X-Files Actor Sues Tabloid for Defamation

By Lauren Foley

Photo by Mark Mainz (2008 Associated Press)

American actor and sci-fi icon David Duchovny plans to sue London-based tabloid the Daily Mail for a story it ran on Sunday, October 19, according to a report from TV Guide’s official news feed. The article alleged that Duchovny, a self-proclaimed sex-addict recently estranged from wife Téa Leoni, had an affair with his 28-year-old Hungarian tennis coach Edit Pakay.

While the story claims that it was his relationship with Pakay that led to his estrangement, Duchovny denies ever having any kind of physical relationship with the instructor.

Stanton “Larry” Stein, Duchovny’s lawyer, was contacted by Daily Mail staffer Caroline Graham for comment on the article prior to publication. According to a report on The Celebrity Café.com, “Stein said he warned the paper about publishing the article, saying, ‘It is all lies and deceit.’"

“I advised her that it was false and not to run with it, and she went ahead with it anyway," Stein said.

This piece comes in the wake of Duchovny completing a rehabilitation program for his sexual addiction in early October and rumors that he cheated on his wife in the past, said another article on the Daily Mail's online edition.

In the Daily Mail story, Pakay seems to admit that she had some kind of relation with the X-Files alum outside of tennis practice.

“David and I are very close friends and we still play tennis together. He's an excellent player. He likes physically strong, fit women,” she told the UK tabloid. “I don't want to say anything that might hurt David. I am not going to deny it. I don't know what our relationship means to him.”

However, after the Duchovny camp released statements alleging that the material published in the article was false, Pakay changed her tune. She now vehemently denies that they were anything more than friendly tennis partners, according to celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton.

Duchovny and his legal team are currently preparing to file a defamation suit against the British tabloid. All Headline News is reporting that Duchovny will seek $1 million in damages.

Simpson Trial Witness Sues Dr. Phil

Photo by John Locher
© 2008 Associated Press

(Photo of Thomas Riccio, a witness in the recent O.J. Simpson robbery trial)

By Donna Ho

The man who helped O.J. Simpson get access to sports memorabilia in a high profile robbery case, has filed a lawsuit against the "Dr. Phil" show. Thomas Riccio, who recently testified at Simpson's robbery trial is suing Philip McGraw, better known as Dr. Phil and Stage 29 Media for unspecified damages, according to The Associated Press. Riccio claims his comments in an interview were edited to change their meaning in the show's promo.

Riccio said he was referred on the show as "the shady deal maker," "a puppet master who would sell his soul for a coin" and "the ring leader of this crime." The lawsuit claims defamation, fraud, emotional distress and being portrayed in a false light, the AP reports.

He also said that McGraw falsely claimed that Riccio "set O.J. Simpson up and told people to bring guns into the room."

Riccio said parts of his interview were left out-- including his denial of those statements and his claim that he is anti-gun. He said that the statements were replaced with a shot of him nodding his head as if were agreeing with the host. The interview aired October 8 following Simpson's conviction of twelve charges in a Las Vegas court on October 3.

Theresa Corigliano, a spokeswoman for Dr. Phil, would not comment on the lawsuit.

Spammer Conviction Overturned Under Unconstitutional Va. Spam Law

Photo by Rick Bawmer 2008 Associated Press (Photo of Virginia Governor Mark Warner at an AOL anti-spam bill signing in Dulles, VA.)

By Chelsea Choi

According to ADLAW By Request, the Virginia Supreme Court found a Virginia anti-spam law to be unconstitutional.

In the state's first ever conviction under the anti-spam law, Jeremy Jaynes was convicted under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act of illegal spam. Jaynes sent tens of thousands of junk emails to subscribers of America Online, Inc. (AOL). Jaynes used fake domain names and header information when sending the emails.

Jaynes was convicted by a jury and the conviction was upheld by a Virginia Court of Appeals.

But the Virginia Supreme Court dropped the conviction claiming the statute was unconstitutional because it “prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution” (ADLAW by Request, 2008).

The battle continued as the Commonwealth of Virginia argued that its statute only prohibits the sending of email that is sent using false information. The Commonwealth argued that there is no First Amendment right to use false identification to gain access to private servers.

Because email transmission can be traced by a user's IP address and domain name, the only way somone can send annonymous email is to use false information. Anonymous speech is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The Virginia Supreme Court found the statute is not narrowly tailored to protect the compelling interests of the Commonwealth, the court concluded. The ruling also favors email marketers. It recognizes that First Amendment speech includes and protects email.

News Organizations Win Access to Minnesota Polling Places

(A Minnesota voter receives an "I voted" sticker from a polling place worker)

Photo by Jim Mone © 2004 Associated Press

By Kate Fagut

According to the firstamendmentcenter.org, reporters in Minnesota will now be permitted to conduct exit polling in the upcoming election. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled in favor of the AP, ABC, CNN, CBS, Fox News and NBC new organizations, ordering that they be allowed to conduct exit polling as long as it does not interfere with people coming and going from the polling place.

According to Davis, "There has been no evidence presented to the Court that exit polling in any way has a detrimental effect on the orderly and corruption-free polling place.”

The news organizations had sued Minnesota alleging that a law banning anyone but voters and election judges from standing within 100-feet of a designated polling place violated their First Amendment Rights.

The law was previously enacted to ensure peace at the polls and give election officials the power to prevent disturbances. The preliminary injunction, granted in favor of the news organizations, will apply directly to pollsters and will allow them to conduct interviews as citizens leave the polling place. News organizations are still looking to make the preliminary injunction permanent.

Susan Buckley, Attorney for the news organizations, was very happy with the verdict. "I think this is a terrific victory for the First Amendment and for the right of voters in Minnesota to express their views about this extraordinary election, should they choose to.”

News-Media Gains Access to Governor's E-mail

Photo by John S. Stewart (Associated Press, 2004)

By Caylin Harris

According to First Amendment Center, the governor of Missouri has been forced by a court settlement to hand over old emails to the news- media. Governor Matt Blunt’s administration was sued by news-media outlets when they were told that access to the records would cost them over $23,000.

The legal settlement stated that Blunt’s administration should give free copies of his email records to various news-media to comply with the Sunshine Law requests.

The battle for the email records started when the Springfield News-Leader was unable to gain access to deleted emails that the paper had requested from a member of Blunt’s administration. Before long The Associated Press, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Kansas City Star were involved in the lawsuit, which was originally brought against the governor by court appointed attorneys.

The settlement requires the emails to be provided within 30 days unless they are pertaining to matters exempt under the Sunshine Law. According to the article, “the emails of Governor Blunt; former chief of staff Ed Martin; communications director Rich Chrismer; former general counsel Henry Herschel; former legal counsel Scott Eckersley; and Rich AuBuchon, the former legal counsel and acting director of Blunt’s Office of Administration” are included in the settlement.

Federal Courts Allow 'Matching' Funds in Ariz.

Photo by Doug Mills (Associated Press, 1996)


By Mirel Ketchiff



According to the firstamendmentcenter.org, on Wednesday U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that publicly funded election candidates in Arizona can receive supplemental money if privately funded opponents outspend them, or if independent groups target them during their campaign. Judge Silver said that she would explain her reasoning by Oct. 17.

Candidates begin with base funding allotments for their campaigns if they participate in the Clean Elections campaign-funding system. These candidates then can receive matching funds depending on either opponents’ spending in primary elections or their fundraising in the general election. Matching funds can also be triggered by independent expenditures.

In late August Silver ruled that matching funds were a First Amendment violation but didn’t issue an injunction at the time, saying the case was brought to her too near the Sept. 2 primary election. Those against supplemental funds (including the Institute for Justice) believe they violate free speech rights since supporters of a candidate would be reluctant raise funds privately, fearing they would trigger matching funds for an opponent. Supporters, however, say that matching funds reduces the ability of private contributions to corrupt a candidate. They also believe that a change in the candidate funding system this close to Nov. 4, the general election, would be unfair.

Attorney Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute, who is representing some groups and candidates opposed to supplemental funding, said his clients would decide whether to appeal after Silver explained her ruling.

Virginia Bans Voters from Wearing Campaign Paraphernalia at the Polls

Photo courtesy of Jae C. Hong (Associated Press, 2008)


by Sarah Casey

According to firstamendmentcenter.org, Virginia legislators have passed a law banning any and all political clothing or paraphernalia at polling locations. This law is following an already existing law banning electioneering within 40 feet of the entrance to a polling precinct.

Though the ban is “inviting litigation” as American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Rebecca Glenberg put it, Virgina’s State Board of Elections said the prohibition “strikes a balance between the First Amendment right to free speech and the right of people to cast secret ballots in a safe, orderly way free of undue influence or harassment.”

According to firstamendmentcenter.org, Virginia now joins several states that have banned campaign materials at polling stations. According to the site, “A 2006 article in the Thurgood Marshall Law Review said that eight states prohibited the display or exhibit of campaign materials inside a polling place, and 10 barred buttons, badges or lapel stickers inside voting places.”

The new legislation bars all political advertising for or against either candidate that could be considered “clear, unambiguous expressions of support for or opposition of a candidate or ballot issue.”

Local (county) boards can make their limitations at the polls even more stringent by prohibiting implied political messages as well. An example of implied political messages, according to firstamendmentcenter.org, would be “a T-shirt that mocks or affirms support for a well-known position of one candidate without explicitly identifying the candidate.”

“Some localities that have prohibited campaign clothing or paraphernalia in polling places keep cloaks on hand to help people conceal political messages while they vote. They range from modified trash bags to vests and ponchos,” Virginia Board of Elections’ chairwoman Jean Cunningham said.

According to Kent Willis, the Virginia ACLU executive director, “While the state has a right to keep polling places free of electioneering, the state lacks sufficient grounds to ban politically inspired fashion statements.”

“The state needs to establish that allowing campaign garb inside election precincts would create a high probability of a problem that would impair people’s right to vote, not just the prospect of tension or disruption,” Willis said.

According to firstamendmentcenter.org, Glenberg and Willis said the ACLU would have to continue researching the implications of election paraphernalia before deciding whether to challenge the issue in court.