Week of August 28, 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...
Sam Bayard has good news for court document junkies.
Federal Courts OK Use of RECAP [2]
Dan Gillmor advises you to readjust your internal BS meter.
'Skanky' Blogging, Anonymity and What's Right [3]
Eric P. Robinson reports that you can still get your Twitter on at SEC games.
Southeastern Conference Sacks Social Media, Then Recovers [4]
Andrew Moshirnia laments the passing of the Wikipedian Wild West.
Wikipedia's New Review Process: Closing the Libeler’s Playground [5]
Sam Bayard remains riveted to the slow-moving trainwreck that is the Courtney Love Twitter lawsuit.
Courtney Love Fires Back in Twitter Libel Suit [6]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...
Video Professor v. Informercial Consumer Awareness [7]
Posted Aug. 28, 2009
Devenyns v. Albero [8]
Posted Aug. 28, 2009
United States v. White [9]
Posted Aug. 25, 2009
Doe v. Dirty World Entertainment [10]
Posted Aug. 25, 2009
Posted Aug. 25, 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other citizen media law news...
Google's Blogger Changes DMCA Procedure
Plagiarism Today [12] - Wed. 8/26/09
Judge Rules NCAA Documents Are Public Records
Newsroom Law Blog [13] - Wed. 8/26/09
Ninth Circuit Enacts Miranda-Like Code for Computer Search and Seizure
The Volokh Conspiracy [14] - Wed. 8/26/09
Online Retailer Isn't Liable for User Comments -- Cornelius v. DeLuca
Technology & Marketing Law Blog [15] - Mon. 8/24/09
Swiss official tells Google to erase street views
The Washington Post [16] - Mon. 8/24/09
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...
"We blogged last week about RECAP, a Firefox plugin that lets PACER users share federal court documents through a repository hosted by the Internet Archive. There was some rumbling earlier in the week when Paul Levy and the folks at RECAP noted that the federal courts had posted statements warning lawyers about security concerns associated with the plugin. Over at the CL&P Blog, Levy reports that a representative of the federal courts contacted him this week to clarify that the Administrative Office of the United States Courts has no problem with lawyers using RECAP to share court documents: 'I got a call this afternoon from Michel Ishakian, the Deputy Chief for IT Policy and Budget at the Administrative Office of the United States courts. She assured me that they have no problem with counsel using RECAP.'. . ."
Sam Bayard, Federal Courts OK Use of RECAP [2]
"Here we go again -- a new attack on anonymous speech, misusing the facts ripped from the current headlines about a case of one person's slimy online attacks on another. So, as what Maureen Dowd today called the 'Case of the Blond Model and the Malicious Blogger' gains publicity steam, Dowd and too many other commentators seem to be missing some key points and drawing the wrong lessons. To refresh your memory, if you haven't heard about it, this case involves Liskula Cohen, a model who was on the receiving end of some vile comments next to suggestive pictures, posted under a pseudonym on one of gazillions of such blogs at Google's Blogger service. Cohen's lawyer persuaded a judge that the posts were arguably defamatory, and the judge ordered Google to turn over the email address and other logged information it had about the blogger. The company, after first denying Cohen's request and saying she'd need a court order, then complied and handed over the information. The data trail led back to a Cohen acquaintance named Rosemary Port. Cohen, in a demonstration of her own better instincts, said she would forgive Port instead of suing her. That's where this nasty little incident might have ended. Unfortunately it appears to be heading off in new directions. Port says she's going to sue Google, arguing that she had a right to confidentiality. Give me a break. I'm a privacy nut, but I believe Google did exactly the right thing in this instance, in part because it obeyed a clear order from a judge who also did the right thing. No one can dispute that we have a category of human slime that uses online anonymity (or, usually more accurately, pseudonymity) to attack other people. . . ."
Dan Gillmor, 'Skanky' Blogging, Anonymity and What's Right [3]
"Responding to a storm of criticism, the 12-university Southeastern Conference was forced to back away from proposed rules which would have prohibited fans from blogging, Twittering, instant messaging, or otherwise disseminating 'any material or information about [its sports competitions], including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event.' In response to the criticism, the Conference quickly came up with a new policy under which 'Personal messages and updates of scores or other brief descriptions of the competition throughout the Event are acceptable,' but 'Absent the prior written permission of the Southeastern Conference, game action videos of the Event may not be taken . . . .' (The SEC also issued a revised media credentialing policy in the face of protests from professional media over a new policy restricting their use of video, audio and blogging, but still drew objections and refusals to agree to the new rules.) As several sports columnists have pointed out, the goal of the new rules is clear: to protect the SEC's 15-year contracts with CBS ($3 billion) and ESPN ($2.5 billion), which include rights to video of SEC games for broadcast and online streaming, as well as the conference's own new, online video service. . . ."
Eric P. Robinson, Southeastern Conference Sacks Social Media, Then Recovers [4]
"Wikipedia is growing up and exercising more control over its content. In years past, the free encyclopedia provided me with such jewels as an exegesis of Smurf Communism (long since removed). More importantly, Wikipedia helped keep us at CMLP busy, by serving as the equivalent of a libeler's attractive nuisance, providing an easily accessible platform for defamers the world over. The defamed would sue their defamers, and often (futilely) go after Wikipedia as well, providing us with a bevy of opportunities to document the 'hey-isn't-this-strange' legal threat and the general ignorance of Section 230. But all good things must come to an end. Yesterday, the Wikipedia Foundation announced that the English-Language site would now flag all proposed edits to the pages of live individuals. Contributors used to the intoxicating immediacy of Wikipedia editing will now instead need to wait for editor approval. This system has already been in place for a year in the German-Language Wikipedia (ah, those order-loving Germans). This change will likely attract controversy by chilling new contributors and by possibly exacerbating a decline in overall edits. And of course, this process sets up the privileged class of knowledge gatekeepers that early evangelists for Wikipedia promised would never come to the site. . . ."
Andrew Moshirnia, Wikipedia's New Review Process: Closing the Libeler’s Playground [5]
"Last week, Courtney Love filed a motion to strike the lawsuit brought against her by Austin-based fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir (a/k/a the 'Boudoir Queen'). In her motion, Love invokes California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), a law designed to deter frivolous lawsuits brought to discourage individuals and organizations from speaking out on public issues or controversies. Originally fashioned as protection for environmental groups sued by land developers over campaigns to galvanize the public and government regulators, the anti-SLAPP law is now understood to apply to a broad range of speech activities. If Love's motion is successful, it will apparently protect celebrity trash talking on Twitter. Simorangkir sued Love in March over statements made on Twitter, on Love's MySpace blog, and on Simorangkir's feedback page on etsy.com, an online marketplace for independent designers. In her complaint, Simorangkir alleged that, after their business relationship soured, Love used these online platforms to falsely accuse Simorangkir of lying, stealing, dealing drugs, assault, prostitution, and losing custody of her child, among other things. . . . Many of Love's posts were grammatically challenged, and some were downright incomprehensible. Others, like this one posted to Twitter, were just totally bad ass: 'oi vey don't fuck with my wardrobe or you willend [sic] up in a circle of [s]corched earth hunted til your dead . . . .' A force of nature indeed. Not to be outdone, Simorangkir fired back, speculating in her complaint that Love's rants must be the product of 'a drug induced psychosis, a warped understanding of reality, or the belief that her money and fame allow her to disregard the law.' But enough of this gossipy goodness, what about the law? Well, to win her anti-SLAPP motion, Love has to show. . . ."
Sam Bayard, Courtney Love Fires Back in Twitter Libel Suit [6]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Join the conversation...
Can't get enough of the Citizen Media Law Project? Join us on Twitter [17], Facebook [18], and YouTube [19]!
