Welcome to the Digital Media Law Brief, a monthly newsletter highlighting recent blog posts, media law news, legal threat entries, and other new content on the Digital Media Law Project's website, as well as upcoming events and other announcements. You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in the DMLP or registered on our site, www.dmlp.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.dmlp.org/newsletter/subscriptions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
News from the Digital Media Law Project...
If you've been by the website recently you might have noticed some changes. As of last week, the Citizen Media Law Project completed its transition to the Digital Media Law Project, signaled by transitioning our domain name from citmedialaw.org over to dmlp.org (with similar moves over at Twitter and at Facebook). As Jeff explained over at the DMLP blog, this is a significant change for us and signifies our work all forms of independent journalists, be they a citizen watchdog or a veteran reporter striking out on their own. And stay tuned for other developments with our online presence through the spring and summer.
Spring is, in theory, here, but you wouldn't know that looking at the foot of snow currently blanketing the greater Boston area. Nevertheless, the spring semester is certainly in full swing, and the Digital Media Law Project been working hard on a wide array of efforts. The DMLP just authored and filed a brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case Seaton v. TripAdvisor, addressing Tennessee's defamation doctrine as it applies to websites that draw opinions and conclusions from disclosed, user-submitted data. This technique of information analysis has become increasingly popular across a wide variety of journalism and academic research, and the DMLP urged the Sixth Circuit to protect journalists and scholars from lawsuits challenging their methodology or conclusions. Special thanks to our crack legal team over at the HLS Cyberlaw Clinic, including clinic student (and DMLP intern!) Jillian Stonecipher, former clinical students Andrew Crocker and Emma Raviv, and Clinic Assistant Director Chris Bavitz. You can read our brief here.
Jeff and Andy have been busy getting the work of the DMLP out to the world as well. Jeff has been working the academic lecture circuit, speaking to classes at Lesley, Northeastern, and right here at HLS on a variety of online media topics. Andy will be a UC Hastings later this month to talk about reforms to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and at the New England Chapter of the Copyright Society of the USA to discuss copyright trolling. You can also see both Andy and Jeff later in the spring at the Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Intellectual Property conference and at an event to be hosted by the Cambridge Community Television station at the Cambridge Public Library. Details on all of these to follow.
And, of course, our Online Media Legal Network has continued to provide legal assistance to journalism entities across the country. As of this month we have over 275 members helping on a total of over 450 different legal matters. (We also have some exciting news to share about a recent OMLN client coming very soon.) As always, we need the continued help of attorneys practicing in business, nonprofit, media, and intellectual property law to keep this going, so share our link to join the network widely!
Much more to come as the year progresses, and welcome again to the new DMLP!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The latest from the Digital Media Law Project blog...
Jillian Stonecipher praises Texas's proposed technology-forward retraction statute.
Texas Bill Would Allow Publishers to Correct or Retract Content to Avoid Damages
Heads Up, Online Radicals -- You're Next
Eric Robinson covers the disturbing fissure between "media" and "non-media" in Iowa defamation law.
Iowa Retains Media/Non-Media Distinction, Leaving Bloggers Vulnerable
Andy Sellars argues that an Illinois bill to remove anonymity online is both bad law and bad policy.
Illinois Clumsily Enters the Nymwars
Marie-Andrée Weiss looks at an online impersonation bill from Arizona.
@Parody or @Crime? AZ Bill May Blur the Line
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Threats recently added or updated in the DMLP Threats Database...
Prenda Law v. Godfread
Updated March 7, 2013
Steele v. Godfread
Updated March 7, 2013
Duffy v. Godfread
Updated March 7, 2013
Global Wildlife Center v. Hammond Action News
Updated March 6, 2013
Seaton v. TripAdvisor, LLC
Updated March 4, 2013
Haywood v. St. Michael’s College
Posted February 14, 2013
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other media law news and commentary...
Police Brutality in the iPhone Era
Philadelphia City Paper - 3/7/13
Fact and Fantasy Collide in NYC Cannibalism Trial
Wall Street Journal - 3/6/13
What Prenda Law Is Facing In Los Angeles, And How They Got There
Popehat - 3/6/13
Daily Voice Closes Mass. News Sites
MetroWest Daily News - 3/4/13
Report: The IRS’s “Antiquated and Counterproductive” Rules are Hurting Nonprofit News Orgs
Nieman Journalism Lab - 3/4/13
Ex-BPI Employee Dismisses “Pink Slime” Lawsuit Against Me, ABC and Jamie Oliver
The Lunch Tray - 3/4/13
Inquiry Widens into Swartz Prosecution
Boston Globe - 2/28/13
Fan's NASCAR Accident Video Returns to YouTube After Takedown
NBCNews.com - 2/27/13
Court Quashes City Subpoena for Documentary Outtakes
New York Law Journal - 2/20/13
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...
"Texas State Representative Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, has proposed a 'retraction statute' that, if passed, will protect journalists both online and offline and promote truth and efficiency both in and out of court. The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and the Texas Press Association assisted Hunter in drafting Texas House Bill 1759, which would require a prospective plaintiff to give a publisher an opportunity to correct, clarify, or withdraw false content before filing a defamation lawsuit. . . . If passed, HB 1759 will promote truth in publication. It will encourage subjects to contact publishers who may have gotten something wrong, encourage publishers to listen to and engage with subjects complaining of inaccuracies, and lead to corrections or clarifications in cases where a publisher determines one is necessary, which will provide the public more accurate information. Out of court resolution would also promote the interests of the judicial system by lessening the burden on courts, which are overburdened with ever-increasing caseloads."
Jillian Stonecipher, Texas Bill Would Allow Publishers to Correct or Retract Content to Avoid Damages
"Basically, you're allowed to talk about violence in the United States. You're allowed to be 'divisive.' You're even allowed to argue that violence is an appropriate response to the ills you perceive in the government or the world at large. You are certainly allowed to publish and to play violent video games, even realistic ones where you can choose a side opposing the United States. Only when your speech gets to the point of 'inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action' do you leave the protection of the First Amendment. The White House isn't (yet) attempting to pass laws to ban this content, which would pretty clearly be unconstitutional, but it's certainly considering normative and technological measures."
Jeff Hermes, Heads Up, Online Radicals -- You're Next
"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. . . . The Iowa Supreme Court, in a majority opinion by Justice Edward Mansfield, began by reviewing the history of libel law in Iowa, both before and after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan that state defamation law was limited by the First Amendment. But in Iowa cases involving libel per se, the Sullivan ruling was held to apply only when the defendant was deemed to be a media entity. As summarized by the court, 'A media defendant benefits from the bar on presumed damages and the requirement to prove fault and falsity, whereas a nonmedia defendant is subject to presumptions of damages, falsity, and malice if a traditional case of defamation per se has been established.'The court then reviewed the arguments against retaining libel per se and the media/non-media distinction in Iowa law, and declined to make any changes."
Eric Robinson, Iowa Retains Media/Non-Media Distinction, Leaving Bloggers Vulnerable
"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. . . . Ignoring that the bill makes no attempt to avoid the obvious dormant commerce clause issues inherent when a state tries to regulate what has to be on all Internet websites, and ignoring that New York tried the same thing last year with nothing to show for it, and ignoring that the average Internet user probably doesn't know how to find their IP address . . . , and ignoring that IP addresses are dynamically assigned on most ISPs and therefore one's presence at a given IP address does not actually help to identify a person, and ignoring that the definition of 'anonymous poster' does not include the critical ingredient that a poster be anonymous, and ignoring that the same State Senator also sponsored a bill to prevent disclosure of identities of firearm owners in Illinois (leading to the pithy critique 'guns don't kill people; comments do') – the entire premise of this bill is fundamentally repugnant to the First Amendment and may actually harm those that it is likely intended to help protect."
Andy Sellars, Illinois Clumsily Enters the Nymwars
"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. . . . 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. It's worth noting that Rep. Ugenti may have personal reasons for proposing this law. Rep. Ugenti has inspired fake Twitter accounts, including @RubbingUGently, which started publishing last year to comment on a crude joke made by Michelle Ugenti sotto voce (but with microphones open) while chairing a committee meeting last February. . . . Probably riding the publicity wave created by the introduction of HB 2004, another Michelle Ugenti fake Twitter account, @RepMUgenti, was recently created. . . . Would a prosecution against accounts like @RepMUgenti and @RubbingUGently be successful under this law?"
Marie-Andrée Weiss, @Parody or @Crime? AZ Bill May Blur the Line
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Join the conversation...
Can't get enough of the Digital Media Law Project? Join us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Delicious!
