Brief for September 2011 [1]

Welcome to the Citizen Media Law Brief, a monthly newsletter highlighting recent blog posts, media law news, legal threat entries, and other new content on the Citizen 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 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 [2].

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
News from the Citizen Media Law Project...

Fall is upon us, and the folks here at the CMLP are spending a good part of it on the road, speaking to academics and professionals about the legal issues facing citizen media today. This week, the CMLP is joining the rest of the Berkman Center at the iLaw Conference [3], a flagship gathering of students and scholars discussing the current issues facing Internet law worldwide. If you happen to be attending iLaw, be sure to sign up for the CMLP's dinner tonight, where Jeff, Arthur, and Andy will be hosting a discussion on mobile media and citizen journalism.

On September 22nd we will be hosting a one-day Law School for Digital Journalists [4], held in conjunction with the Online News Association's annual conference [5]. You can register for that conference here [6]. The week after, on September 30th, Andy will be at the Block by Block Conference [7] in Chicago, talking about legal issues for online publishers. Registration information for that event is available here [7].

Next month, on October 22nd, the CMLP will return to Kennesaw State in Georgia for the Center for Sustainable Journalism's Media Law in the Digital Age [8] conference. Registration information for that conference is here [9].

Finally, as the calendar year winds down, we're all looking forward to a big anniversary. In December, our Online Media Legal Network [10] will be celebrating its second anniversary. To mark the occasion, we're hosting a Berkman Tuesday Luncheon [11] highlighting our achievements and discussing our plans for future growth. In the meantime, we're happy to announce that we have now referred over 300 separate pro bono and reduced fee matters through the OMLN. We are always trying to grow the network, so if you are an attorney with experience in media law, intellectual property, or business issues for start-up ventures, please consider applying to join [12].

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The latest from the Citizen Media Law Project blog...

Jeff Hermes sounds the trumpet: a big win in the First Circuit on the right to record police activity in public.
A Victory for Recording in Public! [13]

Justin Silverman scrutinizes the First Amendment implications of the recent BART attempts to shut off cell phone service.
BART Phone Blackout: Did the S.F. Transit Agency Violate Free Speech Protections? (Part One [14] | Part Two [15])

Eric Robinson takes a look at California's new law regarding use of social media by jurors.
New California Law Prohibits Jurors' Social Media Use [16]

John Sharkey notes that the new anti-SLAPP law, like everything else, is bigger in Texas.
A Look at Texas's New Anti-SLAPP Law [17]

Timothy Lamoureux shares his experience attending a teleconference between Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and jurists from Tunisia.
Liberté, Egalité, L'Internet in Tunisia with Justice Breyer [18]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...

Snyder v. Creative Loafing, Inc. [19]
Posted September 2, 2011

Bay Area Rapid Transit v. Protesters [20]
Posted September 2, 2011

Hannibal Public School District v. D.J.M. [21]
Posted September 1, 2011

Massachusetts v. Portnoy [22]
Posted August 31, 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other media law news and commentary...

Chats don’t have to be online: A newspaper finds success with its downtown news cafe
Nieman Journalism Lab [23] - Thurs. 9/1/11

Hot New Hollywood Trend: Crazy Defamation Lawsuits
The Hollywood Reporter [24] - Tues. 8/23/11

Ashton Kutcher Endorses His Investments on Twitter, Too
The Atlantic [25] - Fri. 8/19/11

Backpage Gets 47 U.S.C. 230 Defense for Prostitution Ads
Technology & Marketing Law Blog [26] - Wed. 8/17/11

An easy fair use ruling, but with a message
Scholarly Communications @ Duke [27] - Tue. 8/16/11

Miami Beach police officers told not to confiscate video
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press [28] - Mon. 8/8/11

Why Facebook and Google's Concept of "Real Names" Is Revolutionary
The Atlantic [29] - Fri. 8/5/11

Norfolk DA, OpenCourt battle over video archives
New England First Amendment Center [30] - Thu. 8/4/11

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...

"Glik filed suit in federal court against the officers and the City of Boston under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Glik alleged that the police officers violated his First Amendment right to record police activity in public and that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him without probable cause to believe a crime had occurred. . . . [T]he police officers moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity, but Judge Young was having none of that, denying the motion from the bench . . . . The police officers then appealed to the First Circuit, but they have now struck out on appeal as well . . . . So, clearly established First Amendment right to record the police in public - check. Clearly established Fourth Amendment right against being arrested for violating the wiretap act when you're openly recording in public - check. Even though I'm sitting in Cambridge with the eye of Hurricane Irene staring right at me, I can't help but feel that a ray of sunlight has just pierced the clouds."
Jeff Hermes, A Victory for Recording in Public! [13]

"When the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) shut down cell phone service at various train platforms . . . it did more than prevent the protests it expected to occur at its stations. The shutdown also sparked a national debate over whether such an agency can constitutionally interfere with the public's ability to communicate via phone and Internet, and if so, under what circumstances. . . . Though phone service shutdowns to prevent protests have yet to be addressed by the courts, there is a significant amount of caselaw that can help put BART's actions into perspective. Most relevant are decisions related to prior restraints and the public forum doctrine."
Justin Silverman, BART Phone Blackout: Did the S.F. Transit Agency Violate Free Speech Protections? (Part One [14] | Part Two [15])

" California has adopted a new statute which clarifies that jurors may not use social media and the Internet . . . to research or disseminate information about cases, and can be held in criminal or civil contempt for violating these restrictions. [The statute] expands the state's existing jury instructions which currently, at the start of trial and prior to any recesses or breaks, admonish jurors not to discuss the case they are sitting on with each other or anyone else before deliberations. The current instructions make no specific mention of electronic research or communications. . . . The new law also charges court officers to bar jurors from communicating outside the jury room, by electronic or other means, during deliberations."
Eric Robinson, New California Law Prohibits Jurors' Social Media Use [16]

"[Texas's] new law . . . casts a wide net: it covers any exercise (in any medium) of free speech, petition, or association rights. . . . The statute also has a few bits that tip the scales slightly in favor of the little guy. . . . [C]ommunications about goods and services in the marketplace are protected, but only from the customer end: businesses can't use the anti-SLAPP statute to kill lawsuits against them over their advertising. . . . Texas's damage scheme is interesting . . . . On top of the fees and costs, the court 'shall' award the defendant damages 'sufficient to deter the party who brought the legal action from bringing similar actions.' It's not optional[.]"
John Sharkey, A Look at Texas's New Anti-SLAPP Law [17]

"The questions [the Tunisian jurists] asked ranged from asking whether a presidential executive structure could work for them . . . to what the single most important aspect of the US Constitution is. Justice Breyer . . . recommended that anything they do should reflect their national character. . . . This led me to wonder, sitting silently next to the Supreme Court Justice and staring into the screen displaying the erudite assembly in Tunisia, whether they should create some statement that can last into perpetuity about the value the Internet has in Tunisia. . . . [I]n the reformation of a country that has forged its character in part from the Internet, the drafting of their constitution should reflect this experience in some way."
Timothy Lamoureux, Liberté, Égalité, L'Internet in Tunisia with Justice Breyer [18]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Join the conversation...

Can't get enough of the Citizen Media Law Project? Join us on Twitter, Facebook [31], YouTube [32], and Delicious [33]!