Welcome to the Citizen Media Law Brief, a weekly newsletter highlighting recent blog posts, media law news, legal threat entries, and other new content on the Citizen Media Law Project's website. You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in the CMLP or registered on our site, www.citmedialaw.org. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, you can unsubscribe by following the link at the bottom of this email or by going to http://www.citmedialaw.org/newsletter/subscriptions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The latest from the Citizen Media Law Project blog...
Arthur Bright wonders: if Italian bloggers stop blogging, but nobody notices, do they make a sound?
Italian Bloggers On Strike!
Andrew Moshirnia fights for your right to Twitter.
Out of the Frying Pan and into the Mildly Uncomfortable Sauna: The Not-So-Bad-But-Still-Unconstitutional Social Networking Ban
Kimberley Isbell reports that Lego has jumped off the Cluetrain.
Lego® My Video: "Clearance Culture" Becomes a Parody of Itself
David Ardia says documents just want to be free.
Opening Up the Federal Court System, One Filing at a Time
Sam Bayard discusses some good news coming out of DC.
D.C. High Court Joins Consensus Protecting the Anonymity of Online Speakers
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...
Quest Diagnostics v. Mercola
Posted Aug. 21, 2009
Office of Dispute Resolution v. Stengle
Posted Aug. 18, 2009
Cousins v. Orr
Posted Aug. 17, 2009
Keith Goodridge Construction v. WYBS, Inc.
Posted Aug. 17, 2009
Lang v. Mason
Posted Aug. 17, 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other citizen media law news...
Flickr v. Free Speech. Where Is Their Courage?
TechCrunch - Fri. 08/21/09
Unmasking of Blogger Needn't Doom First Amendment
MediaPost - Thurs. 08/20/09
Football Tackles Twitter, Facebook, Instant Video
The San Francisco Chronicle - Thurs. 08/20/09
Private High School Not Liable for Cyberbullying -- DC v. Harvard-Westlake
Technology & Marketing Law Blog - Thurs. 08/20/09
Woman charged with harassment over suggestive post
The Washington Post - Tues. 08/18/09
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...
"Did you know that Italian bloggers are on strike? It's true! Since July 14, Italy's bloggers have been under self-imposed silence, in protest of a proposed law (called the Alfano decree) that would grant a right of reply to those who feel their reputations have been besmirched by something posted on the Web, writes the BBC. For those who can read Italian, the strike's website is located here. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm very sympathetic to the bloggers, who are right to be concerned, because this is pretty much the mother of all chilling effects. If I wanted to make up a hypothetical to illustrate the damage such a law could cause, I couldn't make one better than this. As Alessandro Gilioli, the journalist who organized the strike, told the BBC: '[The legislators behind the Alfano decree] are discouraging the use of the internet, forcing all the bloggers to rectify any opinion that anybody thinks is hurting his honour or reputation and they are creating big fines, more than €10,000 (£8,500), if you don't publish your rectification in two days. . . .' It is stupid, and it is going to discourage people from blogging. The Italian government couldn't come up with a better means for indirectly barring criticism on the Internet. And naturally, it won't just be public officials and figures who'll be able to take advantage of such a law. I'd be more worried about the kids writing about their school day, or people who blog for their friends. Woe betide little Bambalina should she say mean things about her math teacher, or Jon-Stewart-wannabe Giovanni should he make a snarky comment about an acquaintance that gets taken the wrong way. They'd better have several thousand Euros socked away somewhere. . . ."
Arthur Bright, Italian Bloggers On Strike!
"The memory of pain can be one of the best painkillers. Anyone who has had the misfortune of enduring acute physical agony has later repurposed that nightmare as a psychic analgesic. 'This needle might hurt, but it's nothing compared to that time I broke my arm. I can do this.' Previous extremes make the mild more bearable. This holds true for a surprising number of situations: long plane delays, expensive fines, and now sex-offender Internet bans. (Don't worry if that last category didn't make too much sense, I'm just about to explain.) A week ago, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed a bill, HB 1314, making it illegal for convicted sex offenders to access a 'social networking website' . . . . [I]f you get on the sex offenders list in Illinois there is a bevy of sites you cannot so much as visit. And it's not just the usual suspects of Facebook and MySpace. LinkedIn, Focus, YouTube, and Twitter would all be off limits as well. Now though I think this law is likely overbroad (it would arguably ban sex offenders from using this very blog - as the complex, run-on language seems to imply that any communication and photohosting site is off limits) and probably unconstitutional (analysis below), I find myself having a rather muted reaction to it. I think this is due to the fact that I've recently written about lifetime and decade-long bans on any Internet use. Hell, a bill for mandatory physical castration is making the rounds in Alabama. . . ."
Andrew Moshirnia, Out of the Frying Pan and into the Mildly Uncomfortable Sauna: The Not-So-Bad-But-Still-Unconstitutional Social Networking Ban
"Much has been written on the proliferation of the so-called 'clearance culture' and the threat that overly aggressive intellectual property enforcement poses to creativity. Last week brought news of the clearance culture's most recent victim: Spinal Tap. It all started in 2007, when a 14 year old decided to pay homage to the Spinal Tap (cough) 'classic' 'Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You Tonight.' Coleman Hickey created a video for the song using stop-action animation and Lego® figures. Spinal Tap got word of Hickey's video, and decided to display it on stage during their recent 'Unwigged and Unplugged tour. Concertgoers even raised Lego-inspired 'C' shaped hands during the performance. Here's where things become decidedly less funny. Spinal Tap approached Lego to request permission to use Hickey's video in their commemorative tour DVD set. And Lego said 'no.' Why, do you ask? Because 'it had some inappropriate language, and the tone wasn't appropriate for our target audience of kids 6 to 12.' (I'm sure it has nothing to do with recently announced plans to turn Legoland into a major motion picture.) Hickey certainly wasn't the first person to see the artistic possibilities in the primary colored bricks. . . ."
Kimberley Isbell, Lego® My Video: "Clearance Culture" Becomes a Parody of Itself
"Anyone who has spent even a few minutes looking for case documents in the federal courts knows what a crusty old system the federal government provides for searching and accessing filings in U.S. district courts and some federal circuit courts. While these court records are ostensibly public, the sheer hassle of getting to them renders the documents largely inaccessible. That is about to change, in a big way. The folks over at Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy, along with Berkman's own Steve Schultze, just released a plugin for Firefox (you are using Firefox to read this post, right?) that begins to set these documents free, one motion to dismiss at a time. . . ."
David Ardia, Opening Up the Federal Court System, One Filing at a Time
"Last Thursday, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals weighed in on what procedural safeguards are necessary to protect the rights of Internet users to engage in anonymous speech. In Solers, Inc. v. Doe, the D.C. high court set out a stringent standard for its lower courts to follow and emphasized that a plaintiff 'must do more than simply plead his case' to unmask an anonymous speaker claimed to have violated the law. D.C.'s new standard most closely resembles those set out in Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), and Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App. 4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). It requires D.C. courts to follow five steps before ordering the disclosure of an anonymous speaker's identity: 1. ensure that the plaintiff has adequately pleaded the elements of a defamation claim; 2. require reasonable efforts to notify the anonymous defendant that the complaint has been filed and the subpoena has been served; 3. delay further action for a reasonable time to allow the defendant an opportunity to file a motion to quash; 4. require the plaintiff to proffer evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on each element of the claim that is within its control; and 5. determine that the information sought is important to enable the plaintiff to proceed with his/her lawsuit. . . ."
Sam Bayard, D.C. High Court Joins Consensus Protecting the Anonymity of Online Speakers
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Join the conversation...
Can't get enough of the Citizen Media Law Project? Join us on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube!
