Blog

I've already written several posts about the overblown predictions that a ruling involving an Oregon blogger (now on appeal) would have dire consequences for bloggers in that state. But a recent decision by Iowa's Supreme Court on who can be considered "news media" under Iowa law may truly endanger bloggers and other online contributors in the Hawkeye State.

The issue is that the Iowa Supreme Court decided to maintain the distinction in Iowa state law between "media" and "non-media" defendants, with the latter being easier to sue for some types of libel.

Bierman v. Weier, No. 10–1503, 2013 WL 203611 (Iowa Jan. 18, 2013) is a libel suit based on Scott Weier's memior, Mind, Body and Soul, which focuses on Weier's personal transformation after his divorce from plaintiff Beth Weier. In the book Scott Weier alleged that Beth suffered from mental illness because her father, plaintiff Gail Bierman, had molested her as a child.

Scott Weier paid vanity publisher Author Solutions, Inc. $3,183.81 to design and print 250 copies of the book. He distributed between 20 to 30 copies to friends, family, and local businesses. In addition, three copies were sold through Author Solutions' website, and one sold through Amazon.com. The rest of the books are in storage.   read more »

A new bill proposed by Florida legislator Carl Zimmermann seeks to end “mugshot websites,” a relatively new industry that exploits the marriage of the internet and open records laws in order to make a profit. (See our prior posts on mugshot websites here, here, and here.) But, while ending these sites may be a morally laudable goal, the proposed law is blatantly unconstitutional. Not only would it infringe upon the protected speech of these mugshot websites, it would also stifle a substantial amount of socially beneficial online speech, specifically crime reporting from legitimate news sources.

The proposed law, House Bill (HB) 677, would require “the operator of a website that contains the name and personal information, including any photograph or digital image,” of a person charged with a crime, within 15 days of receiving written notification that the person has been “acquitted or the charges are dropped or otherwise resolved without a conviction,” to remove the person’s name and personal information. Failure to comply would lead to a fine and, after 45 days, “create[] a presumption of defamation of character.” Under HB 677, a website operator may not ask for payment to remove content, but the bill would penalize websites regardless of whether they charged a fee—it targets content, not commercialization.   read more »

It gives me great pleasure to welcome our newest blogger, Jillian Stonecipher! Jillian, a 2L at Harvard Law School, is no stranger to our project, having worked with us as an intern throughout the 2012-13 academic year. When not hanging around the Berkman Center, Jillian works on both the Harvard Journal of Law & Gender and the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. She is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Texas, where she was the Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Texan, managing a staff of 200 to produce a newspaper with a circulation of more than 20,000.

We are thrilled to have Jillian's contributions to the blog!

Update (Feb. 25, 2013): Computeworld reports that Rep. Silverstein has withdrawn the bill in question.

Last week the great state of Illinois entered into the not-so-great business of trying to govern anonymous speech online through the introduction of Illinois Senate Bill 1614 by State Senator Ira Silverstein. The bill, introduced on February 13th, seeks to force identification of anonymous online commenters by requiring that

[a] web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.   read more »

For me, thinking about one of the Obama administration's latest initiatives to keep us all safe online is like one of those pattern recognition puzzles (you know, like "What is the next term in this sequence: O, T, T, F, F, S, S, E, N, __?").  Here, the sequence is:

cyber bullies, scammers, gangs, sexual predators, ________?

The pattern, you see, is perceived online threats against which the White House has taken action. In a February 5 post on the White House Blog, we get the administration's answer to what goes in the next blank: "online radicalization to violence."

Huh.

The White House explains its concerns this way:

Violent extremist groups ─ like al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents, violent supremacist groups, and violent “sovereign citizens” ─ are leveraging online tools and resources to propagate messages of violence and division. These groups use the Internet to disseminate propaganda, identify and groom potential recruits, and supplement their real-world recruitment efforts.  Some members and supporters of these groups visit mainstream fora to see whether individuals might be recruited or encouraged to commit acts of violence, look for opportunities to draw targets into private exchanges, and exploit popular media like music videos and online video games.  

Al-Qa'ida, violence, music videos AND video games? I'll get my pitchfork.

Except, see, I'm pretty sure I remember reading something along the following lines:    read more »

Arizona State Representative Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) introduced Arizona House Bill 2004 in December, which would amend Arizona’s criminal code and make it a class 5 felony to impersonate somebody online, including, specifically, on a social networking site. A class 5 felony carries in Arizona a presumptive sentence of a year and a half imprisonment. Rep. Ugenti was quoted saying that she was inspired to propose the bill after one of her constituents approached her to tell her about being harassed on Facebook and other sites, but she did not elaborate further.

Indeed, cyberbullying is a rampant issue, and it may lead to serious physical and emotional harm (and even death, as in the sad case of Megan Meier). There is a legitimate state interest in preventing or limiting such harm. But people engage in online impersonation for a whole mix of reasons, and one could easily see a public figure threatening to use such a law against an account that was created for completely laudable ends, such as criticism and comment.    read more »

Eight days after a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School, shooting and killing 20 young students, 6 staff members and fueling a national discussion on gun control, The Journal News in Lower Hudson, New York, published an interactive map of all residents in its community who possessed a firearms permit. The data — initially including the names and addresses of permit holders — had been obtained through the state’s Freedom of Information Law and could have been accessed by anyone upon request. Still, the decision to publish the data in its aggregate appeared to many as an unacceptable and needless invasion of the privacy of gun owners, and sparked a fierce debate over the ethics of such disclosure.   read more »

On December 21, 2012, Dr. Guy Hingston, a cancer surgeon from Port Macquarie in New South Wales, Australia, filed suit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Dr. Hingston's complaint alleges that Google portrayed him in a "false light" through its "autocomplete" feature, because for at least some users entering his name into Google's search engine has triggered the option to search for the phrase "guy hingston bankrupt."

Dr. Hingston, of course, denies that he is bankrupt. This is not the first lawsuit against Google based upon autocomplete results; we have written before about suits in other countries.  However, this is the first such suit filed in a United States court, raising the question of whether the suit could succeed under the laws of California and the United States, including the First Amendment.

"False light" is a notoriously ambiguous tort, but for the purposes of this post I will focus on California's interpretation of the tort. California's version of "false light" is very similar to defamation, except that while defamation involves false statements of fact about the plaintiff, false light involves false implications of fact. (For more on California's false light tort, see our Legal Guide entry). Nevertheless, false light is subject to limitations similar to those applicable to a defamation claim, several of which are fatal to this claim.

"Of and Concerning"   read more »

Like so many around the greater Berkman community I was stunned and saddened to hear that Aaron Swartz committed suicide late last week. I truly admired Aaron's work and consider the future of Internet policy substantially worse off without his presence. For more on his life and work, I'd encourage you to visit this gathering of Berkman blog feeds, which this week is filled with posts that discuss his life and work in greater detail.

Much of my attention towards Aaron was focused on his recent federal prosecution. This week Representative Zoe Lofgren has announced on Reddit that she plans to introduce a new bill that changes computer crime law to protect activities like Aaron's from future prosecution. (This action itself is a very fitting tribute to both Aaron's work in shaping a pro-Internet political climate and his early and involved work with Reddit.)   read more »

A Tulsa, Oklahoma girl and her mother are suing Booker T. Washington High School and Twitter, alleging that another member of the daughter's basketball team held the daughter while another teammate took pictures of her in her underwear, and sent the photos as tweets.

The lawsuit says that several other children at the school received and re-tweeted the photos, leading to harassment of the victim. The suit, which also names the teammates and their parents as defendants, seeks damages of at least $75,000.

The claims against the school are negligence and negligent supervision of the students. Against the girls who allegedly held the victim down and took the photos, the lawsuit makes claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, and two invasion of privacy claims. The claims against their parents are negligent supervision and negligent entrustment (for giving their daughters cell phones).

Against Twitter the claims are negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. The suit claims that Twitter owed the victim and her mother "a duty ... to use reasonable care in the administration of its website so as to prevent the publication of photographs of minors while undressing, particularly when said photographs are posted on Defendant's website by multiple users over the course of several weeks."   read more »

On Monday the First Circuit released an important opinion addressing copyright and news photography, in Harney v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., No. 11-1760 (1st Cir. Jan. 7, 2003).  The case is related to the famous "Clark Rockefeller" incident. For those unfamiliar, "Clark," a wealthy Boston socialite who was purportedly a member of the Rockefeller family, kidnapped his daughter and fled Boston in July 2008. This lead to a nationwide manhunt that ended a little over a week later in Baltimore. After he was apprehended it was revealed that "Clark" was actually Christian Gerhartsreiter, a German immigrant that had come to the United States as a teenager and since then assumed many different fake identities, including that of Boston socialite "Clark Rockefeller." After a conviction for parental kidnapping, Gerhartsreiter is now in California, standing trial for a 1985 murder.

If you have one image in your mind from this famous news story, it's probably this photo:

This photo was taken by freelance photographer Donald Harney for a piece in the Beacon Hill Times. The photo was used by state and federal police agencies during the manhunt for Gerhartsreiter, where it saw widespread dissemination.   read more »

Last October I wrote about the rise in popularity among French Twitter users of the hashtag #unbonjuif ("a good jew"). In December we saw a growth in other offensive hashtags, including the homophobic #Simonfilsestgay, ("if my son is gay") or the xenophobic #SimaFilleRamèneUnNoir ("if my daughter brings a Black man home"). As with #unbonjuif, the "game" consisted of adding messages to these hashhags to create a "joke."

This time the hashtags prompted a response from the government. Najat Belkacem-Vallaud, France’s Minister of Women's Rights, reacted to these offensive tweets by writing an editorial published on December 28 in Le Monde under the title "Twitter must respect the values of the Republic." She described these tweets as being "morally reprehensible and illegal under our laws," and goes on by writing that:

[i]t is the honor of France to have progressively included in its criminal code punishment for incitement to hatred or violence against a person or group of persons because of their origin, membership or non-membership in an ethnic group, nation, or because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These acts or remarks are punishable by law and the fact that they were made using a virtual channel does not make less punishable those who committed them and whose case made be tried by courts.   read more »

Before the holidays, Wired reported the filing of a putative class action in Ohio against a group of privately owned websites that allegedly collect and publish mugshot photos, and then charge those whose photos appear exorbitant amounts to have the photos removed. The lawsuit is premised on the right of publicity - that is, a person's right to control the commercial exploitation of their name or likeness.

I have little sympathy for the so-called "mugshot racket," but using the right of publicity as a method of attack has some issues. Ordinarily, the right of publicity is invoked to prevent the exploitation of an individual's persona without permission through use of a name or photograph for promotional purposes. For example, the right prevents the unauthorized use of a celebrity's likeness in advertising to falsely suggest the endorsement of a product. In that sense, the right of publicity reflects the positive value that can accrue to an individual's identity through the individual's efforts, and gives the individual the ability to control how that value is used. According to the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals:

The value of the plaintiff's name is not appropriated by mere mention of it, or by reference to it in connection with legitimate mention of his public activities; nor is the value of his likeness appropriated when it is published for purposes other than taking advantage of his reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity.   read more »

Tomorrow, Harvard University will shut down for its annual Winter Recess, marking the end of the calendar year for those of us at the Digital Media Law Project.  It seems like this year has flown by, with so much that we have done and so much that we still plan to do.

I’ll leave the full summary of our activities to the December edition of our newsletter, the Citizen Media Law Brief, but thought it would be worthwhile to highlight some of our major projects in 2012.   read more »

Criminal courthouses in Cook County, Illinois (Chicago and environs) will ban the public from bringing in electronic devices as of Jan. 15, under an order issued by Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans in mid-December. See Gen’l Admin. Order 2012-8 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty. Dec. 11, 2012).

In a press release announcing the new policy, Evans cited concerns that people attending court proceedings were using cellphones to photograph – and intimidate -- witnesses, judges, jurors, and prospective jurors, to relay courtroom testimony to upcoming witnesses, and to stream judges’ comments during trial. “The court is sending a strong message to gang members and others that any attempts to intimidate witnesses, jurors, and judges in court will not be permitted,” Evans was quoted saying in the release. “The ban will help to ensure that justice is properly done by preserving the integrity of testimony and maintaining court decorum.”

The ban will apply to 12 of the 13 courthouses in county. The exception will be the Richard J. Daley Center Courthouse in Chicago, which handles civil, traffic and misdemeanor cases.   read more »

The Digital Media Law Project would like to congratulate The Lens, the New Orleans area's first nonprofit, nonpartisan public-interest newsroom, on obtaining a positive ruling on its Section 501(c)(3) status from the Internal Revenue Service!

This ruling will exempt from federal taxation the organizational income that The Lens derives from its mission "to educate, engage and empower readers with information and analysis necessary for them to advocate for a more transparent and just governance that is accountable to the public." It will also allow The Lens to receive tax-exempt donations from charitable foundations and the general public.

The Lens was one of several news organizations stuck in an extended IRS review of their eligibility for tax-exempt status -- in the Lens' case, for over 26 months.  The determination on The Lens' application follows a similar positive determination in September with respect to San Francisco Public Press, which received approval of its 501(c)(3) status after waiting two and a half years. These long delays are likely related to internal debate at the IRS on whether a news organization can be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of eight charitable purposes set forth in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code -- specifically, whether journalism should be recognized as a method of carrying out an "educational" purpose as opposed to a purely for-profit concern. Movement on these long-delayed applications suggests that the IRS is beginning to resolve its concerns and to formulate strategies for evaluating applications from news organizations.   read more »

Excerpt from Escobedo v. THQ Inc. lawsuit

A tattoo artist sued THQ, Inc., the makers of an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) themed video game, for copyright infringement. The artist tattooed a lion on fighter Carlos Condit's torso, and claims that it was his original creation. (Complaint at 12.) The artist alleges that he created the original design, and owns a registration for the copyright to the design. (Compl. at 16.) He claims that by using the work in a video game, depicting Carlos Condit, THQ infringed upon his copyright in the work.

A press release issued by the firm representing the artist, Christopher Escobedo, states:   read more »

For a while now, one of the main causes of concern for privacy advocates has been "Big Data," that is, the collection, aggregation and analysis of data, on a, well, BIG scale. This post takes the opportunity to review some specific issues and recent developments in this area.

The exploitation of Big Data for commercial purposes may have negative consequences on individuals’ lives, yet consumers are not yet fully aware of the impact it may have on their privacy and their economic interests. Even more galling, consumers have no way to claim any portion of the profits generated by their data when sold to advertising companies for top dollars.

Big Data Enables Economic Discrimination

One of the most common uses of aggregated consumer data is in online advertising, where the advertisements that users see are based upon their online history. Automated algorithms assess whether a consumer is likely or not to be interested in a particular type of ad, and the opportunity to deliver an ad to that consumer is auctioned off on a split-second basis using an electronic trading system. Companies often present this use of Big Data as being advantageous to consumers, as they only see advertisements which are truly relevant to their interests, and thus are less exposed to spam.    read more »

Craigslist was meant for the common good, or as founder Craig Newmark puts it, “doing well by doing good.”  At least, that has been its announced mission since it began as an email distribution among friends. Craigslist kept its mantra through its rise to Silicon Valley stardom, snubbing multi-million dollar buyout offers and fighting attempts to monetize the site along the way.

The physical layout of Craigslist hasn’t changed much over the years. Point your browser in its direction and, like an old friend, you’ll be greeted with the same underlined blue links you’ve known for years. Fans are legion, but so too are critics: Critics see stagnation in this comfort, some of whom have taken matters into their own hands through attempts at innovation. However, as some have already discovered, developing tools to work around (critics would say “enhance”) Craigslist’s simple functionality can invite legal response. Is an early darling of Silicon Valley showing a decidedly uglier side, or is Craigslist still simply looking out for the common good?   read more »

One overarching theme of the 2012 election season was a struggle with truth. Both campaigns were accused of serial falsehoods, and continuing to spread incorrect information after the truth was reported. The utility of fact-checking in the election was also questioned: David Carr argued that the efforts of fact-checkers were irrelevant to the conduct of the campaigns, while the parsing of endless minutiae fed partisan bickering; Bill Adair of PolitiFact responded that the purpose of fact-checking was to inform voters so that they could better judge the candidates, not to moderate the statements of candidates directly.

As a lawyer who has defended more than a few defamation cases, all of this led me to consider the difficulties faced by those who attempt to analyze the truth of even seemingly simple statements. It sometimes surprises those not familiar with media law that courts in libel cases are not generally tasked with deciding issues of ultimate truth. Rather, judges and juries are responsible for determining whether a defendant's statements are probably true or false, to a degree of probability that allows imposition of penalties in a manner consistent with society's level of comfort. After all, jurors are not witnesses and have no direct knowledge of events; their verdict represents the opinion of a small sample of the public about the veracity of actual witnesses and conclusions as to how piecemeal information fits together. Such a decision might be reliable enough for an award of damages, but it would seem strange to present a jury's determination to the world as a binding declaration of indisputable fact.   read more »