Fordham Law Mass Media Outline MD

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012
Diana Sanders
I. 1st A and the media A. Introduction -1st A limits the fed govt Also limits the states thr! 1"th A -1st A prote#tions don$t e%tend to private parties& !nless state a#tion re'!irement is met (e g & state la) sa*s that A shall have a#tion agst +& the state is giving A the means of enfor#ement !nder the la), B. Theories for the 1st A 1 mar-etpla#e for ideas (f!n#tional theor*, - its ne#essar* to have a free e%#hange of idea so that )e #on )eed o!t tr!th from fi#tion - #ore of 1st A val!es 2 Politi#al theor* (f!n#tional theor*, - po)er of people in a demo#ra#* is fo#!sed on e%#hange of ideas re. govt& parties and legis - Mei-le/ohn arg!ed that false polit spee#h has no val!e ()o!ldn$t have approved of 01 2imes v S!llivan, - Seditio!s Li3el in Eng& govt p!nished people for spea-ing agst the #ro)n (diff from modern da* defamation 3# defamation has a falsit* re'!irement in Eng& the* p!nished even if it )as tr!e4tr!th )as not a defense, See 5enger #ase - Alien and Sedition A#t (1678, 9S govt p!nished false #riti#ism and defamator* #omments a3o!t govt (diff from seditio!s li3el in Eng& 3# the 9S a#t had a falsit* re'!irement, 2his )as deemed !n#onst 3* the S!llivan holding : Personal ;al!es (li3eral theor*, - <o#!ses on personal f!lfillment& personal a!tonom*& the freedom to4not to e%press o!rselves C. Methods of 1st A analysis 1. Balancing - )eighing 2 interests. govts #on#ern a3o!t prote#ting a parti#!lar interest v so#iet*$s interest in e%pression - 2enden#* to)ards #hara#teri=ation4#ategori=ation of spee#h - 9m3rella vie) spee#h prote#ted 3* 1st A is !nder the !m3rella 2he prote#ted spee#h m!st pass stri#t s#r!tin* test (#ompelling govt interest& narro) ends4means #orrelation Some 3alan#ing is implied 3!t strong pres!mption of govt a#tion 3eing !n#onst, 2*pes of spee#h not !nder !m3rella (!nla)f!l advo#a#*& defamation& o3s#enit*& #ommer#ial spee#h& fighting )ords& national se#!rit*, 2. Categorical Approach: Traditional liberal model a. E olution of Brandenburg Clear and !resent "anger Test #for ad ocacy of unla$ful action% - ass!mption that )hat is !nder the !m3rella deserves a high level of prote#tion (stri#t s#r!tin*, and )hat is o!tside of !m3rella is s!3/e#t to the >PD test - >PD esta3 in S#hen#- test )as 3ased on pro%imit* and degree - "ennis s!ggests the pro3a3ilit* m!st 3e dis#o!nted 3* the gravit* of the danger (#onsiders )hat dangers are at sta-e, Doesn$t dis#!ss imminen#e >t didn$t e%pressl* overr!le Dennis& its /!st that +randen3!rg )ent 3e*ond it and is no) that test that$s !sed - >PD dvlpd in Brandenburg #&&&,- The CPD test o Spee#h is dire#ted to in#ite4prod!#e imminent !nla)f!l a#tion o Spee#h is li-el* to in#ite4prod!#e s!#h a#tion o (2here is no #onsideration regarding )hat dangers are at sta-e , - Man* #ts have applied >PD test in a non-polit spee#h #onte%t (e g & ?i#e hitman 3oo- #ase, '. Categorical Approach: Emergent Conser ati e Model - @!tside of !m3rella o @3s#enit* (Miller, o <ighting )ords (>haplins-*, o Defamation (S!llivan, o >ommer#ial spee#h (3efore 1670, o Aostile a!dien#e (<einer, o 0ational se#!rit* iss!e - Inside 9m3rella o Inde#en#* a. (bscenity and indecency - )erceg . )ustler (a!toeroti# asph*%iation, +o* dies )hile imitating )hat he read in a mag M!st determine )hether the arti#le )as o3s#ene (!se Miller test, Also have to determine
Diana Sanders
if it is advo#a#*4in#itement of !nla)f!l a#tion & if spee#h falls !nder either of these #ategories then its not prote#ted Sho)s ho) diff #onservatives and li3erals vie) the 1st A !niverse - Li3erals (ma/, o )ant to prote#t spee#h4more spee#h !nder the !m3rella o all spee#h !nder !m3rella given same )eight o !sed +randen3!rg test (ver* stri#t test, this )as not advo#a#* of !nla)f!l a#tion 3# arti#le said not to tr* this Was not o3s#ene 3* Miller standard 2herefore& spee#h fell !nder the !m3rella and )as prote#ted (high tier, - >onservatives (dissent, o e%halt polit spee#h o sho!ld have left the '!estion of o3s#enit* to the /!r* o also& even if this spee#h )as prote#ted (!nder the !m3rella, there #o!ld still 3e a tort #laim 3# all spee#h !nder !m3rella sho!ld not 3e treated e'!all* so emerging #onservative theor* dis#!sses ran-ing spee#h )ithin the !m3rella (inde#en#* is at 3ottom of totem pole& polit, spee#h is at the top b. *ighting $ords - Chaplins+y (/ehovah )itness, #ase that formall* re#ogni=ed fighting )ords (spee#h that is offensive to the person and is spo-en fa#e to fa#e, - ,A- teens 3!rned #ross in 3a#- of famil*$s ho!se violating #it*$s hate #rime ord )hi#h prohi3ited hate spee#h (not a <W stat!te, All 6 /!dges held that the stat!te sho!ld fall o Liberals - held stat!te over-in#l!sive 3# it p!nished spee#h that is not in *o!r fa#e spee#h <) p!nisha3le li-e in >haplins-* ( 3# teens 3!rned #ross in 3a#- *ard& a)a* from people, 2he* tho!ght that stat!te )o!ld 3e o- if it )ere narro)er 3!t its too 3road to 3# <W o Conservatives stat!te !nder-in#l!sive S#alia said that stat!te sho!ld 3e read as <W stat!te ?e/e#ts notion of !m3rella and sa*s that <W have some 1st A prote#tion <) might 3e lo) on the totem pole 3!t all fighting )ords m!st 3e p!nished the same )a* So s#alia is arg!ing the merging #onservative model. insisting on vie)point ne!tralit* )ithin ea#h ran- e g & fighting )ords ma* 3e in a lo)er #lass of prote#tion 3!t it m!st 3e p!nished in a vie)point ne!tral 3asis (m!st p!nish all <W the same )a*, 2his stat!te is not vie)point ne!tral 3# it p!nishes hate spee#h and not other <W 2 levels of vie)point dis#rim. hate spee#h p!nished 3!t not other <W spee#h indi#ating spe#ifi# things that are hate spee#h (3!rning #rosses& s)asti-asB,
Diana Sanders
". !rior ,estraints - prior restraints #!t off spee#h 3efore it o##!rs (e g li#ensing& #ensorship& in/!n#tions, #ontrast )ith retrospe#tive p!nishment that p!nishes spee#h after it o##!rs (fines& imprisonment& #ivil damages, 1. .trong !resumption agst prior restraints - #t thin-s that P? are rep!lsive to the #onst 3# the* nip spee#h in the 3!d p!3li# doesn$t see the spee#h so it$s a )a* t -eep spee#h !nder )raps (if p!3li# doesn$t hear4see spee#h then the* ant ma-e a /!dgment a3o!t it, a. /ear . Minnesota minn la) en/oins ne)spapers from p!3lishing an*thing &mali#io!s& s#andalo!s or defamator* >t holds the la) !n#onst 3# theres a strong pres!mption agst P? Ao)ever& #t holds that there are #ertain sit!ations (li-e )hen at )ar, )hen P? )o!ld 3e /!stifia3le b. !entagon !apers 0i%on admin tried to en/oin p!3li#ation of a #lassified govt report thin-s that these reports )ill em3arrass the 9S and is arg!ing national se#!rit* >t !sed a test that loo-s li-e the +randen3!rg >PD test 3# report la#-s imminen#e or pro3a3ilit*& it failed the tet and the #t held that in/!n#tions )ere !n#onst c. The !rogressi e arti#le on ho) to 3!ild an A-3om3 <ed #t s!stained in/!n#tion agst the p!3li#ation (ver* rareCCC, de#ision pro3 )o!ld$ve 3een appealed 3!t it didnt get that far 3# arti#le )as p!3lished 3* another periodi#al (in/!n#tion )as eas* to get aro!nd the* passed the info on to another periodi#al )ho )as not 3o!nd 3* the in/!n#tion, this )as diff from Pentagon 3# here there )as a stat!te If *o! are agst this arti#le 3eing p!3lished *o! )o!ld propose !sing the Dennis test )hi#h loo-s at the gravit* of the danger dis#o!nted 3* the pro3a3ilit*& instead of the +randen3!rg test )hi#h onl* loo-s at imminen#* 2. "isobeying Inunctions a Collateral bar rule part* #harged )ith #ontempt for diso3e*ing an in/!n#tion #annot defend on the gro!nd that the in/!n#tion )as !n#onst (#an onl* appeal on 3asis of !n#onst!tionalit* if don$t violate in/!n#tion, b. E0ceptions for prior restraints agst speech - !ro idence 1ournal 2 media )ants to p!3lish logs of <+I s!rveillen#e of de#eased mo3 3oss 2here is an in/!n#tion agst them doing so +# #t is sensitive to pro3lem that press violates in/!n#tions 3# !s!all* !nder time restraints and 3# theres strong pres!mption agst P?s #t holds that the #ollateral 3ar r!le sho!ld 3e th)arted if 3oth 1, the in/!n#tion agst spee#h is transparentl* invalid on its fa#e and 2, a good faith effort has 3een made 3* the press to get an appeal on the merits to overr!le the in/!n#tion& then there sho!ldn$t 3e a #ontempt /!dgment not )ithstanding the #ollateral 3ar r!le - Business 3ee+ #t holds that even tho!gh do#!ments sho!ld never have 3een sealed& +!siness )ee- sho!ldntve diso3e*ed #t order >ase re-iterates strong pres!mption agst P?s c. Are prior restraints more restricti e then subse4uent punishment by crim sanctions or ci il liability5 #67% - Deffries arti#le (E:,
Diana Sanders
"
II. "efamation A. Common 8a$ bac+ground 1. Elements of the tort - p!3li#ation - Fof and #on#erning the PG - false in theor* (reall* a defense 3!t toda* seen as more of an element, - defamator* in/!rio!s to rep!tation (m!st 3e defamator* to a signif portion of the #omm!nit*& m!st #onsider the so#iet* that the defamed indiv is in e g& 3eing ga* isn$t a 3ig deal in 01> 3!t it is in Io)a& notions of defamation m!st #hange )ith time (no 3ig deal to 3e #alled a 3astard toda* 3!t it )as then, - damage - not in >L (3!t in #onstit!tionali=ed #ategories li-e in S!llivan p!3li# offi#ial4fig!re, mali#e is re'!ired a ,omaine s!ggestion that P ma* 3e a#'!ainted )ith a /!n-ie is not defamator* Statement is onl* defamator* if its reas s!s#epti3le of a defamator* meaning in the #onte%t in )hi#h it appears In this #ase& the statement onl* indi#ated that P -ne) a /!n-ie and that her interest stemmed from #ompassion 3 Matherson a singing gro!p implied that P )as ga* over the radio >t held that this )as defamator* 3# a signif H of people still vie) homose%!alit* as immoral >t also held that defamation 3road#ast 3* radio and 2; sho!ld 3e #lassified as li3el rather then slander (s!ggesting that in o!r mass media so#iet* that distin#tion 3t)m the 2 is o3solete, 2. .lander . 8ibel - Slander (spo-en, a P s!ing in slander m!st plead spe#ial damages !nless the defamation falls into an* one of the per se #ategories (slander per se,. o #riminal a#tivit* o a#tivities )hi#h tend to in!re 3!siness interests o loathsome disease o !n#hastit* in )omen - Li3el ()ritten, a P s!ing in li3el doesn$t need to prove spe#ial damages (the e%isten#e of damages is pres!med from the p!3li#ation itself, th!s P #an rel* on general damages o Li3el per se statement is defamator* as a matter of la) (theres no )a* a /!r* #o!ld sa* this )asn$t defamation, Defamator* meaning is apparent on the fa#e of the statement P doesn$t need to prove an* e%trinsi# fa#ts o Li3el per '!od defamator* meaning is not apparent on the fa#e of the statement M!st provide e%trinsi# info to !nderstand the defamator* nat!re '. Common 8a$ and .tatutory "efenses and !ri ileges - privileges are defenses its !p to D to plead privileges and prove fa#ts ne#essar* to esta3 the appli#a3ilit* of a priv Some priv are a3sol!te 3!t most are '!alified or #onditional a fair comment prote#ts literar*& artisti# #riti#ism regardless of its merit as long as its made honestl* )ith honest* 3eing meas!res 3* the a##!ra#* of the #riti#s des#rpitve o3servation 3 *air and accurate report priv to p!3lish a fair and a##!rate report of offi#al pro#eedings Prote#ts media )hen the* report someone elses defamator* statements in Foffi#ial pro#eedings (#t pro#eedings& #it* #o!n#il meeting& legis hearing, 9 Medico mag p!3lishes s!mmar* of #onfidential <+I report )hi#h said that P )as in the mo3 >t holds that media has right to '!ote a #onfidential report it got its hands on 3# fair priv e%tends to the reporting of info #ontained in la) enfor#ement do#s #omplied )hen a!th are a#ting in their offi#ial #apa#ities - theories !sed to rationali=e fair and a##!rate report priv. (1, media is the e*es of the p!3li# )ho are allo)ed in p!3li# pro#eedings (2, media helps p!3li# see )hat$s going on (:, prote#ts p!3li#s interest of learning matters of p!3li# #on#ern # ,etraction statutes if p!3li#ation prints a retra#tion of the rig defamator* statement )ith the same p!3li#it* as the orig stor*& it ma* 3e !sed ti mitigate damages r get them off the hoo9 Burnett En'!irer (D, p!3lished defamator* stor* a3o!t +!rnett (P, D p!3lishes a retra#tion 3!t P )asn$t happ* )ith the retra#tion and s!ed D tried to !se the retra#tion as a defense 3!t the #t held that D )asn$t a ne)spaper4p!3li#ation )ithin the meaning of the retra#tion stat!te
Diana Sanders
d e
8ibel9proof !laintiffs Ps rep!tation is so 3ad that he$s not entitled to damages 0ot ver* fla) in #hara#ter is serio!s eno!gh to ma-e him li3el-proof .ingle publication rule all p!3li#ations of the same )or- are treated as a single p!3li#ation o##!rring on the date of 1st p!3li#ation 2his e#onomi=es the amnt of /!ris on a #ase 9 &eeton . )ustler P )as allo)ed to 3ring A!stler to #t in 0A even tho!gh #ir#!lation in 0A onl* #onstit!ted 1I of total #ir#!lation (the SL had r!n o!t in all other states,
B. Constitutional Categories 1. !ublic (fficials and !ublic *igures a /: Times . .ulli an #it* #ommissioner f%ning as poli#e #hief #laims to 3e defamed 3* 01 2imes 2rial /!dge instr!#ts the /!r* it )as li3el per se /!r* had to de#ide )hether statement )as Fof and #on#erning the P F if so then general damages )ere pres!med Damages. (1, general Pres!med - don$t have to 3e proved A#t!al - prove that a#t!al in/!r* o##!rred (2, spe#ial !s!all* tied to spe#ifi# prova3le finan#ial harm (:, p!nitive a#t as p!nishment Paid dire#tl* to P Rule of Sullivan J proof of Fa#t!al mali#eG is re'!ired for p!3li# offi#ial to re#over for defamation Mali#e is an element of defamation if theres no mali#e then P #ant re#over !nder defamation >t holds that here there )as no a#t!al mali#e - 3* K70s S!llivan had e%panded to #over p!3li# fig!res& #andidates& non-offi#ial d!tes of p!3li# offi#ials 2. !ri ate !laintiff but Matter of !ublic Concern a ;ert< arti#le s!ggested that attorne* in #ase of p!3li# #on#ern )as a #omm!nist 2he statement )as false >riti#al '!estion )as )hether attorne* )as p!3li# fig!re so as to 3e s!3/e#t to S!llivan$s a#t!al mali#e re'!irement >t held that he )as not a p!3li# fig!re even tho!ght the matter )as one of p!3li# #on#ern >t held that he #o!ld #olle#t spe#ial and a#t!al damages )itho!t sho)ing a#t!al mali#e all he$d have to do is prove negl In order to re#over pres!med or p!nitive damages& ho)ever& he )o!ld have to prove mali#e - rationale for not appl*ing S!llivan test to matters of p!3li# #on#ern o p!3li# offi#ials have a##ess to media and therefore have a #han#e of self-help the* #an go to media and re3!t o p!3li# offi#ials e/e#t themselves into the p!3li# e*e 2he* e%posed themselves to p!3li# s#r!tin* )hereas the private Plaintiff has not 3 Chapadeau 01 has a higher 3aseline then Lert= (instead of negl& P has to prove gross-negl, !ri ate !laintiff and /ot a Mater of !ublic Concern a "un = Bradstreet . ;reenmoss - involves an erroneo!s #redit report (said that #orp had filed for 3an-r!pt#*, that )asn$t )idel* distri3!ted Ma/ re/e#ts distin#tion 3t)n media and no media (S!llivan and Lert= involved media & )hile this #ase doesn$t, >t holds that #orp is not a p!3li# fig!re for S!llivan p!rposes (#orp )anted to 3e seen as p!3li# fig!re ho)ever, 0ot a mater of p!3li# #on#ern 3# onl* 8 people s!3s#ri3e to ne)sletter >t holds that deminim!s re'!irement is negl (a#ross the 3oard for al damages #ategories,
'.
"amages ()hat a P m!st prove to re#over B, Spe#ial A#t!al general Pres!med general P!nitive
.ulli an p!3li# offi#ials4p!3li# fig!res mali#e mali#e mali#e mali#e
;ert< private Ps& matters of p!3li# #on#ern M J negligen#e M J negligen#e mali#e mali#e
" = B private P& not a matter of p!3li# #on#ern M J negligen#e M J negligen#e M J negligen#e M J negligen#e
Diana Sanders
C. "istinguishing >!ri ate? and >!ublic? !laintiffs 1. 3ho is a >!ublic (fficial?5 - Polit #andidates o ,osenblatt designation applies to those )ho appear to p!3li# as having s!3st #ontrol4resp over govt affairs o &assell : fa#tor test ?e#ognition that dis#!ssion of iss!es of p!3li# importan#e m!st 3e !ninhi3ited & ro3!st Ps a##ess to media to #o!ntera#t impa#t of false4in/!rio!s statements (gert=, 2he degree to )hi#h P has ass!med the ris- of e%pos!re (gert=, As per this test& Poli#e offi#ers& prin#ipals and <ormer p!3li# offi#ials (in respe#t to #ommentar* a3o!t )hat the* did )hile in offi#e, are p!3li# offi#ials 2. 3ho is a >!ublic *igure?5 - *irestone maga=ine in#orre#tl* reported that a mem3er of a high profile famil* divor#ed his )ife 3# he )as having an affair Even tho!gh she )as a mem3er of a prominent so#ial #ategor* she )as #onsidered a private& not a p!3li# fig!re 2r*ing to 3e prominent does not ma-e *o! p!3li# - 3olston - P )as said to have 3een #onvi#ted of espionage )hen he )as reall* #onvi#ted of #ontempt >t held that the fa#t that *o! have 3een a #onvi#ted #rim doesn$t ma-e *o! a p!3li# fig!re - )utchinson senator said that giving grants to #ertain s#ientists )as a )aste of govt f!nds P )as one of those s#ientists Ae )as #onsidered to 3e private 3# his )or- onl* rea#hed a small n!m3er of people 2he fa#t that he applies for fed f!nds does not ma-e one a p!3li# fig!re a general purpose public figure a )ell -no)n #ele3& his name a ho!sehold )ord& the p!3li# re#ogni=es him - to determine a general p!rp p!3li# fig!re #t m!st #onsider o Ps name re#ognition o Previo!s press #overage o ;ol!ntariness of Ps prominen#e 3 limited purpose public figure one )ho is attempting to have or realisti#all* #an 3e e%pe#ted to have a ma/or impa#t on a p!3li# disp!te Limited p!rpose p!3 fig!res are s!3/e#t to the S!llivan r!le (th!s moving #ertain H of #ases o!t of Lert=, - Mc8emore9 )hether a reporter )ho s!es a 2; station has the stat!ts of a limited pr!p p!3 fig!re : part test o >ontrovers* at iss!e m!st 3e p!3li# 3oth in the sense that people are dis#!ssing it and people other then the immediate parti#ipants are li-el* to feel the impa#t of its resol!tion o P m!st have more then a trivial role in the #ontrovers* o Alleged defamation m!st 3e germane to the Ps parti#ipation in the #ontrovers* # in oluntary public figures if *o! have a #ertain relationship to people (e g & #hildren of high profile people& vi#tims of notorio!s #rimes& people )ho marr* spo!ses 3efore the* are famo!s, d. right of reasonable rebuttal of defamatory remar+s $@out ma+ing oneself a public figure. - <oreti#h grandparents a##!sed of #hild molestation Let= pro3a3l* )o!ld govern this #ase 3# it had 3e#ome a matter of p!3li# #on#ern& 3!t parents !sed the media to re3!t the #harges th!s the* )ere vol!ntaril* stepping into the limelight(th!s possi3l* raising their stat!s from Lert= to S!llivan Ps, 2he #t re#ogni=ed& ho)ever& a limited right of re3!ttal to defamator* remar-s )itho!t moving *o!rself into a limited p!rp p!3 fig!re #ategor* ( S!llivan, ". !roof of Malice and *alsity: .ubstanti e and !rocedural Aspects 1. The actual malice standard there m!st 3e -no)ledge of falsit* or re#-less disregard (greater then negl, of the tr!th 2he 3!rden of proving mali#e is pla#ed on P 3* #lear and #onvin#ing eviden#e a. no duty to in estigate - .t. Amant D repeated false #harges agst P )itho!t #he#-ing the #harges or investigating the so!r#es vera#it* for tr!th >t said that general r!le is that ignoran#e is 3liss theres no d!t* to investigate - )arte9)an+s ne)spaper (D, a##!ses #andidate of !sing dirt* tri#-s to smear his opponents name D )as given a tape that )o!ld reveal the tr!th 3!t he ref!sed to pla* it >t held that 3# eviden#e of the tr!th is right in front of D& ref!sal to pla* it reinfor#es that there$s mali#e
Diana Sanders
Altho!gh fail!re to investigate alone )ill not s!pport a finding of a#t!al mali#e& the p!rp avoidan#e of the tr!th )ill - Masson #t hols that a deli3erate alteration of )ords !ttered 3* P doesn$t J -no)ledge of falsit* !nless the alteration res!lts in a material #hange in the meaning #onve*ed 3* the statement b. ,ight to en4uire into editorial process - )erbert . 8ando Aer3ert s!ed prod!#er and reporter of 2; program for remar-s a3o!t his #ond!#t in vietnam D!ring deposition the prod!#er ref!sed to ans)er some '!estions a3o!t )h* he made #ertain investigations and not others #laiming that the tho!ght pro#esses and internal editorial dis#!sion )ere prote#ted 3* the 1st A the s!p #t disagreed& 2his #ase seems to deter p!tting an*thing into )riting 3# an*thing *o! p!t in )riting or dis#!ss internall* )o!ld 3e s!3/ to dis#los!re c. proof of malice $ith con incing clarity m!st sho) )ith #lear and #onvin#ing eviden#e that the D -ne) that their info )as in#orre#t or had a high degree of a)areness of its pro3a3le falsit* e independent appellate re ie$ appellate #ts m!st e%er#ise independent revie) to ass!re that the re'!ired proof has 3een presented )ith re'!ired #larit* 9 Bose #t held that app #t m!st #ond!#t de novo revie) 2his is not the normal r!le 3# these /!dges didn$t have the opport!nit* to )itness live testimon* at trial f. .ummary Audgment standard - Anderson . 8iberty 8obby #t held that the standard for #onsidering S/ motions m!st ta-e into a##t the 3!rden that P )ill have to meet at trial So standard is #lear and #onvin#ing #larit* 2. !roof of *alsity: Burden of !roof on ! - )epps ne)spaper p!3lished arti#les sa*ing that a #hain of stores and its o)ners )as #onne#ted )ith the mo3 State stat!te gave D 3!rden of proving tr!th 3!t S >t held that private Ps sho!ld 3ear the 3!rden of proving falsit* E. *alsity and (pinion: The !ress as Commentator - Mil+o ich 3ra)l at AS )restling mat#h >oa#h testified on 3ehalf of his s#hool ?eporter )ho )as at AS 3!t not at hearing )rote arti#le sa*ing that #oa#h lied on stand >oa#h s!ed for defamation State #t holds that this spee#h )as #onst prote#ted 3!t the s #t reversed sa*ing that some e%pressions of opinion impl* assertion of fa#t - (llman " fa#tors to determine )hether something is falsit* or opinion o 2he #ommon !sage4meaning of the spe#ifi# lang!age of the #hallenged statement o 2he statement verifia3ilit* it the statement #apa3le of 3eing o3/e#tivel* #hara#teri=ed as tr!e or false o 2he f!ll #onte%t of the statement o 2he 3roader #onte%t4setting in )hi#h statement appears *. ,epublication: The !ress as ,epeater 9 ?ep!3li#ation is treated li-e p!3li#ation ?epetition of defamator* material is #onsidered to 3e a ne) p!3li#ation and the repeater is a p!3lisher )ho is /!st as lia3le as if he originated the defamator* statement 2he rationale for this is that other)ise the media )o!ld defame at )ill merel* 3* finding someone to )hom the* #an attri3!te the defamator* statements 1.!ublishers and "istributors Beran message posted on Aol advertising gross 2-shirts )ith Ps n!m3er P tried to get A@L to remove ad and the* didn$t respond a##!ratel* Aol said it )asn$t lia3le 3# stat!te prote#ted them P #laimed that stat!te prote#ted p!3lishers not distri3!tors and that A@L )as a distri3!tor >t disagreed& holding that A@L )as a p!3lisher (th!s it )asn$t lia3le, Blumenthal . "rudge #o!rt prote#ted A@L even tho!gh it paid the a!thor to )rite the Dr!dge ?eport& and it retained rights to edit the material Altho!gh A@L had a#tive role in ma-ing the #ontent availa3le >DA )as intended to prote#t ISPs so #o!rt rel!#tantl* dismissed #ase 2. /eutral ,eportage allo)s media to report #ertain things& even if defamator*& 3# the* are /!st repeating the ne)s 9Ed$ards #t held that )hen prominent organi=ation ma-es allegations& it$s the d!t* of the media to report in a ne!tral fashion and there sho!ld 3e a #onst priv prote#ting the right of the reporter and paper to report allegations )4o 3eing held lia3le for defamation
Diana Sanders
;. !rior ,estraints on "efamation 9 /ear . Minnesota 9 Tory . Chochran 2 tor* defamed >o#hran to get him to pa* him mone* >o!rt ordered permanent in/!n#tion pre#l!ding 2or* from displa*ing signs or spea-ing a3o!t >ho#hran 2or* arg!ed it )as a P? >o#hran died d!ring #ase& so #o!rt held in light of death& in/!n#tion )as over3road >ase didn$t address Near tho!gh 3hile it ma+es it sound li+e inAunctions are almost impossible in "ef casesC they may be upheld if there is a plausible Austification. ). 1urisdiction and 8ibel Tourism &eeton . )ustler Mag allo)s state /!r even if < has minimal #ir#!lation in a state Internet Content 2 to limit /!r& some #o!rts find )here internet !sers )gi a#tivel* do 3!siness )ith #!stomers in the for!m state 8ibel Tourism 2 P$s attempt to for!m shop for a /!r )ith the most favora3le li3el la)s .ecuring the !rotection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional )eritage Act domesti# #o!rts shall not re#ogni=e or enfor#e a foreign /!dgment for defamation !nless the part* see-ing enfor#ement esta3lishes either (1, the foreign la) provided as m!#h prote#tion as 1A and state def la)O or (2, D )o!ld have 3een fo!nd lia3le 3* a domesti# #o!rt appl*ing 1A and state la) I. ,eform and !roposed ,eform - li3el ins!ran#e - proposal to #!t 3a#- on s#ope of prote#tion offered 3* Lert= and S!llivan - proposed de#larator* /!dgment a#tion that permits de#iding if statement )as tr!e or false )itho!t addressing fa!lt - proposed retra#tion and repl* as )a* to red!#e harm done
Diana Sanders
III. !rotecting !ri acy !ri acy rightsC li+e "efamation is personC so it doesnDt ha e sur i orship A. !ublic "isclosure of !ri ate *acts no >@A !nless dis#los!re )o!ld 3e highl* offensive to a person of res sensi3ilities and is of no legit p!3li# #on#ern 1. /ature of the Tort statements are tr!e 3!t em3arrassing Changing ie$ of $hat is public concern: - )aynes D p!3lished 3oo- a3o!t 3la#-s and slaver* in )hi#h he ma-es a referen#e to a )oman )hose h!s3and )as an al#oholi# and )ho 3eat her A!s3and s!ed for li3el and invasion of priva#* >t held that he had no #laim 3# )hat )as said )as s!3st tr!e Intimate details )eren$t dis#losed (this is the 3iggest #laim to priva#*, Aa*nes$s 3ehavior )as important to stor*& #onne#ted themes of povert*& govt& ghetto o !roposition that people $ho donDt desire limelight ha e no legal right to e0tinguish it if their e0periences are ne$s$orthy. 2 !ublic interest trumps pri ate 1A right. "o !ublic *igures ha e this right5 - 1es 2here is no formal distin#tion 34) private and p!3li# fig!res in priva#* la) !nli-e in defamation +92 the s#ope of legit p!3li# #!riosit* is )ider )hen the s!3/e#t is a p!3li# fig!re - .ipple 3oo- dis#losed that P )as ga* >t granted SD for D 3# fa#ts )ere not private and the* )ere ne)s)orth* sho)ed ho) president felt to)ards ga* people ,eAecting the !ri acy ,ight - ,oberton = /: .tatute 01 re/e#ts #ommon la) remedies for invasion of priva#* In 01& onl* remed* for an* of the " t*pes of tort!o!s invasions of priva#* is a stat!te that permits a#tions for damages and in/!n#tions for !na!thori=ed !se of person$s name or li-eness 3!t onl* if the !se is Ffor advertising p!rposes or for the p!rposes of trade G 2. 1A "efense E.till no ans$er as to $hether truthful publications may e er be subAected to ci il or criminal liability - Co0 Broadcasting . Cohn LA #rim stat!te made it a misdemeanor to identif* an* female )ho had 3een raped ?eporter !sed it& vi#tims father 3ro!ght a#tion >o!rt held that on#e tr!e info is dis#losed in p!3li# #o!rt do#s open to p!3li# inspe#tion& press #an$t 3e san#tioned for p!3lishing it o Emphasi<es important role of press in Audicial proceedings by subAecting it to public scrutiny to ensure its fairness - *8 .tar . B1* ne)spaper released name of rape vi#tim after the* got info from press room of the poli#e dept Disting!ished from Cox 3e#a!se this )asn$t a trial *et& no s!spe#t and name not o3tained from p!3li# #o!rt re#ords - govt #ant p!nish the tr!thf!l p!3li#ation of info on a matter of p!3li# interest if it )as o3tained la)f!ll*, It )as the PDs fa!lt for allo)ing the press a##ess to +D<s name - #t applies high tier Dail* Meal test. if paper o3tains info that is o (1, tr!thf!l o (2,la)f!ll* o3tained 3* the press and Barnic+i 1A doesn$t ne#essaril* prote#t info la)f!ll* o3tained * p!3lisher from so!r#es that p!3lisher -no)s o3tained it !nla)f!ll* .ee also /e$sgathering TortsC infra o (:, matter of p!3li# #on#ern o a3sent a need to f!rther a state interest of the highest order - A@LDI0L. )here a ne)spaper p!3lishes tr!thf!l info )hi#h it has la)f!ll* o3tained& p!nishment ma* la)f!ll* 3e imposed& if at all& onl* )hen narro)l* tailored to a state interest of the highest order& and that no s!#h interest is satisfa#toril* served 3* imposing lia3ilit* here - Sims says problem here is that court considers name of victim as a matter of public concern. Is it - EnAoyining !ri acy In asions o Altho!gh an a)ard for damages #annot re#apt!re lost priva#*& and litigation is li-el* to #a!se f!rther loss of priva#*& #o!rts are rel!#tant to iss!e in/!n#tions ?ather& a damages a#tion for defamation or priva#* is so!ght
Diana Sanders
10
B. *alse 8ight !ri acy #ases involving false #harges that pla#e P in a false light 3!t do not harm his rep!tation so as to permit an a#tion for defamation ItDs li+e a hybrid defamation P tr!e fa#ts revelation "oes .ulli anDs Malice applyQ :E. on matters of public concern - Time . )ill (16N7, famil* held hostage Press falsel* reports that their #aptors )ere violent >t treats #ase as #lassi# defamation pro3lem and imposes mali#e re'!irement >t holds that there #o!ld 3e no lia3ilit* !nless the falsit* )as either deli3erate or re#-less sin#e the press has #onst privilege to #omment on matters of p!3li# #on#ern o >ase is more similar to Lert= then to S!llivan& ho)ever& 3# the famil* is a private P )ho )as involved in a p!3li# matter (3!t Lert= not o!t till 167", - Cantrell . *orest City (167", >antrell famil* feat!red in a maga=ine stor* after h!s3and dies in 3ridge #ollapse ?eporter )rote a3o!t povert* and 3ad #ondition famil* lives in no) (in effort to do#!ment lives of families after #ollapse, 3!t she lied a3o!t some st!ff (e% Mother )asn$t home, <amil* 3ro!ght #ase #laiming the* s!ffered o!trage& h!miliation and shame o >o!rt appeared to appl* a >L mali#e (not 012 mali#e, standard& finding that paper -ne) a3o!t the falsehoods and p!3lished an*)a* so therefore lia3le It sho)s that it )as ine%pli#itl*4I0DI?E>2L1 appl*ing a Lert= t*pe of standard >o!rt has not dire#tl* addressed )ither private Ps in matters of p!3li# #on#ern that are depi#ted in false light sho!ld re#over )4o proof of a#t!al mali#e Silen#e 3* >o!rt on S!llivan4Lert= (private P, distin#tion has left lo)er #o!rts #onf!sed ,estatement of Torts FG62E lia3ilit* for invasion of priva#* for pla#ing the P in a false light ma* e%ist if the D a#ted )ith R of falsit* of statement or in ? disregard as to the tr!th or falsit* this leaves open the S of )hether there ma* 3e lia3ilit* 3ased on a sho)ing of 0 as to tr!th4falsit* C. Appropriation #,ights of !ublicity% #laims that involve attempts to #ontrol #ele3$s names& li-eness and fame and an* T val!e res!lting therefrom 2he remed* is #onfined almost e%#l!sivel* to #ommer#ial e%ploitation (!na!thori=ed !se of #ele3$s pi#t!re in an ad or endorsement, So it$s !s!all* relevant to media in their advertising depts 6 states prote#t a #ele3s right of p!3li#it* after his death 16 states have p!3li#it* stat!tes or adopt it thro!gh >L 01 re#ogni=ed 3* stat!te o Stefano #ase Common 8a$ ,ecognition Haelan v. Topps Chewing Gum 3ase3all pla*er li#ensed his name to g!m to promote& then a #ompeting g!m man!f ind!#ed him to sign a deal >o!rt re#ogni=ed pla*er$s right to #ontrol #ommer#ial !se of his name "ifference b@$ the other pri acy rights this is li-e a priva#* A0D propert* right 2herefore& sin#e it$s li-e a propert* right& it is inherita3le Aeirs of the famo!s person #an prevent !na!thori=ed e%ploitation of a famo!s person 3ased on rights of p!3li#it* Priva#* rights& ho)ever& are personal and individ!al so don s!rvive death 2he interest prote#ted is different here it is an e%#l!sive !se& rather than invasion of something se#ret o Toffolini v. LFP Publishing (h!stler !n#overs and p!3lishes n!de pi#t!res of famo!s )restler$s )ife after she died 0o ne)s)orth* e%#eption here 34# death )as in#idental to pi#s it )as all a3o!t the n!de pi#s& 0@2 the a##o!nt of her death , F 9nli-e intr!sion& dis#los!re or false light& appropriation doesn$t re'!ire the invasion of something se#ret& se#l!ded or priate pertaining to P& not does it involve falsit* 2he interest prote#ted is not so m!#h a mental as a proprietar* one& in the e%l!sive !se of P$s name and li-eness as an aspe#t of his identit* E0ception to consent re4uirement ne$s$orthiness 2o report matters of p!3li# #on#ern& one$s name and li-eness #an 3e !sed .tate .tatutes E0pand the Tort Cali ,ight of !ublicity .tatute o >an s!e if name and li-eness is !sed for p!rposes of advertising In#idental !se gets re3!tta3le
Diana Sanders
11
pres!mption against need for #onsent 0e)s& p!3li# affairs don$t need #onsent .ound ali+es Count too o !ette "idler v. #ord "otor Company (6th >ir 1688, ad #o as-ed +ette to !se her voi#e for their #ar ad 3!t she ref!sed 2he* then )ent to her 3a#-!p singer and told her to sing /!st li-e +ette She s!ed Midler )on the #ase even tho!gh ad #o se#!red a li#ense from the U o)ner of the song and o)ned all the rights to the ne) re#oring FWhen a distin#tive voi#e of a professional singer is )idel* -no)n and is deli3eratel* imitated in order to sell a prod!#t& the sellers have appropriated )hat is not theirs and have #ommitted a tort in >alifornia V -irtual@digital actors that soundC mo e = loo+ li+e fam person count too o Vana White v. Samsung (6th #ir 1662, Sams!ng had ;>? add !sing virt!al ;ana and )heel of fort!ne She s!ed for right of p!3li#it* and #o!rt fo!nd S of fa#t to overt!rn SD
1A Affirmati e "efense. Transformati e Hse. Even if the spee#h is #ommer#ial& #an sho) it has signifi#ant transformative elements or that the val!e of the )or- doesn$t derive primaril* from the #i#3rit*$s fame Comed !!! P"odu#tions And* Warhol$s images !sing #ele3rities #onve*ed a message 3e*ond the e%ploitation It )as an form or ironi# so#ial #omment on the deh!mani=ation of #ele3rit* itself Hi#$s v. Casablan#a heirs of Agatha >hristie )anted to stop the 3oo- and movie a3o!t her >o!rt finds that the right of p!3li#it* does not atta#h here& )here a fi#tionali=ed a##o!nt of an event in the life of a p!3li# fig!re is depi#ted in a novel or a movie& and in s!#h novel or movie it is evident to the p!3li# that the events so depi#ted are fi#titio!s Hnauthori<ed Co erage of Entertainment Acts %a##hini ne)s aired entire #annon3all performan#e >o!rt ass!med ?@P )o!ld tr!mp 1A and held for 5a#hinni sa*ing it )as li-e getting #onsent for !sing U )or- It )asn$t a3o!t h!rting the rep for #ommer#ial prod!#t as m!#h as it )as a3o!t appropriation of the ver* a#tivit* 3* )hi#h the entertainer a#'!ired that rep in the first pla#e .elf !romotion by Media A p!3li#ations !se of an earlier stor* to advertise its o)n prod!#t doesn$t #ome )ithin Fadvertising p!rposesG &ooth Aolida* mag p!3lished an attra#tive pi# of Shirle* +ooth in a stor* a3o!t a resort Months later& Aolida* too- o!t add in 0e) 1or-er and reprinted the +ooth photo as a sample of its #ontent >o!rt held that the photo )as in#idental& nothing in ad s!ggested P endorsed the mag *alse or Misleading !romotional Material @verlap )ith <alse Light Depi#tionQ o >her >ase share gave intervie) to mag reserving right to de#line p!3li#ation and she did 3!t mag sold stor* to 2 other mags )ho ran it She re#overed onl* from one that made 3elieve the* )ere intervie)ing her& )hi#h )as patentl* false !nder 2ime v Aill 2he other one tho!gh )as /!st an e%#erpt of the intervie)& )hi#h )as oData Prote#tion Stat!tes
Diana Sanders
12
I; 8iability *or EmotionalC Economic and !hysical )arm A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional "istress ?efers to #ond!#t )4 no other p!rpose 3!t to infli#t ED& or goes 3e*ond tolera3le #ond!#t 1. By Means of .atire of !ublic *igures /( C(A - )ustler . *al$ell 1688 ad /o-ing that the 1st time <al)ell had se% it )as )ith his mom in an o!tho!se 0ot a defamation #ase 3# there )as no serio!s assertion of fa#t that an*one )o!ld$ve ta-en serio!sl* Aolds that p!3li# fig!res are fair game for parodies and satires 2he onl* )a* for a p!3li# fig!re to re#over !nder IIED is for the p!3li#ation to 3e false and made )ith a#t!al mali#e (S!llivan, #an$t end-r!n defamation 2. By Means of "efamation of !ublic *igures /( "E*C /( IIE" - Aatfill v 01 2008 012 p!3lished arti#le falsel* a##!sing Aatfil of sending anthra% that -illed E people after 611 Ae s!ed #ol!mnist& 3!t #t fo!nd #ol!mnist )as a limited p!rpose p!3li# fig!re and there )as no a#t!al mali#e& so also no eviden#e pro3a3l* of sho)ing IIED '. By !ic+eting !ri ate E ents to "irect !ublic Attention to !olitical Causes >of public concern? !,(TECTE" 9 .nyder . !helps 2771 +aptist #h!r#h had a '!iet and pea#ef!l protest a3o!t Lod p!nishes Ameri#a for tolerating homose%!alit* d!ring a Leneral$s f!neral <ather #laimed IIED for distress and ina3ilit* to separate tho!ghts of son from pi#-eting >o!rt said it )asn$t an iss!e of fa#ts& 3!t )hether it )as a matter of p!3li# #on#ern& )hi#h it )as M!st ma-e an independent e%amination of the #ontent form and #onte%t of spee#h Sin#e it )as a matter of P>& the* )ere on p!3li# propert* and )ere pea#f!#& it$s prote#ted spee#h I. By !ublicly Insulting a !ri ate !erson ,egarding Matter /(T of !ublic Concern CA/ ,EC(-E, a Esposito9)ilder 2 radio station #alled 3ride the F!gliest 3rideG and pro#eeded )ith h!miliating #ommentar* 0o Def 3e#a!se it$s opinion >t allo)ed #ase sa*ing it$s. 1 She$s not a p!3li# fig!reO 2 0ot a matter of P>O 2 D$s #ond!#t sho)d intentional intent to infli#t in/!r on her 6. By !ublishing the name of a $itness to a iolent crime $hen the perpetrator is still at large and unidentified CA/ ,EC(-E, a Times Mirror #not scotus% 2 ne)spaper p!3lished name of girl that dis#overed dead 3od* and sa) the perpetrator >t denied SD to D (then then parties settled, finding name of )itness not to ne#essaril* 3e p!3li# information and m!st 3alan#e state interest in prote#ting )itnesses& sin#e then the*$d 3e rel!#tant to provide info G. By ad ocating iolence against a group a Citi<ens publishing . Miller #not scotus% P s!ed on 3ehalf of all m!slims for arti#le sa*ing )e sho!ld e%e#!te m!slims >o!rt denied a#tion& finding tort lia3ilit* onl* for fighting )ords& in#itement& or tr!e threat 2here )as no imminen#e here B. /egligent Infliction of Emotional "istress - lia3ilit* still limited and !n#ertain - some #o!rts /!st allo) re#over* for famil* mem3ers )itnessing in/!r* or death - )o$ell . /: !ost photographer trespassed ps*#h )ard and got pi# of 0!ss3a!m (#harged )ith -illing his -id, )ith another !n-no)n patient >o!rt fo!nd that photog$s #ond!#t )asn$t 2AA2 o!trageo!s not Fatro#io!s& inde#ent& and !tterl* despi#a3le as to meet the rigoro!s re'!irements of IIED C. Economic )arm most #ases agst the media for e#on harm involve loss s!ffered 3* a reader or vie)er )ho relied on the #ontent of a report to his4her detriment (3!t see >ohen harm to part*, 1. Breach of !romise - Leneral appli#a3le la)s don$t offend 1A simpl* 3e#a!se their enfor#ement against press has in#idental effe#ts on its a3ilit* to gather and report ne)s o Press gets no spe#ial imm!nit* from general app la)s (not la)s that single o!t press, - Cohen P? #ons!ltant to rep!3 part* offered reporters (on #ondition that the so!r#e not 3e dis#losed, do#!ments sho)ing that the demo#rati# #andidate had a prior shoplifting #onvi#tion 9pon f!rther investigation& it )as fo!nd that the info )as e%aggerated and the reporters
Diana Sanders
1:
dis#losed >ohen$s name )hi#h res!lted in him losing his /o3 >t held that media didn$t have right to 3rea- -4promise of anon*mit* (so promissor* estoppel )or-s here, >t relies on <L Star (high tier anal*sis of govt a#tion if info la)f!ll* o3tained and of p!3li# #on#ern, In this #ase the info )as of p!3li# #on#ern 3!t )as it la)f!ll* o3tainedQ o Also 2 this $as a self imposed restriction so they shouldnDt pretend to get info then be protected: if you ma+e promisesC you got to +eep them. 2. /egligence Leneral tort r!le. one )ho 0 s!pplies false infor !sed 3* others in 3!siness is onl* lia3le to those )ho he intends to infl!en#e ;utter . "o$ 1ones )all st /o!rnal made a mista-e in its listing of #orp 3onds L!tter #laimed that he relied on this in#orre#t info and th!s lost mone* S!it is 3ro!ght on theor* of negl misrepresentation >t finds that /o!rnal sho!ld not 3e held lia3le 3# the prote#tions of the 1st A do not allo) for lia3ilit* for negl misstatements of fa#ts
'. "isparagement harm to the #ommer#ial val!e of a prod!#t or other propert* (rather than a person, C(A is for pecuniary loss caused by falsehood that def: #1% should recogni<e is li+ely to harm the alue of the propertyJ and #2% ma+es $ith , disregard #or &% of falsity. Media action must be >of and concerning? the ! - Blatty . /:T P$s 3oo- )as omitted from 012 3est seller list >t said sing P )asn$t named at all& it )asn$t Fof and #on#erningG him At most it #o!ld 3e 0& 3!t that$s not eno!gh Au il . CB. N0 min!tes had segment on the dangers of Washington State apples 2he rea#tion )as so great that man* #rop gro)ers #o!ldn$t sell their apples 2he* s!ed >+S >t held for >+S ()ho #laimed ne!tral reportage prin#iple the* )ere rel*ing on govt do#!ments, In response to this #ase man* states passed disparagement stat!tes that info m!st 3e 3ased on relia3le s#ientifi# fa#ts
-eggie 8ibel 8a$s - State spe#ifi#& 3!t generall* allo)s a #oa for prod!#ers of perisha3le goods to s!e an*one )ho damages the prod!#er 3* )illf!ll* or mali#io!sl* disseminating false information that a food prod!#t is not safe for h!man #ons!mption - Te0as Beef ;roup . (prah 3infrey she had sho) a3o!t mad #o) diseaseO someone said it$s 3ad in 9S and she said she$ll never eat another ham3!rger >attle prod!#ers s!ed Eth >ir Aeld for her sa*ing the sho)$s pepople didn$t -no) of the falsit* of the statements made a3o!t mad #o) disease So no R or ? as to falsit* ". !hysical )arm 1. "angerous and@or Erroneous Instructions - )erceg . )ustler as )ell as an o3s#enit* #ase& this #ase #an 3e #lassified as an e%ample of dangero!s or !nla)f!l instr!#tion It gives #lear instr!#tions 3!t )arns agst follo)ing them - 3inters . Authors m!shroom #ase )here the* ma-e a mista-e on )hi#h m!shrooms are poisono!s and people rel* on this and eat the dangero!s m!shrooms >t holds that p!3lishers are generall* not lia3le 3# it )o!ld go 3e*ond negl and 3e stri#t lia3ilit*4prod!#ts lia3ilit* 2he onl* p!3li#ations that are treated li-e prod!#ts lia3ilit*4stri#t lia3ilit* )here p!3lishers are lia3le are for maps 2. >Inspiration?: Imitation and Mood .hifts - Imitation @livia v 0+> )oman raped 3* #o-e 3ottle and the perp sa*s that he got the idea from a movie ;i#tim s!ed ma-er of movie >t held that prod!#ers not lia3le if !na3le to prove in#itement - "ood Shift - )here people vie) movies a3o!t gang violen#e and then the* go #ommit a#ts of violen#e on the )a* home - $ttracted violence if *o! are sho)ing a movie )ith violen#e it #an 3e forseen that it ma* attra#t a #ertain t*pe of person into the neigh3orhood to vie) it a. "istinguish E0hortation and Incitement
Diana Sanders
1"
9 3eirum e%hortation #ase @n the air a DD anno!n#ed )here a pri=e van )as and that the fist listener to get to it )o!ld )in a pri=e A listener for#ed someone off the road& -illing him& on his )a* to the van 2his #ase falls !nder +randen3!rg 3# DD in#ited !nla)f!l driving 3* !rging listeners to ra#e to the pri=e van (impli#it not e%press, 2he #o!nter arg!ment is that he didn$t e%pli#itl* sa* to drive !nla)f!ll* '. *acilitation of Criminal and@or Tortious Acts a. Aiding and Abetting: Criminal Instructions 9 ,ice . !aladin : people -illed 3* hitman Iss!e J )hether p!3lisher of the 3oo- Fho) to 3e a hit manG is lia3le P!3lisher #on#eded that he intended 3oo- to 3e instr!#tion man!al >ase sho!ld go !nder +randen3!rg 3!t it #ant 3# it la#-s the imminen#e prong b. /egligence a Endangering ,e elations in these : #ases& #t fo!nd for P - )yde rape vi#tims name )as inadvertentl* released 3* the press and her assailant is at large - TimesMirror )oman #omes home to find her roommate m!rdered and the assailant r!ns o!t Aer name is p!3lished and she #laims to 3e harassed after that& - .anche<9"uran man tr*ing to ass!me ne) identit* 3# dr!g lords after him Ais name& )here he )as& and that he )as 3eing p!rs!ed )as p!3lished D #laimed that it )as matter of p!3li# #on#ern to his neigh3ors that he might 3e -illed 3 Criminal Ad ertisements pro3lem )ith the follo)ing #ases is that the* are #ommer#ial spee#h Ma*3e )e sho!ld fo#!s more on the fa#t that its loo-ing for illegal servi#es rather then the fa#t that its #ommer#ial spee#h - Braun . .oldier of *ortune D fo!nd lia3le Savage ran arti#le in maga=ine offering his servi#es as a g!n for hire& sa*ing that all /o3s )o!ld 3e #onsidered >t held that if an ad on its fa#e )o!ld alert a reasona3l* pr!dent p!3lisher that the goal 3ehind this as is a serio!s #rime then there$s no 1st A prote#tion - Eimann similar to a3ove& 3!t ad )as ne!tral on its fa#e >t held that p!3lishers do not o)e a d!t* to refrain from printing #lassified advertisements that are fa#iall* inno#!o!s
Diana Sanders
1E
-. Copyright doesn$t prote#t the idea& 3!t the a!thor$s e%pression of the idea Po)er of the o)ner is to prevent reprod!#tion and distri3!tion of their )or-s of e%pression !o$er granted in Article IC .ection K of the constitution. !rotection: a!thor$s ForiginalG e%pression of an idea that is fi%ed in an* tangi3le medi!m of e%pression - E0pression: *or literary $or+s 2he total #on#ept and feel& theme& #hara#ters& plot& se'!en#e& pa#e and setting E0clusi e rights: reprod!#e& adapt& distri3!te& p!3li#all* perform& p!3li#all* displa* the )or- doesn$t need to 3e p!3lished - no prote#tion for an idea or fa#ts - see generall* *eist - )eoling 9 person )rote h% of Ainden3!rg& and P #laimed that a!thor stole his a##o!nt of the disaster +ooevent!all* 3e#ame movie and P s!ed a!thor and prod!#er >t held that there #o!ld 3e no theft for Ps idea idea is in the p!3li# domain P #o!ld$ve #laimed that his e%pression )as stolen 3!t he didn$t do so - Amistad ,egistration: not re'!ired 3!t re#ommended for litigation strateg* ?egister )4 Li3rar* of >ongress to p!t U offi#e on noti#e >an get stat!tor* damages "uration: Life of a!thor P 70 *ears If organi=ation. 120 *ears from #reation or 6E *ears after p!3li#ation )hi#hever e%pires first !enalties for infringement - in/!n#tions - impo!ndment and destr!#tion of infringing #opies - a#t!al damages and lost profits - stat damages !p to T100R per infringement - >riminal penalties for )illf!l infringement and for #ommer#ial advantage or private gain
Diana Sanders
1N
C(!:,I;)T 8A3 A/" MA.. ME"IA A. ($nership o)nership initiall* invests in the #reator of the )or- (e%#ept )hen a )or- is made for hire then the emplo*er is the o)ner, Media organi=ations are normall* the o)ner of #op*right in p!3li#ations43road#asts #reated 3* its emplo*ees a W<A either 3* emplo*ee )4I s#ope of emplo*ement& or spe#ifi#all* #ommissioned See 3elo) b. Employee relationship is determined by the C8 of agency i CC/- . ,eid a s#!lptor )ho #reated a s#!lpt!re for >>0; )as not an emplo*ee even tho!gh he )as engaged spe#ifi#all* to #reate the )or- and did so in #onforman#e )ith >>0;$s #on#ept and general design ideas c. !ublishing or bcasting org o$nes L if it meets re4s of 172 i It )as spe#ifi#all* ordered or #ommissioned ii It )as #reated as a #ontri3!tion to one of the -inds of )or- des#ri3ed in the stat!te iii 2he parties agree in )riting that it has to 3e #onsidered a W<A d If p!3lisher doesn$t meet this& then the onl* have rights from R )ith freelan#er !s!all* right of first p!3li#ation onl* e. ,ight of creator@author to recapture licensed or assigned $or+s after '6 years not$ithstanding contrary terms in the contracts 1M H...C 27' i If #ontri3!tion is neither W<A or emplo*ee )or-& a!thor of #olle#tive )or- retains o)nership P!3lisher #an onl* !se it in the #olle#tive )or-& and even so& the #reator #an re#laim after :E *ears ii 2his also applies to <reelan#e )or- made availa3le in ele#troni# data3ases 1 /:T . Tassini p!3lisher #laimed the E-p!3li#ation to 3e revision )ithin 201& 3!t #o!rt said no 3e#a!se the data3ase permitted retrieval on an arti#le-3*-arti#le 3asis It )asn$t /!st a #onversion of a periodi#al so it )o!ld override the a!thor$s e%#l!sive right to individ!al reprod!#tion and distri3!tion a 0ote that 3* 2assini& p!3lishers R-ed to a#'!ired e-data3ase rights B. *air Hse one #an legall* reprod!#e #op*righted )or-s for the p!rpose of #riti#ism& #omment& ne)s reporting& tea#hing& s#holarship or resear#h 1. Codification #F17M% 2 stat!te applies to )or-s p!3lished after 141478 2he #op*right s!rvives 70 *rs after a!thor dies or 6E *ears after p!3li#ation 2. *actors to 3e #onsidered )hen determining )hether the !se of a #op*righter )or- #onstit!tes fair !se. a. p!rpose and #hara#ter of the !se& in#l!ding )hether s!#h !se is of a #ommer#ial nat!re or is for nonprofit ed!#ation p!rposes b. nat!re of the #op*righted )orc. the amo!nt and s!3stantialit* of the portion !sed in relation to the )oras a )hole d. 2he potential effe#t on the mar-et val!e (or potential mar-et val!e, of the #op*righted )or- (W this is the most important fa#tor, '. ,ight of *irst !ublication - a 3road theme in the follo)ing #ases is )hat the relationship is 3t)n the 1st A and #op*right la) !sing U la) to s!ppress information a E%tent of !se of '!otations as <9 #an$t !se Fheart X so!l of 3oo-G a )arper and ,o$ #*ord Memoirs% !np!3lished man!s#ript of <ord$s a!to3iograph* Aarper is the p!3lisher and it made a R )ith 2ime mag that the* #o!ld previe) the 3oo- 0ation mag got a hold of the man!s#ript and p!3lished e%#erpts of the man!s#ript )4o permission 2ime #an#els R )ith Aarper Aarper s!es 0ation for infringement of U Lo)er #t loo-ed to fa#tor #& and held that 3# s!#h a lo) I of the 3oo- )as !sed& it sho!ld 3e prote#ted !nder the <air !se do#trine S >t disagreed and said that *o! #ant /!st loo- at the n!m3ers m!st loo- and see if the Fheart and so!lG of the 3oo- )as stolen 2he* held that it )as and th!s 0ation is lia3le 0ation arg!es that 1st A re'!ires greater prote#tion then is offered in Y107 >t re/e#ts this arg!ment sa*ing that 1st A iss!es )ere alread* ta-en into #onsideration 3* the drafters of Y107 i (<9 prote#tion !nder Y107 MJ1A prote#tion, W#reated 3road pres!mption agst finding fair !se for !np!3lished )or3 Paraphrasing !np!3lished letters is 0@2 o- It prevents a!thor from de#iding to p!3lisher in the f!t!re a .alinger Salinger (P, )rote letters )hi#h )ere later donated to a li3rar* D !sed the letters in an !na!th 3iograph* P see-s in/!n#tion to stop p!3li#ation P o)ns the U in the e%pression of
Diana Sanders
17
the letters 3# he is the a!thor 3!t the re#ipient of the letters has ph*si#al possession and th!s #an do )hat the* please )ith them Aigher #t granted in/!n#t 3# of fa#tor H" even to!gh P did not intend to p!3lish the letters he #o!ld #hange his mind or his heirs ma* )ant to do so # /e$ Era #8. ,on )ubbard% !nflattering !na!th 3iograph* that relied on !np!3lished diaries and letters )ritten 3* A!33ard (s#ientolog*, *ears ago A!33ard so!ght in/!n#tion to prevent p!3li#ation Same lo)er #t as in Salinger #t denied in/!n#tion here too In/!n#tion denied 3# #t holds that it )as <9 and 3# of la#hes (A!33ard )aited too long to see- in/!n#tion, Also 3e#a!se of serio!s 1A impli#ation p!3li# interest in #riti#al 3ios 2nd #ir /!dges affirmed the denial of the in/!n#t 3ased on la#hes 3!t disagreed that it )as <9 a. "istinguishing b@$ published and unpublished $or+s i 0e) Era 1660 another 3io that onl* !sed A!33ard$s p!3lished )ritings 2d >ir denied in/!n#tion and fo!nd all passage to 3e prote#ted 3* <9 3e#a!se the* )ere more fa#t!al than #reative and '!oted te%t )asn$t the FheartG of the pie#e A!thor$s p!rpose )asn$t to appropriate his )or-& 3!t to sho) the #h!r#h )as a dangero!s #!lt, W real pro3lem )ith Salinger and 0e) Era is that the Ps are p!3li# fig!res and the mali#e standard gives media the li3ert* to defame the private lives of p!3li# fig!res (espe#iall* A!33ard )ho stepped into limelight 3* #reating o)n religion, d DN2 Amendment fa#t that )or- is !np!3lished )ill not 3ar a #laim of fair !se C. *irst Amendment Implications of Copyright Enforcement: 1. Tension b@$ long L protection = 1A - Eldred . Ashcroft 277' #t re/e#ts that U e%tension to 70*rsPdeath )as violation sa*ing that U la) #ontains 3!ilt in 1A a##ommodations onl* prote#ts e%pression (not ideas, and allo)s do <9 o Breyer dissents sa*ing the stat!te sho!ldn$t ne#essaril* get intermediate s#r!tin* and )hile it ma* 3enefit finan#ial interests of heirs& it )on$t 3enefit p!3li# 2. 3hen 1A Interests Trump L - 0ote that it !s!all* doesn$t& as an a!thor$s e%pression of an idea is not #onsidered s!3/e#t to the p!3li#$s Fright to -no) G - Time . Bernard ;eis P ref!sed to grant li#ense to D for !se of pi#s from film on assassination of Pres Renned* for his st!d*& so D prepared s-et#hes of it and admitted to #op*ing from the film >t fo!nd <9 3e#a!se the 3oo- )o!ldn$t li-el* h!rt P$s sales of f!t!re 3oo-s or films Ct considered the importance of copying the e0pression b@c of difficulty of paraphrasing and the central importance of the film. '. EnAoining Infringement: $hy inAunctions not disfa ored here5 a Salin%er ma-es #lear that in/!n#tions are not disfavored in U la) >o!rt does in fa#t en/oin (see Napster& Tassini, altho!gh it does admit that it isn$t al)a*s proper (Cambell, 2his poses a signifi#ant pro3lem b. 8emley = -olo+h article there are no pers!asive distin#tions 34) preliminar* in/!n#tions in U infringement and other prior restraints - #an go either )a*. either in/!n#tions sho!ld 3e more )idel* permitted din other #onte%ts& or prior restraints sho!ld 3e applied to U in/!n#tions - some of the fa#tors the arti#le loo-s at are. o propert* rights #an have prop right in rep!tation X prop right in U o private enfor#ement li3el la) and U la) are 3oth !s!all* enfor#ed 3* private litigation o s!3/e#t matter of /eopardi=ed spee#h o #ontent ne!tralit* U la) isn$t #ontent ne!tral 34# it t!rns on #ontent of )hat$s p!3lished o U f!rthers free spee#h val!es #an limit spee#h 3efore it$s fo!nd to 3e a#t!all* infringing& th!s fr!strating free spee#h o U #la!se m!st 3e read s!3/e#t to 1A #onstraints o Importan#e of govt interest providing in#entive is #ompelling interest& 3!t so is prote#ting rep& et# o Irrepara3le Aarm U harm #an 3e repaired thr! damages& 3!t harm to rep #an$t o E%pression o3s#enit* is also e%pression 0@2E.
Diana Sanders
18
>op*right infrginment a#tion is !s!all* against the media When it$s on the internet ISPs are imm!ne per @>ILLA See end of o!tline& -I. /e$sgathering Torts level of prote#tion media re#eives diminishes sharpl* )hen tort o##!rs in the pro#ess of gathering information (rather then at p!3li#ation, A I/T,H.I(/ harm #a!sed 3* #ond!#t& not 3* the p!3li#ation of information WWnote that this is a priva#* #oa pre p!3li#ation Shulman v. G"oup W P"od 2; #amera taped a patient getting into a heli#opter& getting medi#al #are from flight n!rse d!ring e%tri#ation and transport to hospital >t denied SD for D& finding that there$s S of fa#t o Establishes the 2 elements: Intrusion into a pri ate placem con ersationC or matter Intentional penetration into the <one of pri acy Consider $hether person had a reasonable e0pectation of pri acy In manner highly offensi e to a reasonable person Galella v. 'nassis- @nassis see-s in/!n#tion to -eep Lallela (papara==i, a)a* 3# he$s harassing her >t granted in/!n#tion /!st 3# one is a p!3li# fig!re doesn$t mean that the* ma* 3e harassed (altho!gh normal a#ts )ithin the 3o!nds of ne)sgathering ma* not 3e restrained, o >rimes and torts #ommitted in ne)sgathering are 0@2 prote#ted Sande"s v. (&C reporter got /o3 at ps*#hi# hotline and re#orded #onvos or )or-ers o Even tho!gh it$s a )or-pla#e and others #an overhear #onvo& there is still a minim!m e%pe#tation of priva#* (not total, 3e#a!se p!3li# does not have !nfettered a##ess o Damages a)ard for intr!sion #an 3e in#reased if it is 3road#ast 3e#a!se the damages of the intr!sion are in#reased 3* the fa#t that it is 3road#ast Disting!ish from <L star )here info is la)f!ll* o3tained B. T,E..!A.. (ccurs $hen person enters property of another $@o authori<ation or consent Implied Consent 9 Flet#he" poli#e forget their #amera and as- press to ta-e pi#t!re of girl -illed in fire on private premises Pi#t!re is p!3lished and that$s ho) mom finds o!t her da!ghter dies Mom s!es for trespass& invasion of priva#* and IIED >t held that there is implied #onsent if poli#e #ome on *o!r prop media #an #ome along (th!s no trespass, o The media didnDt illegally enterJ not $idely follo$ed. 8e Minstral 01 resta!rant violated 01 health #odes Press films resta!rant )hile people are eating >t a)ards resta!rant #ompensator* damages o Even th!gh it$s a p!3li# a##ommodation& D didn$t avail themselves of this (no intent to 3!* food4drin-, o Leads !s to 3elieve if the* did p!r#hase& it )o!ld 3e o- this is no longer the #ase per #ood Lion C. EA-E.",(!!I/; A/" 3I,E TA!!I/; If you are $iretapping@ea esdropping 2 liable if reas e0pectation of pri acy o Sanders see a3ove If youDre publishing info you +no$ has been obtained by others tortuouslyC not only the tortfeaser but :(H as distributor are also liable: o Interceptor and distributor is liable: Boehner . Mcdermott the Martins (D1,& !sing a poli#e s#anner& overheard +oehner$s #ell phone #onversation Some of the info )o!ld 3e em3arrassing to Lingri#h& so the* get a hold of M#Dermott (D2, )ho gives #opies of the tape to the press >t holds that sin#e M#D got the tape from people )ho #ommitted an !nla)f!l a#t (the Martins, and he -ne) the* did so& he didnt o3tain the tape la)f!ll* and th!s sho!ld 3e held lia3le (disting!ish this from the la)f!ll* o3tained info in <L Star, >t !ses the intermediate tier @$+rien test (govts p!rpose m!st 3e something 3esides s!ppressing spee#h 3# the )iretapping stat!te is not in pla#e to s!ppress spee#h (it there to prote#t priva#*, the #t holds that the stat!te is #onst4passes the test, o Media is /(T liable so long as they played no role in illegal conduct and it is a matter of public concen: Bartnic+i . -(pper #71% illegal )ire inter#eption pla*ed on radio re !nion leader threats Priva#* #on#erns give )a* )hen 3alan#ed against the interest in p!3lishing legall* o3tained matters of p!3li# importan#e (Media got it legall,
Diana Sanders
16
ItDs a distinction b@$ pri ate and public concern 1, p!3li# iss!e (la3or disp!te, 2, defendant had no role in illegal inter#eption of #omm!ni#ation ". IA -iolations $hen Media !articipates in ;o t .er ice of .earch 3arrants Berger . )anlon 2 poli#e enter R )ith >00 to tape a sear#h )arrant in progress Poli#e had '!alified imm!nit* 3e#a!se #onst right against 3ringing media in )asn$t *et firml* esta3lished +!t Media #o!ldn$t lat#h on to govt imm!nit* >t loo-s at )hether there )as a R to #onspire 34) govt and private part* It )as done to 3enefit parties and govt a#ted to enhan#e entertainment rather than la) enfor#ement val!e So media lia3le for the trespass and IIED E. *raud and Breach of *iduciary "uty Taus . 8oftus *ood 8ion A+> reporters lie on appli#ation in order to get a /o3 at s!permar-et for p!rpose of filming an e%pose 2he* then 3road#ast program sho)ing mishandling of meat o !ress is liable for iolating la$s of general applicability #Cohen% 2resspass - It$s entr* into 3!siness& not home altho!gh the* )ere let in& the* e%#eeded their a!thorit* (3* e% Silming in non p!3li# areas averse to <L, >onsent is vitiated 3* an a#t that e%#eeds and a3!ses privilege of entr* +rea#h of lo*alt* fo!nd their interests )ere adverse to <L o *raud claim cannot stand 2he* #laimed the* hired 3ased on res!me misrep (not dis#losing the* )or- for A+>, 3!t #t sa*s it )as at )ill emplo*ement and the* )ere pa*ing them for the )or- the* )ere doing& 3ot 3e#a!se of statements on appli#ation o CanDt reco er !ublication damages the* tr* to get aro!nd proving a#t!al mali#e (the*$re p!3li# fig!res, for rep!tational damage 1A pre#l!des this re#over* !nless li3el re'!irements are met *. /E;8I;E/CE 0ormall* don$t permit lia3ilit* for p!3li#ation or 3road#ast !nless something more than ordinar* negligen#e o >o!rts are more re#eptive )ith ne)sgathering torts >o!rts )ill allo) lia3ilit* for F!n#ontrolla3le imp!lseG if 0 of D #a!ses him to #ommit s!i#ide Media #o!ld 3e lia3le for deaths and in/!ries of fed agents if the medial 0 alerted P to an impending raid on a se#t$s #ompo!nd +!t none of these #ases )ent an*)here& even tho the #laims )ere allo)ed ;. "AMA;E. >an re#over for ne)sgathering torts even if info is never p!3lished or 3road#ast ?e#over* depends on. o Does the tort la) allo) it 2 different vie)s on trespass damages. P!3li#ation damages not availa3le in a trespass #ase Damages are limited to o#onse'!n#es flo)ing from interferen#e )ith possession not for sepera3le a#ts more properl* allo#ated !nder other #ategories of lia3ilit* So damages are nominal and p!nitive onl* P!3li#ation damages are availa3le it in#l!des nonph*si#al harm s!3se'!ent to trespass @ther)ise trespasser en/o*s 3enefits of tort )4o f!ll* #ompensating P for loss o Does 1A permit it 1A does not prote#t tort!o!s ne)sgathering >ts are split tho a3o!t )hether 1A permits damages to 3e in#reased to ta-e into a##o!nt harm #a!sed 3* p!3li#ation Dietman& Sanders nothing in 1A is adversel* affe#ted 3* permitting damages for intr!sion to 3e enhan#ed 3* later p!3li#ation P entitled to re#over* of real harm Pierson v Dodd in/!r* from intr!sion and p!3li#ation sho!ld 3e separate P!3li#ation sho!ld loo- at )hether something is of p!3li# or private #on#ern If p!3li#& then the p!3li#ation has not invaded priva#* interests even tho!gh the #ond!#t !sed to o3tain info ma* have o <ood Lion. allo)ing p!3li#ation damages for tort!o!s ne)gathering )ill ena3le Ps to #ir#!mvent 1A o3sta#les the*$d fa#e if the* s!ed for p!3li#ation >an$t
Diana Sanders
20
re#over defamation t*pe damages !nder non rep!tational tort #laims )itho!t satisf*ing the stri#ter standard A Inducing Breach of & thin- a3o!t D W*gand and the movie the Insider (press pers!aded W*gand to 3rea- his R of #onfidentialit* and dis#lose that heads of to3a##o #o$s per/!red themselves, R terms that prevent emplo*ees from revealing per/!r* sho!ld 3e void agst p!3li# poli#* Loo- at other o!tlines
Diana Sanders
21
-II .ubpoenas and .earches A. ,eporterDs !ri ilege does the media en/o* the spe#ial priv of not having to div!lge its so!r#esQ 1. Is there a 1A Constitutional pri ilege5 /( 2 /( .C(TH. !,I-I8E;E Bran<burg #onsolidation of : #ases )here press ref!sed to reveal their so!r#es to fed and grand /!ries even tho!gh the* )ere s!3poenaed >t held that 1st A doesn$t prote#t press$s so!r#es from grand /!r* in'!iries (th!s press m!st dis#lose names of so!r#es, (doesn$t 3!* into #hilling effe#t arg!ment, o White )riting opinion sa*s media no diff than others (eg >ohen v Rahls, States #an ena#t their shield la)s if the* )ish o Po)ell$s #on#!rren#e& ho)ever& s!ggests that some sort of '!alifies priv remains (him P"dissenters, So he gives his vote to " /!sti#e ma/orit*& 3!t sa*s there$s privilege )hi#h means E /!sti#es are agreeing to privilege 2his is the opinion most shield la)s are 3ased !pon (li3erals, Sa*s that if the s!3poenad info is onl* remotel* related to the investigation& reporter #an move to '!ash o disting!ish from >ohen 3# this #ase is a3o!t govt enfor#ement of the la) In >ohen& a#tion is 3ro!ght 3* the so!r#e and the press vol!ntaril* revealed the so!r#es name to the p!3li# 2. Is there a common la$ pri ilege 3* 2002& all 3!t one federal #ir#!it #o!rt re#ogni=ed some '!alified #onstit!tional or federal #ommon la) privilege 2he* mostl* read !ran&bur%'s #on#!rren#es and dissent to esta3lish some privilege '. .tatutory !ri ileges State Shield La)s !ran&bur% had no effe#t on the 17 state shield la) stat!tes alread* in e%isten#e +* 2011& 22 more states ena#ted them <ederal Shield La)s over 100 3ills to ena#t have 3een filed in #ongress& 3!t none have 3een passed mostl* 3e#a!se of the media$s ina3ilit* to agree to terms 2he* )ere #lose to it re#entl*& 3!t Wi-ilea-s r!ined it I. The .cope of the !ri ilege: "efeating the Oualified !ri ilege o If it$s stat!tor*& stat!te )ill sa* )hat ho) to defeat it o Lon=ale= v 0+> dis#los!re ma* 3e ordered if there$s a #lear and spe#ifi# sho)ing that information is. Aighl* material and relevant& ne#essar* or #riti#al to the maintinan#e of the #laimO A0D 0ot o3taina3le from other availa3le so!r#es Alternative so!r#es. varies 3* state& 3!t m!st sho) more than an in#onvenien#e to the investigator 3efore reporter #an 3e #ompetlled to dis#lose so!r#es Note that this is pretty much (hat reporters (anted in &"an)bu"g "efeating the !ri ilege in 8ibel Casses o Easier to defeat here )here reporter is D in a li3el #ase 3e#a!se P$s need is o3vio!s if the* prove D is l*ing& the* )in 2here$s a ris- tho 3e#a!se if privilege #an 3e easil* over#ome 3* filing li3el s!it& it does little good to !phold it in other #onte%t In effort to ens!re people don$t /!st file this s!it to !n#over a so!r#e& there are a fe) tests Witho!t so!r#es& Ps )o!ld have hard time proving Fa#t!al mali#eG in def s!it o 2est 1. P provides anon*mo!s spea-er )ith noti#e of li3el s!it and opport!nit* to file a motion to '!ash in order to prote#t his identit* E% Posting noti#e )here don /oe posted his alleged defamator* statement P m!st sho) that li3el s!it is vial3le 3efore #o!rt )ill order dis#los!re of D$s identit* E% Sho)ing of good faith 3asis (some #o!rts also need, e%pli#it ad ho# 3alan#ing of P$s rep!tational interests against D$s right to spea- anon*mo!sl* o States differ on their prote#tion in li3el #ases 2he* ma* have stri#t r!les for #riminal ones and #ontempt& Constitutional ,ights of Criminal " $ill "efeat e en an Absolute !ri ilege o Even if there is an a3sol!te privilege& a D$s #onstit!tionl right right to #ompel testimon* and prod!#tion of do#!ments in his #riminal #ase prevailed over the shield la) Matter of *arber reporter )rote stor* that referred to a dr m!rdering his patients After stor* )ritten& #harges )ere 3ro!ght agst dr 2he dr and his la)*ers s!3poenaed do#s from the paper 3# the* )anted to -no) the so!r#es of the info 2he paper ref!sed and reporter fined and sent to /ail
Diana Sanders
22
(#ivil and #rim #ontempt, 0D S!p #t affirms the #ontempt #onvi#tion 3# +ran=3!rg held that media had no priv While #t re#ogni=es that 0D has a state shield la) the #t held that there )as tension 3t)n the state shield la) and the #onst right of the D to #onfront )itnesses and the #onst rights m!st prevail over state shield la) o A1P@. What if <ar3er didn$t )ant to go to /ail& so he named names& #an the n!rses s!e for 3rea#h of promise !nder Coehn v. Cahls "ediaQ 0@ - here there is a #o!rt order& so the original promise is there3* invalidated 3* the >o!rt and the >onstit!tion Aere <ar3er had no #hoi#e In Cohen& the* )eren$t for#ed to name names in 3rea#h of the promise& 3!t made an editorial de#ision to do so on their o)n 6. 3ho is a >,eporter? 2hose that not onl* release print media& 3!t radio and 2;& as )ell as digital media o @$Lrad* v S!perior >o!rt >ali 200N P operates online ne)s maga=ine a3o!t Apple #omp!ters and soft)are It p!3lished info a3o!t a ne) apple prod!#t and the mar-eting and man!f plans Apple filed s!it for misappropriation of their trade se#ret and )anted to learn identit* of )ho lea-ed the info >t fo!nd p!3lisher to 3e a reporter and didn$t #ompel 34# apple didn$t sho) the* e%ha!sted other aven!es of investigation Court sees these types of online reportin% ma%a&ines should have the protection of both the shield la( in the statute) and the similar lan%ua%e in the California constitution. *+eep in mind) California is a liberal state) not many others (ould a%ree , but then a%ain) liberality can come in different (ays,, you could say liberals (ould (ant to protect individuals a%ainst intrusive media -e.%. Schulman , helicopter rescue case) and Sanders , telepsychic. !oth in California.. So liberalism cuts both (ays/. G. Applying the !ri ilege in 8ea+s Cases Li-e @grad* #ase Lea-s #an 3e illegal& so reporter has eviden#e of a #rime S!alified rep privilege is often ineffe#tive in lea-s #ases 3e#a!se the reporter is li-el* to 3e the onl* person )hose testimon* #an 3ring the lea-er to /!sti#e o -alerie !lane Case 2 D!dith Miller spent 8E da*s in/!l for ref!sing to dis#lose so!r#e of lea-s from WA that revealed identit* of >IA agent ;alerie Plane >t said no >ont priv per +ran=3!rg& no fed >L privilege Even if '!alified privilege tho!gh& it )as over#ome 3* s!3stantial need In some #lases lea-$s val!e ma* far e%#eed its harm In lea-s #ases& in addition to 2 elements& also m!st )itgh p!3li# interest in #ompelling dis#los!re meas!red 3* the harm the lea- #a!sed against the p!3li# interest in ne)sgathering meas!red 3* the lea- information$s val!e M. Applying !ri ilege to /on Confidential Materials: When media insists on not dis#losing material not o3tained in #onfiden#e o @!tta-es #ases !np!3lished pi#t!res or video& reporter$s notes& et# +e#a!se there$s no promise of #onfidentialit*& there$s less of a rationale for prote#ting the info (no fear that #ompelled dis#los!re )ill #a!se so!r#es to stop tal-ing to reporters, Gon)ale) v. *&C (2nd #ir, private #ivil a#tion not grand /!r* (diff from +ran=3!rg and ;alerie, re o!tta-es not #onfidential (!nli-e ;alerie, Media here lost and had to t!rn over matierals o (Li3eral, #o!rt held that '!alified privileges applies to non#onfidential as )ell as #onfidential info +92 )here prote#tion is for non#ondifential info& there is a less demanding sho)ing M!st sho). materials at iss!e are of li-el* relevan#e to a signifi#ant iss!e in the #aseO A0D materials are not reasona3l* o3taina3le from other availa3le so!r#es So (hen loo+in% at this) as+0 1. is there a privile%e available to the person -is he a reporter. 2. 3as there been a sho(in% to overcome this privile%e -hi%hly relevant and material information4 and other sources exhausted. M. .earch 3arrants going dire#tl* to the media$s offi#es and sear#hing there instead of sending a s!3poena and telling them to 3ring the info Sear#h )arrants are more invasive "A onl* prote#ts against !nreasona3le SXS 0othing in "A %u"#he" v. Stanfo"d +ail investigators sear#hed ne)spaper offi#e in sear#h of photos to aid in the sear#h of :rd parties (people )ho atta#-ed #ops in a violent demonstration, S>@29S re/e#ts #laim that sear#h )arrant #o!ldn$t 3e dire#ted at :rd parties and 1A for3ids sear#hes dire#ted at media premises o 1A doesn$t prevent sear#hes of ne)spaper offi#es
Diana Sanders
2:
*ederal and .tate .tatutes: o "2 9S> 2000aa- ena#ted in response to 5!r#her <or3ids sear#h and sei=!re of do#s or an* )or- prod!#t of ne)spaper offi#es (an* disseminator of p!3li# #omm!ni#ation, does 0@2 appl* )here possessor of materials is a s!spe#t
Diana Sanders
2"
-II. Media Access to 1udicial !roceedings@ !rotecting the Criminal "Ds ,ight to a *air Trial this is to ens!re that the D has a fair trial I2 also #onsiders the interests of vi#tims and /!rors to have priva#* as )ell as integrit* of the legal s*stem A. Control of the Courtroom = !roceedings .hepard . Ma0$ell m!rder #ase )here the #onvi#ted D #laimed that press #reated #ir#!s-li-e atmosphere and denied him DP (3# /!r* tainted, S #t granted ne) trial holding that )hile press had a right to report on the trial it doesn$t have a right to interfere )ith the Ds right to a fair and impartial trial 2r #t sho!ld have ins!lated )itnesses& #ontrolled lea-s S #t s!ggests gag orders (prior restraints that #o!ld$ve 3een iss!ed agst parti#ipants & W$s& /!rors& #o!nsel, B. Access to Courtrooms Criminal !roceedings 2 generallyC crim trials are open to media o Constitutional ri%ht of access to crim trials may only be overcome in rare cases4 not only must the party see+in% closure demonstrate and 5overridin% interest)6 but closure order must contain detailed findin%s that (ill allo( an appellate court to conclude that it (as narro(ly tailored to conclude that interest. o Trials ;annet (1676, 1st #o!rtroom #ase to rea#h s #t A /!dge in 01 3arred the press and the p!3li# from a pre-trial hearing to determine )hether #onfessions in a m!rder #ase sho!ld 3e s!ppressed on gro!nds that the* )ere invol!ntar* 2he p!3lisher of a lo#al paper #hallenged the #los!re on Nth and 1st A gro!nds NA g!arantees a p!3li# trial to the D& not to the p!3li# >t didn$t de#ide )hether 1A #reated right of a##ess to the pro#eedings& 3!t held that even if it did& the tr /!dge #o!ld properl* determine that the right )as o!t)eighed in the #ir# of the #ase 3* the Ds right to a fair trial Note that althou%h this is still %ood la() it's been eroded OHA8I*IE" 1A ,I;)T T( ATTE/" C,IM T,IA8. ,ichmond /e$spapers (1680, m!rder #harge lad to a string of trials D )ants #t #losed Ps don$t o3/e#t so tr #t #loses #o!rtroom /e$spaper challenges 2here is a pres!mption of openness !nder o!r s*stem 1A guarantees right to attend criminal trials. A #rim trial #an onl* 3e #losed to the p!3li# )here eviden#e s!pporting the ne#essit* of the #los!re is prod!#ed and the tr /!dge is satisfied that no less restri#tive alternatives )o!ld s!ffi#ientl* safeg!ard the right of the D to a fair trial +# tr /!dge didn$t ma-e s!#h a finding& the #losing order )as reversed o This is high tiered analysis: .. o Ct. relies on "nis test #learned hand% must determine $hether the gra ity of the e il discounted by its improbability Austifies such in asion of *. and is necessary to a oif the danger >t 3ases this on traditional approa#h. ppl assem3le in p!3li# pla#es to spea-& listen& o3serve& learn 78annet (as distin%uished bc it decided only that there (as no const ri%ht for the public to attend a pre,trial suppression hearin%. $lso) 8annet (as decided on 9th $ %rounds : and this case is on 1st $ %rounds. o !re9trial !roceedings See Lannet& s!pra ,ichmond open access rule e0tends to !retrisl hearings !ress9Enterprise (168N, n!rse a##!sed of m!rdering patients Ae opted for #losed hearing and trans#ript of hearing )as sealed Aearing m!st 3e open to the p!3li# !nless #los!re is essential to a fair trial 1A applies if (1,the pro#ess has histori#all* 3een open to the p!3li# and (2,a##ess pla*s a signif role in proper f%ning of the pro#ess& f!rthermore& #t felt that Fs!3stantial pro3a3ilit*G& not Kreasona3le li-elihood$ (that pre/ )o!ld o##!r, sho!ld 3e the standard o WLannet has not 3een reversed& Press Enterprises deals )ith a diff -ind of pretrial hearing Pre-trial hearing !nder >A is diff from that in Lannet 3# in >A its a adversarial hearing that s!3stit!tes for a grand /!r* hearing (so its more li-e ?i#hmond, o Terrorism Cases
Diana Sanders
2E
Ci il Trial o S> onl* r!led right to a##ess to #rim trial in ?i#hmond 2he* haven$t r!led on #ivil *et Lo)er #ts have ass!med tho that 1A right to attend #ivil trials is at least as strong as the right to attend #rim ones so there$s a pres!mption that #ivil trials too sho!ld 3e open o Imigration Aearings. these are heard in spe#ial #o!rts 0o 1A right 3e#a!se no histor* of these trials 3eing open It$s a li3eral position 1u enile !roceedings o Delin'!en#* pro#eedings are !s!all* #losed 3* stat!tor* mandate or dis#retion of /!dge 2he* prote#t the selin'!ent from stigma of #ond!#t o >hild #!stod* pro#eedings are also !s!all* #losed Standard is F3est interest of the #hild G o Globe *ewspape" v. Supe"io" Ct. invalidated a#t re'!iring #los!re of /!3enile hearings >t said #ategori#al e%#l!sion too 3road 2his isn$t a3o!t histori#al openeness 3!t state interests So to den* a##ess& it$s still #ase 3* #ase SS anal*sis& 3!t state interests here are o3v higher than in ad!lt #ases o Conditional (##ess, D!dges sometimes allo) reporters #onditional a##ess on #ondition that the* don$t report on #ertain matters Courtroom photography and BDcasting o Photographing and4or 3road#asting #o!rtroom pro#eedings is vie)ed ver* differentl* than a##ess It$s a3o!t adverse effe#ts on D& )itnesses& /!rors& et# o Chandle" v. FL #1NK1% 2 #t !nanimo!sl* re/e#ted the vie) that televising #rim trial over o3/e#tions of D a!tomati#all* rendered trial !nfair D$s didnZt sho) adverse impa#t from the 2; -stes v. T. previo!sl* held that !se of 2; pres!mes pres!di#e and denial of DP +!t >handler said this onl* applies to #ases of )idespread interest It$s not a 3arring of media in all #ases and !nder all #ir#!mstan#es o .tate Courts 2 permit some photograph* to some e%tent E% Limiting television of /!r* sele#tion& 3en#h #onferen#e& et# o *ederal Courts: s!3stantial resistan#e to televising trials >ameras in #rim pro#eedings is prohi3ited Ele#troni# so!nds re#ordings are sometimes oo .+etching: !sed in states )here #ameras are 3anned S)eeping 3ans have 3een re/e#ted It$s li-el* 3e#a!se the danger (of pple /!rors 3eing identified, is not signifi#ant or immanent eno!gh to /!stif* #ensorship4
Moussaoui case: onl* person #harged in 01 for parti#ipation in 6411 >ts -ept #ase se#ret for 20 months >o!rt event!all* allo)ed some a##ess Media tried to get trans#ripts of 3en#e #onferen#es and same da* a##ess to do# e%hi3its 3!t "th #ir Denied a##ess to e%hi3its not *et p!3lished to /!r* or #on#ealed from p!3li# for reasons of national se#!rit* >t fo!nd no 1A or >L right to #ontemporaneo!s a##ess to these things 3efore end of trial >t also ref!sed to release a!dio tape of #o#-pit voi#e re#order (even tho the* released trans#ript, finding that priva#* interests of vi#tims and famil* o!t)eighted an* right of p!#li# to a##ess it Most L!antanamo 3at #ases of 200" )ere open to press on #onditions that the* don$t p!3lish an*thing the presiding offi#er )anted to -eep se#ret Se#ret Do#-ets held !n#onstit!tional 3!t still e%ist
C. Access to 1urors and 3itnesses 2W@ '!estions. o Does media have the right of a##ess to /!rors and )itnesses o Do /!rors and )itnesses have the right to spea- to mediaQ &utte"wo"th v. Smith onl* s# #ase addressing this iss!e ?eporter )as s!3poenad 3efore grand /!r* investigation #orr!ption in lo#al states A@ >t held reporter #alled as (itness 3efore grand /!r* has 1A right to dis#lose )hat he -ne) a3o!t the matter !nder investigation S!ggests that non /o!rnalist )itnesses have the same right o Ais right to dis#lose tr!thf!l& la)f!ll* o3tained info o!t)eighed interest sin preventing s!spe#ts from learning a3!t grand /!r* pro#eedings and in prote#ting those )ho might 3e a##!sed 3* not indi#ted D!rors names are !s!all* p!3li# information D!dges sometimes -eep names #onfidential in possi3l* endangering trials (e% Mafia trials, 3!t press has good arg!ment here the*$re den*ing a##ess to info histori#all* availa3le Intervie)ing /!rors. narro) restri#tions are allo)ed #an limit them from tal-ing a3o!t deli3erations @ther)ise it ma* affe#t #andor of f!t!re /!rors 9n#lear )hether rights of )itnesses to ma-e e%tra /!disi#al statements sho!ld 3e governed 3* the rights of /!rors& rights of attorne*s (Lentile, or rights of media (0e3ras-a, ". !rior ,estraints on the Media ;ag (rders against the media must meet a high tier test:
Diana Sanders
2N
1ustified uppn a sho$ing of substantial ris+ of material preAudice by pre9trial publicityC and no iable alternati es. o Note0 this is the conservative model. Liberals (anted no %a% orders /ebras+a !ress Assoc . .tuart famil* m!rdered in small to)n Simants arrested >t determined that there )as a #lear and present danger that pre-trial p!3li#it* #o!ld impinge on Simant$s right to a fair trial and iss!ed a gag order that prohi3ited all p!3li#it* Ct held that the rights of an accused must be balanced agst the publics right to +no$ but before a ct issues a protecti e order they must consider: (1, the nat!re and e%tent of the ne)s #overage (2, )hether other reas alternatives )o!ld 3e li-el* to mitigate the effe#ts of !nrestrained pretrial p!3li#it* (:, ho) effe#tive a restraining order )o!ld 3e in preventing the anti#ipated pre/ Aere& there )as onl* the possi3ilit* of pre/ no #onsideration )as given to other possi3le remedies (e% >hange of ven!e& se'!estering /!r*& trial postponement, 2h!s& S #t reversed the gag order /oriega Tapes 9>00 o3tained tapes 3t)n 0oreiga and his attorne* >00 ref!ses to t!rn over the tapes and /!dge iss!es restraining order >00 violates the order and 3road#asts the tapes >00 arg!ed that !nder 0e3ras-a Press& no prior restraint #o!ld 3e iss!ed in the a3sen#e of a finding that the info )o!ld threaten 0oreiga$s right to a fair trial >t of app held that >00 #o!ldn$t insist that s!#h findings 3e made and at the same time den* the tr #t a##ess to the tapes 2he* )ere held in #ontempt for violating the ?@ o
E. ;ag orders and ,estraints on Trial !articipants An alternati e to restricting media publication is to target its source 2 restrict attys and others in proceeding from ma+ing statements to media that may preAudice the trial. Most states ha e rules regulating $hat attys can say Lentile v State +ar (1661, 0; state 3ar r!le 3ars e%tra/!di#al statements that have a s!3st li-elihood of pre/!di#ing pro#eedings Lentile )as la)*er representing #rim D after #lient indi#ted att* held a ne)s #onferen#e in )hi#h he maintained that #lient )as inno#ent and that poli#e dete#tive )as g!ilt* State 3ar reprimanded att* for violating 0; stat!te S> reverses holding that r!le )as !n#onst vag!e 3!t held that la)*ers spee#h #o!ld 3e reg!lated !nder a less demanding standard than that esta3 in 0e3ras-a Press for reg!lation of the press o @nl* need legit govt interest to reg!late att* li-e rational 3asis& not SS +ea!fort >o!ntr* +@E v +ea!fort >o!nt* of >ommisionser (0> 2007, +@E alleged #ommissioners deli3eratel* !nderf!nded p!3li# s#hool s*stem 2> on its o)n motion orall* for3ade parties and their att*s from #omm!ni#ating )ith mermers of ne)s media regarding the litigation >t applied 0E3ra-sa rather tan Lentile sa*ing to maintina gag order& need to meet SS part* esta3lisheing order m!st sho). 1 >lear threat to fairness of triaO 2 2hreat is posed 3* the a#t!al p!3li#it* to 3e restrainedO : 0o less restri#tive alternatives >t va#ated order 34# 2> didn$t sho) eviden#e of detrimental effe#t on trial Lag @rders on. o o o o Media not !nless SS met- it$s a P? (0e3ras-a, 2rial Parti#iapnts not !nless SS met it$s a P? (+e!fort appl*ing 0e3ras-a, >!rrent att* o- if meet ?+ (Lentile, <ormer att* not s!3/e#t to gag order
Diana Sanders
27
IP. ,egulation of Broadcast 1ournalism A. Introduction: the nature of the broadcast spectrum and the )istory of *ed licensing. need li#ensing 3# onl* so man* fre'!en#ies (ele#tromagneti# spe#tr!m is a limited reso!r#e and )e need to prevent #haos Li#ensee might have gotten li#ense that 10 others )anted Li#ensee held li#ense for 3enefit of the p!3li# 1N2M Act onl* persons li#ensed 3* fed govt #o!ld 3road#ast& and onl* then on the fre'!en#ies and d!ring the times assigned to them +road#ast li#enses )ere iss!ed for a limited time rather then in perpet!it* *ed Communications Act of 1N'I repla#ed the $27 A#t o >overs ?adio and 2; o Still the 3asi# frame)or- for over the air #omm!ni#ation in 9S o >entrali=ed all fed #ontrol& in#l!ding li#ensing o Set !p the <>> B. *airness "octrine never part of the stat!tor* frame)or- of $:" A#t& instead it )as #reated 3* <>> +e#a!se at the time there )ere onl* : ma/or net)or-s& li#enses gave a lot of po)er So this re'!ired 3$#asters to (1, #over topi#s of p!3li# interest (#ontroversial iss!es, A0D (2, #over them fairl* Pro3lem is that this is #ompelled spee#h& against 1A >orrolar* ?!les. ?ILA2 @< ?EPL1 o 1. !ersonal Attac+ ,ule )hen d!ring the presentation of vie)s on a #ontroversial iss!e of p!3li# importan#e& an atta#- is made !pon the honest*& integrit*& #hara#ter of an identified person or gro!p& a tape of the atta#- m!st 3e sent to that person4gro!p and m!st offer them a reas opport!nit* to respond to the atta#- on the air o 2. !olitical Editorial ,ule )hen a li#ensee endorses a #andidate for offi#e& )ithin 2" hrs the li#ensee shall transmit to the opponent (a, noti#e of the date and time of the editorial (3,s#ript or tape (#,a free and reas offer to respond )0 and (pinion of the doctrine led to more spe#ifi# #orollar* r!les o #BCA.T% ,ed 8ion (9PA@LDS LAW, Program 3road#asted 3* ?ed Lion #ontained a personal atta#on >oo- >oo- as-ed for e'!al time to respond to the atta#- and ?ed Lion ref!sed ?L #laims PA? violates 1A 3!t #o!rt !pholds it sa*ing right of p!3li# is !ninhi3ited mar-etpla#e od ideas Lovt ma* treat li#ense as pro%* for #omm!nit* as )hole >+? 3!t it$s a non p!3li# for!m media doesn$t a!to get heightened prote#tion o #!,I/T% Miami )erald . Tornillo (S2?IRES D@W0 LAW, <L paper )rites arti#le endorsing 1 #andidate <L has a similar r!le to the <airness Do# 2he paper didn$t )ant to p!3lish a response 3* the #andidate the* didn$t endorse >t held that the paper did not have to p!3lish the response Print is traditional media so f!ll 1A rights - s#ared right of repl* )o!ld #hill spee#h
C. "emise of the *airness "octrine and $hat sur i es <airness Do#trine is repealed in 1680s 3* the <>> Said to th)art dis#!ssion of p!3li# iss!es 3$#asters )ere #ensoring themselves 34) the* feared <>> #omplaintsO impeded e%pression of !npol!lar opinionsO not reall* ne#essar* an*more 3e#a!se of e%plosive gro)th of other media >orollar* r!les are still good la) ?ed Lion has never 3een overr!led 3e#a!se (a, the idea that li#ensee holds li#ense to 3enefit the p!3li# 3egan to erode and (3, li#ensees de#ided not to 3road#ast #ontroversial vie)s ?9LES APPL1 @0L1 2@ +>AS2. 0ote that print media is traditional media and therefore gets f!ll 1A prote#tion 2raditional media are not li#ensed spea-ers 2he* sho!ldn$t 3e for#ed to set aside stories /!st to ma-e room for repl* It intr!des on the f!n#tion of the editor +#ast media gets different treatment 3e#a!se of s#ar#it* and pervasiveness +e#a!se of s#ar#it* of li#ense& there$s nothing in 1A that prevents it from re'!iring it to share its fre'!en#* (pro3a3l* not the #ase no) 34# of so m!#h ne) media, A Pacifica and Lea%ue of ;omen sho)s& 3e#a!se of foregoing reasons& +$#ast gets intermediate scrutiny. Cts ac+nolege that media is different no$C but are bound by scotus precedent. #*o0 . *CC% ". !(8ITICA8 BCA.T. Campaigns for Elected (ffice E4ual (pportunity .tatute #F'16 of communications act%2 if an* li#ensee shall permit an* #andidate (or their friends4s!pporters, to !se a 3road#asting station he shall afford his opponents the same e'!al opport!nit* Li#ensee
Diana Sanders
28
has no po)er of #ensorship over )hat the #andidates sa* in the 3road#ast 0o li#ensee has an o3ligation to let #andidates !se its station for this p!rpose o Bappel "octrine friends and s!pporters of #andidates are deemed F#andidatesG )ithin meaning of :1E 2his is a3o!t politi#al ads that don$t in#l!de fa#e of #andidate& 3!t rather info or his voting re#ord or positions on iss!es o exceptions to o3ligations triggered 3* Y:1E . appearan#es in ne)s#asts& ne)s intervie)s& ne)s do#!mentaries& on the spot #overage of a ne)s events& de3ates among ma<or #andidates (#an e%#l!de :rd part* #andidates, sponsored 3* 3road#asters ,easonable Access for *ed. Candidates #F'12% >ommission ma* revo-e a li#ense for )illf!l and repeated fail!re to allo) #andidate reasona3le time on air (p!rpose )as to give #andidates greater a##ess to media so the* #o!ld e%plain their stand and more f!ll* inform voters, o CB. . *CC - +#asters are free to en* sale of air time prior to #ommen#ement of #ampaign 3!t on#e it has 3eg!n& the* m!st give reasona3le and good faith attention a##ess re'!ests from legall* '!alified #andidates for fed ele#tive offi#e >t grants a limited right of reasona3le a##ess and ma* 3e invo-ed 3* #andidate onl* for the p!rpose of advan#ing their #andida#ies on#e a #ampaign has #ommen#ed FitZs the right of the vie)ers and listeners& not the right of the p!3lishers )hi#h is paramo!nt G !olitical Ads and Indecency #belo$% o Bec+er 2 +e#-er$s ad of a3orted fet!ses #a!sed #omplaints so station as-ed <>> if the* #o!ld air it at late night ho!rs >t said this violated no-#ensorship provision of :1E It inhi3ited manner in )hi#h he )as a3le to dis#!ss p!3li# iss!es and deprived him of a3ilit* to #onve* his message +* giving opponent prime time and not him& it )as not e'!al opport!nit*
E. (bscenity and Indecency (bscenity 2 se%!all* e%pli#it e%pressions o Lovt interest J preventing minors from 3eing !sed in films and prote#ting #aptive ad!lts (invol!ntar* a!dien#e, o Miller test (1, )hether average person appl*ing #ontemporar* #omm!nit* standards )o!ld find that the )oras a )hole appeals to the pr!rient interestO (2,)hether the )or- depi#ts or des#ri3es& in a patentl* offensive )a*& se%!al #ond!#tO A0D (:, )hether the )or- ta-en as a )hole la#-s serio!s literar*& artisti#& polit or s#ientifi# val!e (national standard Pape Li3erals adopted vie) that this sho!ld 3e vie)ed on rational 3asis, o Sale and distribution of obscene material that meet miller test are a violation. o Private possession of porn -obscene materials. is o+ because ct reco%ni&es the &one of privacy in home (ith consentin% adults-Stanley.. This doesn't extend to possession of childhood porn thou%h) as mere possession is a violation -=sborne.. =utside the &one of privacy of home) cts can punish possession by ma+in% a morally neutral <ud%ment of the tendency the material has to in<ury community) endan%er the public safety to maintain decent society -Paris Theater.. .tanley #ops raided mans ho!se and arrested him for having porn >ant p!nish the -no)ing possession of o3s#ene materials )ithin the priva#* of ones home (de#ided same time as Lris)old 3irth #ontrol #ase4#o!ples right to priva#*, (sborne& minors na-ed pi#t!res in home- -no)ing possession of #hild porn is an e%#eption to the Stanle* r!le !aris Adult Theatre Stanle* didn$t e%tend o!tside of the home state did have an interest in ad!lt theatres Indecency 0ot #onstit!tionall* defined li-e o3s#enit* is in "iller that )hi#h doesn$t #onform to the a##epted standards of moralit* Pr!rient interest element is not ne#essar* It$s s!3/e#t to 2PM restri#tions 3!t not s!3stantivel* o >ohen v >A (< the draft, Do!glas sa*s *o! #an$t #ompletel* prevent 3ad )ords o ,enton and :oung cases 9nder the @$+rien standard (intermediate tier, #t held the movie theatres sho)ing inde#ent movies #o!ld 3e p!shed aro!nd (in lo#ation for =ooming p!rposes, in a )a* that reg!lar theatres #o!ld not o !acifica 01 radio station 3road#ast >arlin$s 7 dirt* )ords monolog!e at 2pm Involves spee#h that is inde#ent& not o3s#ene and it has an element of 1A prote#tion >t holds that this #an 3e reg!lated it gets 2PM reg!lation (didn$t !se a high tier test (#ompelling govt interest, instead !sed s!3stantial govt interest, .
Diana Sanders
26
+$#aster is not a p!re 1A spea-er >aptive a!dien#e pro3lem4 eas* a##ess of #hildren WWthis is important Pervasiveness of media into the home& This speech has limited 1A protection 2 gets I. CA/ 8IMIT B: T!M TheyDre analy<ed under (brien #but note that itDs not really content neutral% Note that it's harder to re%ulate this on Cable and Internet because it's easier to personally blo% pro%rams *o0 . *CC #fleeting e0pleti e% 2 <>> fines !tteran#es of inde#ent and o3s#ene lang!age 3* radio or 2; 2hese are #ases from a)ards sho)s )here +ono& >her and 0i#ole ?i#hie drop the < 3om3 or some other profane )ord <>> had #on#l!ded that Ff!#-G and FshitG )ere pres!mptivel* inde#ent >t stri-es do)n <>> poli#* 9nder D>> poli#*& fleeting e%platives )ere allo)ed onl* if. +ona fide ne)s Demonstrae essential to the nat!re of an artisti# or ed!#ational )or- or essential to informing vie)ers on the matter of p!3li# importan#e Dela*ed transmission is often !sed >t entertains arg!ment that media is so different no) and theres so m!#h of iti and it #an 3e reg!lated 3* parents thr! te#hnolog* +!t the* are 3o!nd 3* s#ot!s pre#edent (IS in Pa#ifi#a, 0evertheless the* sa* <>>$s poli#* is !n#onstit!tional 3e#a!se it$s vag!e I< <>> #an$t anti#ipate )hat )ill 3e #onsidered inde#ent !nder its poli#*& it #an$t e%pe#t 3#aster to do it It ris-s dis#riminator* enfor#ement and #hills spee#h 3#asters )ont air #ontroversial programs o!t of fear of fines !olitical Ads = Indecency 2 see abo e
*. /on9commercial Broadcasting 1. 8eague of 3omenDs -oters P+S stations re#eive fed f!nds 3!t are also privatel* f!nded Provision in 16N7 a#t said that that an* non-#ommer#ial ed!#ational 3road#asting station that re#eives fed f!nding #ant editoriali=e (vie)point ne!tral, 2his )as #hallenged 3* the leag!e of )omen voters and )as fo!nd to 3e !n#onst >t held that restri#tions of this sort #o!ld onl* 3e !pheld )hen #t is satisfied that the restri#tion is narro)l* tailored to f!rther a s!3st govt interest (Pa#ifi#a and ?ed Lion are pre#edent, s!#h as ens!ring ade'!ate and 3alan#ed #overage of p!3li# iss!es 2. Ar+anssas Educ. -. *orbes non#ommer#ial govt station sponsored #andidate de3ate 3!t e%#l!ded little -no)n :rd part #andidate (remem3er this is o- !nder Y:1EC, 2he added element here is that this is a govt o)ned station :rd part* #andidate lost 3# #t l!mped him into non-p!3li# for!m #ategor* Moreover& 3road#asters de#ision to e%#l!de him )as a vie)point ne!tral e%er#ise of /o!rnalisti# dis#retion (didn$t in#l!de him 3# no #han#e of )inning,
Diana Sanders
:0
P. Cable T- and /e$ Technologies A. "e elopment of Cable T- and Early ,egulation fed reg!lation of over the air media (radio and 2;, is not designed to 3e preempted 3* state legis >a3le tv& ho)ever& #an 3e preempted 3* 3oth state and lo#al legis B. *ranchising Cable .ystems Earl* #a3le fran#ises )ere monopolies - lo#al reg!lators give fran#hise to one #a3le #o 3ased on (1, pri#e (2, #ontent of programming (:, the te#hnolog* the*$re !sing is it e%panda3le (", disr!ption #a!sed 3* la*ing the )ires o Also 3e#a!se 3ig start!p #osts if no g!arantee of monopol*& too dangero!s4ris-* >3annabes? 9 2hose that didn$t get a monopol* fran#hise got mad and s!ed lo#al reg!lators arg!ing the*$re 1A spea-ers o Are Cable .er ice (perators #C.(% .pea+ers under 1A5 :E.. !referred Communication #1NKG%- >S@ s!ed LA for violating 141"thA rights 3* its reg!lations4monopol* fran#hise& sin#e there )as s!ff (1, ph*s #apa#it* and (2, e#on demand for a 2nd #a3le fran#hise <ran#hise here arg!ed that >S@ )as #ommon #arrier Ct held they are spea+ers bc they originate a certain amount of orig programming and also editorial control Lo)er #o!rt m!st then esta3lished standard Sin#e 1A applies& #an$t 3e ?+ They use I. 2 (brien and sa* monopolies are not o- (it$s >0 3ea!se de#ision is as to )hat >S@ to gie fran#ase to is 3ased on TT& not it$s #ontent, In response& monopol* fran#hises are no longer allo)ed >ongress ena#ts >P>A that #ontains m!st #arr* r!les C. Must9Carry ,ules #a3le >o s m!st #arr* #ertain 3$#ast stations @ther)!se lo#al stations )o!ld go o!t of 3!siness 1. Turner I >S@ arg!es against m!st #arr* r!les 3ased on 1A S@? is @3rien (IS, sho!ld 3e !sed )hen tal-ing a3o!t #ontent reg!lation 3!t high tier test sho!ld 3e !sed )hen tal-ing a3o!t #ontent ne!tralit* Ma/ thin-s that this is a3o!t #ontent reg and th!s sho!ld appl* intermediate s#r!tin* 2. Turner II loo-s at the lo)er #ts eval!ation of )hether or not fed govt satisfied @$+rien test >t held that it did >t holds that 3road#ast #hannels )o!ld 3e harmed if m!st #arr* )as dropped It$s not a >+ iss!e& it$s an a##ess iss!e So m!st #arr* !pheld 3* @3rien @##oner in dissent sa*s it$s F#ontenti restri#tion favoritism to)ards lo#alismG '. ' problems that cable Co.s face - must carry - P>8 (p!3li# ed!#ational got #hannels, #hannels that lo#al govt re'!ires #a3le >o4s to #arr* - Leased access fed govt mandates that #a3le >o$s pi#- !p a #ertain n!m3er of #ommer#ial stations that don$t have the 3enefit of m!st #arr* (#a3le >o s have no sa* a3o!t )hat is on the sho)s, =brien -protestor burns draft card. It (as symbolic speech protected by 1$. Statute prohibitin% it (as CN -couldn't ruin card for other purpose. so la(s of %enerally applicability -not C!. can have incidental effects on speech and limit 1$ so lon% as they have a sufficiently important fovt interest in re%ulatin% the non speech elements -impt %ovt interest unrelated to suppression of speech.. ". Content ,egulationJ Indecency on Cable inde#en#* reg loo-s to Pa#ifi#a ()here the <>> imposed san#tions, Ma/or #onservative arg!ment is that #a3le >o s #annot -eep !p )ith the gro)ing n!m3er of #hannels 2he li3eral arg!ment is that there are parental #ontrols )here parents #an 3lo#- o!t #ertain #hannels Inde#ent spee#h is lo) val!e spee#h <# v <>> fleeting e%platives Sho!ld SS appl*Q ?ed Lion X Pa#ifi#a >+ #ontrol is o- per IS Leag!e of Women IS for 2; reg!lations Li3erals #on#ede SS isn$t the standard 2!rner not vie)ed as >+ .. is re4uired for indecency because regulation is CB. o H. . !layboy (2000, - YE0E of 2ele#om A#t of 166N added to prevent #hildren from seeing images from signal 3leed ?e'!ired f!ll s#ram3ling or 3lo#-ing of inde#ent programming& or restri#tion of transmission 3* time -ids )ill )at#h SS is re'!ired for this >+ reg!lation >t stri-es do)n sa*ing E0E is !n#onstit!tional 3lo#-ing me#hanisms are s!ffi#ient to prote#t #hildren Pro3lem )ith signal 3leed is not seir!s eno!gh for govt to ena#t stat!tor* s#heme to prevent a##ess !ntil 10pm 2here )ere less restri#tive means #an 3lo#- #hannel )ith s!3s#ri3ers re'!est so there )as less govt interest and narro) tailoring sin#e te#hnolog* )as there to 3lo#a##ess to #hildren
Diana Sanders
:1
Denver Area v <>> :stat!te re'!ired #a3le operators to segregate inde#ent programming and 3lo#- it from all e%#ept thos )ho spe#ifi#all* ordered it S SS is re'!ired for >+ reg!lation it )as overl* restri#tive and not narro)l* tailtored to restri#t #hildren$s a##ess S> str!#- this do)n S> !phold part of stat!te allo)ing >S@s to ref!se inde#ent programs on #hannels it leased >S@ #a!sed net)or-s to s#ram3le #hannels to 3e !nlo#-ed )ith a fee to the >S@ 9pheld provision that prohi3its >S@s to prohi3it inde#ent and o3s#ene programming transmitted over the leased a##ess (#ommer#ial, #hannels (sin#e >S@s #annot pi#- )hi#h #ommer#ial stations to #arr* (:, 10(#, #onst voided >S@s #o!ld prohi3it inde#en#* on PEL #hannels +!t #t voided 3# there$s a diff 3t)n leased a##ess and PEL #hannels (PEL #hannels s!3/ to other reg!lations that )o!ld pro3a3l* s#reen o!t inde#en#*& and it )o!ld end !p preventing programming that$s not reall* o3s#ene e g& reprod!#tive s*stem shit
2a-ea)a*. P?I02 SS 2his is traditional media& gets f!ll 1A prote#tion +>AS2 IS 0on traditional media& gets less prote#tion 34# of s#ar#it* and pervasiveness >A+LE. if the reg!lation is >0 (e% M!st #arr* r!le applies to all #hannels irrespe#tive of the programming,& then the test is @$+rien 2PM I S in#idental effe#ts on spee#h If the reg!lation is >+ (e% Inde#en#*,& then the test is SS
Diana Sanders
:2
PI. Computers and the Internet A. ,egulation of Indecency on the Internet !rior ,estraints and the Internet o >ase sho)s )h* Lovt #o!ld not p!rs!e a prior restraint in the age of the Internet. F)e live in 0ear v M0 )orldG 3!t prof 3elieves even here& )e #an p!nish releasing >IA agents names o Ban+ 1ulies . 3i+ilea+s #/.". Cal 277K%2 )i-ilea-s releases #onfidential govt do#s on its site #laiming& among other things& >a*man Islands 3an- #ommitted fra!d and t% evasion +an- s!es )i-ilea-s D!dge orders 2?@ then dissolves WR has Fmirror sitesG in other #o!ntries registered )ith other domains so it #o!ld evade the in/!n#tion so the in/!n#tion doesn$t reall* do an*thing 2he* p!3li#i=ed on internet that info still availa3le on other sites (2his is li-e Pro%ressive (A +om3, #ase, (2o go against p!3li#ation of this& !randenbur% )o!ldn$t )or- 34# no immanen#* so need Dennis, !roblems $ith this case: 1urisdiction 2 P +an- is an alien (s)iss and >an*an Island, and D )e3site is alien (A!stralia and Ren*a, so >t li-el* #an$t get SMD !ublic Interest 2 infringement of 1A right to re#eive info and ideas ?estri#ting spee#h pending final resol!tion (in/!n#tion, is impermissi3le Efficacy of InAunction: p!rpose defeated 3e#a!se of mirror sites in diff #o!ntries F#at is o!t of the 3ag G In/!n#tion also m!st 3e narro)l* tailored (e% @nl* reda#ting of ident*fing info on do#s, *CC ,egulation of the Internet and I.!. o Cable .ystems are Info Carriers not Common CarriersC so >Must Carry? rules do no Apply to I.!.. Brand P 2 S> !pholds right of <>> to determine that +road3and providers did not have to let rival ISPs pigg*3a#- on their servi#es If #a3le operators )ere deemed #ommon #arriers& then the* #o!ldn$t e%#l!de #ompeting ISPs a##ess to their net)or- (e% ;eri=on phone #o m!st 3ring in rival ISPs, +!t 3e#a!se it$s deemed an information #arrier& it does not have to share its lines Importan#e of this is that it #o!ld determine ho) high speed internet servi#es #omes online& )hat frat!res it has& and ho) m!#h it$ll #ost o Comcast . *CC #"C 2717% 2 >om#ast )as interfering )ith !sers$ !se of P2P net)or-ing apps 9sers filed #omplaint )ith <>> <>> iss!ed order finding that >om#ast impeded #ons!mers a3ilit* to a##ess #ontent and apps of their #hoi#e <>> #an reg!late #ommon #arriers #an the* reg!late Info >arriers as an#illar* a!thorit*Q 0@ <>> la#-s an#illar* /!risdi#tion (no a!thorit* !nder :" A#t, to prevent ISPs from slo)ing or 3lo#-ing a##ess to )e3sites in p!rs!it of its poli#* of Fnet)or- ne!tralit* G ISPs arg!ed for traditional model the* !se po)er to slo) some !sers& and #harge s!r#harges on faster a##ess treat internet as >a3le 2; <>> )anted ever*thing given on a non dis#riminator* 3asis no fees for Fpo)er !sers G 2he* )ant net)or- ne!tralit*& )hi#h treats ISPs as #ommon #arriers (li-e phone, rather than info #arriers (li-e #a3le, o After >om#ast& <>> proposed ne) net)or- ne!tralit* r!les Child !orn ,egulation on the Internet o ,EA8 &I". *erber 2 se%!al depi#tions of a#t!al minors re#eive no #onstit!tional prote#tion 0ote that these depi#tions don$t have to meet the Miller test o /(T ,EA8 &I". H. . 3illiams 2 irtual child porn 2 upholds stat!te that p!nished -no)ingl* advertising& presenting& promo& distri3!ting or soli#iting material Fin a manner that refle#ts the 3elief or is intended to #a!se another to 3elieve that the material in#l!des a vis!al depi#tion of an a#t!al minor engaging in #ond!#t G Aeld. offers to provide or re'!ests to o3tain #hild porn are #ategori#all* e%#l!ded from 1A (even if there are not real -ids, >onsisten#* )ith <S> *o! #an$t p!nish possession of the material (<S>, 3!t *o! #an p!nish mar-eting and selling it So if <er3er doesn$t appl* (not real -ids, and Miller doesn$t appl* (not o3s#ene, then )hat is the /!stifi#ationQ 2he val!e and harm are 3oth reall* lo) o >hild porn prote#tion a#t #riminali=ed the distri3!tion of an* image that is or appears to 3e of a minor engaging in se%!all* e%pli#it #ond!#t Indecency ,egulation on the Internet: !orn and &ids
Diana Sanders
::
Communications "ecency Act #C"A% of 1NNG #F672#e%%9 >riminali=ed -no)ing transmission of inde#ent message to an "e#ipient !nder 18& and the -no)ing sending or displa*ing of patentl* offensive messages in a manner available to person !nder 18 ,eno #t held the >DA !n#onst vag!e and over3road >2 noted that this is not li-e Pa#ifi#a or Lins3erg 3# !sers seldom en#o!nter se% material a##identall* (3# have to sear#h& are fa#ed )ith )arnings also 3e#a!se theres no s#ar#it* on internet, and th!s this is diff than radio and 2; Also there are devi#es and )arnings that parents #an !se Aere& the #t pi#-s !p on the fa#t that there$s no real definition of inde#ent spee#h Also& it #hills ad!lt #omm!ni#ation . *ails .. #since itDs CB% 2 not narro$ly tailored so as to not interfere $ith legitimate speech b@$ adults o Child (nline !rotection Act #ongress responded to the de#ision in ?eno 3* ena#ting a more limited inde#en#* provision 2his a#t is limited to persons engaged in the 3!siness of #omm!ni#ating material that is harmf!l to minors& affirmative defense J if D in good faith has restri#ted a##ess to minors (3* re'!iring !se of >>& ad!lt ID #ode4a##ess #ode& 3* a##epting a digital #ertifi#ate that verifies age& or 3* other reas meas!res, Enfor#ement )as en/oined immediatel* finding it )o!ld 3e li-el* !n#onstit!tional for same reasons as Reno and Playboy. Ashcroft . AC8H II - stri-es do)n >@PA >o!rt e%amined )hether #omm!nit* standard provision as per miller sho!ld 3e applied or national standard this is still not respolved stat!te re'!ired *o! to opt in if *o! )ere an ad!lt and ID *o!rself >o!rt stri-es it do)n& finding this re'!irement too intr!sive So altho!gh the govt interest )as #ompelling& this )asn$t the least restri#tive )a* (fails SS, 2he* esta3lish filtering as a less restri#tive alternative M!st find a less restri#tive alternative that is more effe#tive means of restri#ting a##ess +issent. <iltering is not an alternative It$s the stat!s '!o re'!ires nothing (1, some porno )ill pass thr! s*stemO (2, filtering #osts TTO (:, depends on parents to de#ide )here their #hildren )ill serf net to enfor#e itO (",the 3lo#- la#-s pre#ision *ote that /ust as in Pla bo 0 the fa#t that some paents would not avail themselves of the oppo"tuni"t (li$e filte"ing1 did not ne#essa"il ma$e filte"ing an ineffe#tive alte"native >t !pholds in/!n#tion in ?eno& remands to Distri#t #o!rt D> again r!les >@P !n#onstit!tional as over3road and va!ge :rd >ir affirms in A>L9 v Ma-ase* S>@29S denies #ert Ta+ea(ay0 ;illiams is to "iller as #SC is to Stanley 8ovt can punish the creation and distribution of it -#erber. and display of it -=sborn.. It cannot punish possession of (hat is passed off as it but isn't -#SC. but can %o after the sellin% of same -;illiams.. o
B. "efamation on the Internet- Y2:0 imm!ni=es #omp!ter servi#e providers li-e A@L from lia3ilit* for info that originates )ith :rd parties Lenerall* o Beran A@L not lia3le for defamation per Y2:0 p!3lisher even tho!gh it )as dela*ed in ta-ing do)n offending ad o The "rudge ,eport A@L not lia3le for Dr!dge ?eport even tho!gh it finan#ed it >o!rt reads Y2:0 3roadl* to imm!ni=e ISP from defamation >ompelled Dis#los!re of ISP of anon*mo!s defamers identitiesQ
8iability Abroad: >8ibel Tourism: o Plaintiff$s attempt to for!m sho) for a /!r )ith the most favora3le li3el la)s o (ur *ed 8ibel 8a$ of 2717. domesti# #o!rts shall not re#ogni=e or enfor#e foreign /!dgment for defamation !nless the part* see-ing enfor#ement esta3lishes either (1, foreign la) has as m!#h prote#tion as o!r 1AO or (2, part* opposing enfor#ement of foreign /!dgment )o!ld 3e fo!nd lia3le for defamation if tried here !nder o!r 1A and state la) We also )on$t enfor#e /!dgments in#onsistent )ith Y2:0 o .ufficiency of 1urisdictional Contacts .ingle publication rule all p!3li#ations of the same )or- are treated as a single p!3li#ation o##!rring on the date of 1st p!3li#ation 2his e#onomi=es the amnt of /!ris on a #ase
Diana Sanders
:"
!,I/T &eeton . )ustler P )as allo)ed to 3ring A!stler to #t in 0A even tho!gh #ir#!lation in 0A onl* #onstit!ted 1I of total #ir#!lation (the SL had r!n o!t in all other states, I/TE,/ET "o$ 1ones L!tni#- A!stralian high #o!rt held that 01 p!3lisher of +aron$s mag #o!ld 3e s!ed in A!stralia !nder its la) for statements made on +arron$s )e3site a3o!t A!stralian 3!sinessman& even tho!gh the p!3lisher had no ph*si#al presen#e there and onl* small H of s!3s#ri3ers there Iss!e )ith internet is that material posted on internet is 3asi#all* p!3lished ever*)here and th!s s!3/e#t to /!risdi#tion an*)here "isparity of Media !rotection ?ameel v. ;S? (9R 0N, #o!rt anal*=ed )hether the arti#le as a )hole )as on a s!3/e#t of p!3li# interest and def statement )as s!ffi#ientl* related to itO and )hether steps ta-en to gather and p!3lish info )ere responsi3le and fair 2his )as a 3ig step for them and ma/or advan#e in freeing press from oppressive li3el la)s S!llivan& Lert=& Aepps #learl* more prote#tive of press and free spee#h
Copyright infringement on the Internet
@>ILLA Safe Aar3or limitations of lia3ilit* providers of 2itle II of DM>A Safe har3or stat!te ISPs #an #laim a3sol!te imm!nit* from #ontri3 lia3ilit* of U infringement Alleged U violations 3* an ISP the ans)er doesn$t lie in Y2:0 or the 5eran #ase (this #overs tort lia3ilit* defamation, +asis of this ne) and evolving stat!te iss!e of <9 and Elron A!33ard More #onservative 2nd #ir#!it at the time disagreed )ith him and said no <9 +!t in an* #ases& it$s lat#hes 2eligious Te#h Cente" v. *et#om (0 D >al 166E, #riti#ism of L ?on A!33ard over the internet 9lri#h #riti#i=es s#ientolog* and !ses A!33ard$s )or-s 9lri#h posts this to +!lletin +oard r!n 3* >elemnsr!d& +!lletin +oard !ses 0et#om as ISP Sho!ld ISP 3e lia3le for U #ommitted 3* s!3s#ri3er of ++Q 0et#om raises 1A and <9 defense >t sa*s ?2>$s #laims fail 3!t ref!ses to grant SD for 0et#om sa*ing there$s S of <a#t - the* #an$t 3e lia3le for )hat is posted& 3!t #an 3e lia3le if the* don$t ta-e material do)n '!i#-l* eno!gh <inall* the #t held that adopting a r!le that held 0et#om lia3le #o!ld lead to lia3ilit* of #o!ntless parties )hose role in the infringement is nothing more than setting !p and operating a s*stem that )as ne#essar* for the f!n#tioning of the internet Dire#t infringement. 9lri#h pres!ma3l* has <9 do#trine >ontri3!tor*. 0et#om for ena3ling infringement ;i#ario!s. >lemmens!rd generall* re'!ires agen#* relationship (arg!ment !sed in dr!dge report,
E[AM 1 re#ogni=e possi3le #ontri3 U #laim against ISP 2 remem3er that it$s not !nder the tort imm!nit* 2:0 stat!te /!st remem3er that it$s @>ILLA

Fordham Law Mass Media Outline MD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fordham Law Mass Media Outline MD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

.ulli an p!3li# offi#ials4p!3li# fig!res mali#e mali#e mali#e mali#e

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012

Copyright infringement on the Internet

You might also like