Week of January 30, 2009 [1]
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...
Virginia Blogger Targeted With Outrageous Subpoena [2]
David Ardia reports on a new trademark and defamation lawsuit involving a parody ad.
Breaking News: Virgin America Sues Blog Over Parody Ad [3]
Mary-Rose Papandrea analyzes a Connecticut court's application of qualified immunity in a school speech case.
Another Victory for the "Douchebags" [4]
Michael Lindenberger comments on the recent GateHouse-New York Times settlement.
Thoughts on the Value of Journalism in the Wake of GateHouse v. New York Times Settlement [5]
Sam Bayard updates readers on model Liskula Cohen's effort to unmask an anonymous blogger.
Judge Orders Google to Notify "Skanks in NYC" Blogger of Discovery Request [6]
David Ardia reports on the settlement in the closely watched lawsuit against the New York Times.
GateHouse Media v. New York Times Settles [7]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...
Virgin America v. Adrants Publishing [8]
Posted Jan. 29, 2009
Department of Defense v. Karantsalis [9]
Posted Jan. 29, 2009
Garrett v. The Hook [10]
Posted Jan. 29, 2009
Garrett v. Jaquith [11]
Posted Jan. 29, 2009
Roe v. McClellan [12]
Posted Jan. 28, 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other citizen media law news...
Penn. police ordered to apologize to man they harassed for filming them
CarlosMiller.com [13] - Thurs. 01/29/09
Justice Scalia's Conception of Privacy
Concurring Opinions [14] - Thurs. 01/29/09
U.S. Supreme Court (Finally) Kills Online Age Verification Law
MediaShift [15] - Thurs. 01/29/09
South Korean blogger seeks bail after arrest
Washington Post [16] - Wed. 01/28/09
Public Sector Blogging
Media Law Prof Blog [17] - Wed. 01/28/09
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...
"In perhaps the most blatant misuse of the subpoena power we've seen since the subpoena served on Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity last March, a lawyer for Thomas Garrett of Virginia has served a patently overbroad subpoena on blogger Waldo Jaquith, who publishes cvillenews.com, a community news blog about Charlottesville, Virginia. Garrett's lawyer served the subpoena in connection with his defamation lawsuit against The Hook, a weekly newspaper in Charlottesville that also publishes content on its website. . . . The breadth of the information sought is troubling indeed. The first request, which is the most problematic, asks for: 'Any and all documents and information relating to persons posting comments on the article entitled 'The Hook Sued for Defamation.''. . . In my humble opinion, the subpoena requests are so broad and poorly tailored to the underlying litigation between Garrett and The Hook that one suspects the subpoena is meant to gather information for a potential new lawsuit or to harass Jaquith for making critical comments, rather than to obtain evidence for The Hook case. Read the subpoena and the complaint in the underlying case for yourself and see if you agree. . . ."
Sam Bayard, Virginia Blogger Targeted With Outrageous Subpoena [2]
"Earlier this week, California-based airline Virgin America filed a six-count complaint against the publisher and editors of Adrants, a blog focused on the advertising industry, after they published a post that was paired with a fake ad containing the Virgin logo and the statement, 'The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin.' The post has since been removed, but a cached version is available here (and on Gawker). . . . According to Agency Spy (another advertising focused blog): 'In response to a Virgin America email demanding that the picture be removed, Angela Natividad, a head honcho at Adrants, added this copy above the original post: 'UPDATE: Clearly, this ad is fake. A spoof. Virgin America has confirmed this. We were always supect from the get go and didn't mean to mislead or misrepresent. So we'll clearly state now: the ad is a spoof. It's not real. Virgin America had nothing to do with its creation.'' I haven't had a chance to look closely at Virgin's legal claims, but it seems like a stretch to argue that a reader would conclude that the ad was anything other than a parody or that a reader would be confused into believing that Virgin endorsed the use of its trademark in the fake ad. . . ."
David Ardia, Breaking News: Virgin America Sues Blog Over Parody Ad [3]
"A federal district court in Connecticut has granted qualified immunity to the high school principal and the school district superintendent who punished a student for calling school administrators 'douchebags' on her blog. Doninger v. Niehoff, No. 3:07-cv-1129 (D. Conn. filed Jan. 15, 2009). This decision comes as no real surprise in a circuit that lately has proven hostile to student speech rights in the digital age, but it nevertheless demonstrates the need for greater clarity in the law governing this area. . . . Given that the district court in Doninger initially rejected the plaintiff's First Amendment claims, its recent decision to grant qualified immunity to the defendant school officials should come as no real surprise. That said, the series of decisions in the case are deeply disturbing on a number of levels. First, there can be no question that Doninger was engaging in political speech regarding the conduct of school officials, which lies at the heart of the First Amendment. 'Douchebags' is not the nicest thing to call someone, but it is hardly as offensive as some of the other speech, see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ("Fuck the Draft" case), and expressive conduct, see Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (flag burning), the Supreme Court has protected. Allowing a state actor to restrict political speech, no matter how 'colorful,' should not be done lightly. . . ."
Mary-Rose Papandrea, Another Victory for the "Douchebags" [4]
"The fallout from the GateHouse v. New York Times settlement, anticlimactic as it was, has been fascinating, and deliciously exhaustive in the way that only Internet-based discussions of Internet-related issues can be. But in rereading a large sample of those discussions, I came away with two questions that are still bouncing around inside my own head. Given that I've made a career out of writing about, whenever possible, what interests me rather than trying to predict what will interest readers, I'll hog a few kilobytes to flesh them out. . . . In this age of Google News, which has so far withstood its own fair use tussles (except, I suppose, in Belgium), the question of human involvement may seem beside the point legally, and for that matter, a bit precious in every other way. But a page that is simply programmed to give readers a sampling of whatever news stories that fit its filters adds very little to the sum total of journalism in the world. In fact, given the market realities, I'd argue that it's one way that the sum total of journalism is being reduced. . . . If we are going to allow sites to cadge others' work and pass it off as their own -- and we should, given the role the interconnected Web plays -- then we might as well insist that real people are using real judgments about which of the freeloaded work is worth the attention of their readers. . . ."
Michael Lindenberger, Thoughts on the Value of Journalism in the Wake of GateHouse v. New York Times Settlement [5]
"Wendy Davis of MediaPost reports that the blogger behind the Skanks in NYC blog will keep his/her identity secret for another four weeks. In a hearing yesterday in New York Supreme Court, Judge Joan Madden refused to rule on model Liskula Cohen's request for discovery from Google regarding the blogger's identity until after Google notified the blogger, providing him/her an opportunity to object. Davis notes that the court ordered Google to email the blogger the court papers by Wednesday, January 28, and another hearing is scheduled for February 23. It's a good thing that the court delayed its ruling on the substance of Cohen's request because it raises tricky questions about whether the critical statements appearing on Skanks in NYC are fact or opinion (see my previous post), and the court could use the benefit of zealous advocacy from both sides of the dispute. . . ."
Sam Bayard, Judge Orders Google to Notify "Skanks in NYC" Blogger of Discovery Request [6]
"Zach Seward, assistant editor at the Nieman Journalism Lab, reports that the parties in GateHouse Media v. New York Times Company have settled. The case was scheduled to go to trial today in United States District Court in Boston. Zach, who has been filing Twitter updates from the courthouse, is reporting that a Court officer told him the case settled over the weekend. The Boston Globe is confirming settlement here. Showing remarkable efficiency, the Court's electronic docketing system (PACER) just updated the case file -- while I was writing this post -- with Judge Young's order dismissing the case: 'The Court having been advised on that the above-entitled action has been settled: IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed without cost and without prejudice to the right of any party, upon good cause shown, to reopen the action within thirty (30) days if settlement is not consummated.' . . ."
David Ardia, GateHouse Media v. New York Times Settles [7]
