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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
News from the Citizen Media Law Project...
In an effort to give you more for your CMLP $ (wait, you don't pay to receive all of this great stuff from CMLP?!), we've recently launched several discussion forums on our site. In the forums, you can post your own legal questions and receive unofficial feedback from CMLP staff and others. You can also discuss the latest media law news and start flame wars with fellow users. We'll also post Q&As with CMLP staff members in the next few weeks so you can learn more about the work they do. For more on how the forums work, see Courtney French's blog post from earlier in the week.
You might also have noticed that for the last few weeks we've added some new links to the bottom of our newseletters. That's right, you can now connect with CMLP on Facebook and stay up-to-date on what we are doing via Twitter.
Now, about those donations....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The latest from the Citizen Media Law Project blog...
Lee Baker has fun with statutory interpretation.
Feeding the Hand that Bites: Statutory Misinterpretation in the Name of Good
Andrew Moshirnia describes the Northwest Herald's attempt to cut off its nose to spite its face.
Complaints at Teatime! The Shaw-Skinner Lawsuit and the Futility of Legal Duels
Sam Bayard analyzes a recent decision concerning the New Jersey shield law.
New Jersey Court Says Blogger Shellee Hale Not Protected By Shield Law
Eric P. Robinson details the newest restriction on courtroom tweeting.
Michigan High Court Sends Message to Tweeters
David Ardia discusses the latest misguided missive from a lawyer.
Palin Threatens to Sue Blogger for Publishing Rumors of Investigation, Ensures Rumors Will Get Wide Attention
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...
Posted July 9, 2009
Salyer v. Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc.
Posted July 7, 2009
Town of Secaucus v. NJ.com
Posted July 7, 2009
Hawaii v. Wong-Fernandez
Posted July 7, 2009
Palin v. Moore
Posted July 5, 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other citizen media law news...
Registration for FOIA/Privacy Act training now open.
The FOI Advocate - Wed. 7/8/09
Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits
The Michigan Messenger - Wed. 7/8/09
Hey Blogger, Are You Insured?
The Blog Herald - Wed. 7/8/09
Ky. student sues anonymous poster over allegedly defamatory comments on paper's Web site
Student Press Law Center - Tue. 7/7/09
Minnesota Court of Appeals Finds MySpace Posting Constitutes "Publicity Per Se"
The Newsroom Law Blog - Mon. 7/6/09
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...
"One common criticism lodged by constructionist judges against some of their judicial brethren is that, in their quest for 'fair' results, they often misinterpret or outright ignore the plain text of a statute. The majority of a Tenth Circuit panel seems to have fallen into this trap in a recent case involving section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ('Section 230'), despite the admonitions of a fellow panel member in a carefully constructed concurrence. . . . The case at issue is FTC v. Accusearch Inc., No. 08-8003, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14480 (10th Cir. June 29, 2009), in which the FTC brought claims for unfair business practices under the Federal Trade Communications Act against Accusearch for soliciting third-party 'researchers' to obtain confidential phone records and then selling those records through its website, Abika.com. On cross-motions for summary judgement, Accusearch asserted Section 230 as a defense to the FTC's claims, styling itself as 'an interactive person-to-person search engine' that should not be responsible for publishing phone records provided by third parties, but the Wyoming District Court would have none of that. Although the district court determined that Accusearch was an interactive computer service under Section 230, it decided that the FTC's claim did not rest upon treating Accusearch as a 'publisher or speaker,' making Section 230 inapplicable. Although this finding was sufficient to end the Section 230 analysis, District Court Judge William F. Downes went on to state that 'by soliciting requests for such phone records and purchasing them for resale, Defendants "participat[ed] in the creation or development of [the] information, and thus [do] not qualify for § 230 Immunity,"' despite the fact that they neither created nor in any way modified the phone records at issue. . . . On appeal, the Tenth Circuit had the option of disposing of Accusearch's Section 230 defense on the first grounds reached by the district court, namely the question of whether Accusearch was being treated as a 'publisher or speaker.' The panel declined to base its rejection of Accusearch's Section 230 defense on these grounds. . . ."
Lee Baker, Feeding the Hand that Bites: Statutory Misinterpretation in the Name of Good
"'Pistols at Dawn!' has become 'Subpoenas at Noon!' or 'Complaints at Teatime!' Today's legal duelists, armed with dubious lawsuits charging defamation, are B.F. Shaw Printing, the parent company of the Northwest Herald, and Cal Skinner, a blogger. That's right, a newspaper (the Jeffersonian protectors of democracy) and a blogger (saving the world one lolcat at a time) are duking it out, each trying to out chill the other's speech. Before we go to the tale of the tape and examine the complaints for their relative (lack of) merit, let's see how this all began. Shaw alleges in its complaint that Skinner gave the offending glove slap when he wrote in his blog that the Herald was favorable to the Republican Party due to a loan offered to the paper by the Republican-controlled city board. . . . Shaw responded to the pedestrian accusation of media bias by filing a three-count lawsuit claiming defamation, false light, and commercial disparagement. . . . Skinner, in his answer to the complaint, claimed that his statements were true. . . and attached a copy of Resolution R-8511-02-86 from the McHenry County Board, which he claims shows that 'the plaintiff was a participant in and beneficiary of a $2.6 million dollar loan, with interest at 80% of prime, from the McHenry County Board'. . . . He also countersued Shaw for bringing a frivolous suit, defamation, and false light. . . . For each offense he asked for $50k of compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. I'm going to guess that Shaw is not happy with how this played out. Like Aaron Burr, even if it wins it loses. . . ."
Andrew Moshirnia, Complaints at Teatime! The Shaw-Skinner Lawsuit and the Futility of Legal Duels
"In a June 30 decision, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Louis Locascio ruled that Shellee Hale, a blogger, private investigator, and 'life coach,' could not invoke New Jersey's journalist shield law to protect the identity of her sources in connection with postings she made to an Internet message board. Hale sought protection for her sources under the shield law in the course of a defamation lawsuit brought against her by New Jersey-based Too Much Media, LLC, a software company that serves the online adult entertainment business. In the lawsuit, Too Much Media claimed that Hale defamed the company on Oprano.com, a forum for those in the adult entertainment industry -- self-described as the 'Wall Street Journal of porn.' According to the court's decision, Hale's forum posts accused Too Much Media and two company officers of intentionally mishandling a security breach and engaging in threatening behavior. . . . The court ruled that Hale was not entitled to the protection of New Jersey's shield law because she had no affiliation with a 'legitimate' news publication and her message board postings bore no similarity to traditional forms of journalism. The opinion includes some sweeping statements showing quite a bit of disdain for at least some forms of online communication. . . ."
Sam Bayard, New Jersey Court Says Blogger Shellee Hale Not Protected By Shield Law
"I blogged several weeks ago about recent cases in which jurors have caused a stir by using social media such as Twitter to communicate about their jury service. Taking the issue on proactively, the Michigan Supreme Court has adopted a new rule requiring judges to admonish jurors to not use electronic communication devices during trial, and not to use them during breaks to comment or conduct research on the case. The new rule, which takes effect September 1, 2009, adds specific admonitions to a general statement that judges must generally instruct the jurors to base their verdict only on the evidence presented in court. . . . As I've noted before, courts have long instructed jurors to not discuss the case with others, or access news reports or other external information. Except for the few cases in which jurors are sequestered, courts generally rely on the 'honor system,' trusting jurors to follow these instructions. It makes sense, when there seem to be few boundaries on tweeting, e-mailing and blogging, to tell jurors that they must limit these activities. . . ."
Eric P. Robinson, Michigan High Court Sends Message to Tweeters
"Exercising one of the freedoms Americans celebrate on Independence Day -- the freedom to threaten an ill-conceived lawsuit -- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin directed her lawyer to publish an open letter to Shannyn Moore, an Alaska blogger, radio personality, Huffington Post contributor, and frequent guest on MSNBC, threatening to file a defamation lawsuit against her. The letter also warned the Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and other news organizations that Palin would be 'exploring [her] legal options' if they claimed 'as "fact" that Governor Palin resigned because she is "under federal investigation" for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing.' The oddly worded four-page letter warns of severe consequences for news organizations that republish rumors suggesting Palin embezzled funds in the construction of a Wasilla, Alaska, sports arena. . . ."
David Ardia, Palin Threatens to Sue Blogger for Publishing Rumors of Investigation, Ensures Rumors Will Get Wide Attention
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Join the conversation...
Can't get enough of the Citizen Media Law Project? Join us on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube!
