun County, Virginia. He sent the unsolicited e-mails which included "get rich quick" methods from his home in Raleigh, North Carolina. Jaynes was the first person in the U.S. to be convicted under the law when he was sentenced nine years in prison. Jaynes was charged for the spam case under Virginia law because he sent the e-mails through an AOL server there.

Athough the court upheld the anti-spam law 4-3 in February 2008, Jaynes' lawyers asked the court to reconsider, according to The Washington Post. On September 12, 2008, the Virginia Supreme Court made a unanimous decision which agreed with Jaynes' claim that the anti-spam law violates the right to free and anonymous speech under the First Amendment.

Attorney General Bob McDonnell said he was "deeply disappointed" and plans to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, The Associated Press reports. Most states have anti-spam laws and sending commercial spam is still illegal under the federal CAN-SPAM Act. Jaynes' attorney, Thomas Wolf says however, the federal law does not apply to Jaynes' case because the act was implemented after he sent the e-mails.

Italian Comedian Faces Jail Time for Insulting Pope

By Lauren Foley

Photograph by Riccardo De Luca © 2008 Associated Press

According to Times Online, Italian comedian and actress Sabina Guzzanti could serve five years in prison for insulting the Pope at a rally in Rome’s Piazza Navona on July 8, 2008.

At the rally, which was held in protest of the Vatican’s “interference in Italian rights, from abortion to gay rights,” Guzzanti joked to the crowd that “within 20 years the Pope will be where he ought to be – in Hell, tormented by great big poofter devils [homosexuals], and very active ones, not passive ones.” Italian law enforcers took offense at the remark, and are charging her with “offending the honor of the sacred and inviolable person" of Benedict XVI.

Giovanni Ferrara, a Roman prosecutor, is in the process of applying to the Ministry of Justice for authorization to take legal action against Guzzanti under the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Vatican, “which stipulates that an insult to the Pope carries the same penalty as an insult to the Italian President,” according to Times Online.

But while some right wing Italian politicians are in favor of the prosecution (Christian Democrat Luca Volonte said that "gratuitous insults must be punished”), most are opposed to what Guzzanti’s father has called “a return to the middle ages.”

Italian senator Antonio Di Pietro defended Guzzanti, saying that she was exercising “her constitutional right to freedom of thought.”

"You can agree or not agree with what she said — and personally I didn't,” Di Pietro said, “but to put people in prison for what they think is reminiscent of a time when those who thought differently had castor oil poured down their throats.”

Case Lawyer for Al-Jazeera Responds to Claims of Discrimation

Photograph © 2008 The Daily Mail
(pictured left) Photograph of Jo Burgin, a journalist who is suing her former employer, Al-Jazeera over claims of racial, sexist, and religious discrimination.

By Gillian Arndt

Jo Burgin, a former journalist for Al-Jazeera, is suing the news station for £1million after claiming she was fired for being a 'white, Christian, British female' according to The Guardian and Daily Mail.

An Al-Jazeera English lawyer, Ingrid Simler QC, countered claims made by former executive Jo Burgin by highlighting the appointments of a couple women to other senior roles.

Burgin, who was once the head of planning for the channel, was dismissed in April 2007 when her fixed two-year contract in Doha, Qatar was not renewed.

Today, Simler, representing Al-Jazeera English countered Burgin’s claims at the London tribunal hearing by highlighting the appointment of Kate Ivans and Sue Philips who were both given senior roles in the company.

Simler said these appointments did not fit in Burgin’s picture of the company as one that "does not accept or employ woman in senior positions".

During cross-examination of Burgin, Simler also pointed out that in Doha, Al-Jazeera has employed 74 women out of a staff around 170. Five of the six news editors are women.

She was let go after violating the “family policy” at the company since her husband, Steve Clark, also works there. Burgin contends that Al-Jazeera turns a blind eye towards Muslim couples according to the Daily Mail.

The full hearing will begin on September 9.

McCain Campaign to Limit Media Access to Palin

Photo by Charles Dharapak
(C) Associated Press

By Sal Maneen

A recent LA Times article says the McCain camp will "tightly control" media access to GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In the article, campaign manager Rick Davis says "troublemakers" -- those media members who don't treat the governor with "some level of respect and deference" -- will not be allowed access to Palin.

Since being named the VP nominee, Palin has not faced reporters. She will do that for the first time Thursday, when she sits for an interview with ABC World News Tonight anchor Charlie Gibson.

Palin has injected life into the McCain campaign over the past weeks, as McCain has now jumped Democratic nominee Barack Obama in the latest polls. Republicans have been very critical of media scrutiny over Governor Palin though, saying the media's treatment and coverage has been unfair.

The LA Times article says some fear that by restricting access to Palin, there may be some issues she's not questioned on. The article does note though, that during an April debate, Gibson pressed Obama on a wide array of topics -- including flag lapel pins and "bitter" Pennsylvania voters -- something that drew criticism from many commentators and bloggers.

Rowling wins copyright infringement case

Photo By Louis Lanzano
© Associated Press

By Krista Flynt


A federal judge ruled in favor of author J.K Rowling in her copyright infringement lawsuit against a web site operator planning to publish an encyclopedia of Harry Potter terms, reports the Associated press.

U.S. District Judge Robert P. Patterson permanently blocked publication of the reference guide and awarded Rowling and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. $6,750 in statutory damages. Patterson said Rowling had proven that Steven Vander Ark's Harry Potter Lexicon would cause her irreparable harm as a writer.

The trial began in April, 2008, after Rowling and Warner Bros. sued publisher RDR Books to stop publication of material from the Harry Potter Lexicon web site. Vander Ark has run the site since 2000, which is a guide to the Potter books and includes detailed descriptions of characters, creatures, spells and potions.

And, though Rowling had once praised Vander Ark’s Web site, she testified earlier this year that the lexicon was nothing more than a rearrangement of her material.

The RDR Books did not contest that the encyclopedia infringes upon Rowling's copyright, but argued that it was a fair use allowable by law for reference books. In his ruling, Patterson found that while reference materials are generally useful to the public, Vander Ark had overstepped his bounds.

He added that he ruled in Rowling's favor because the "Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide."