Fordham Law Mass Media Outline MD

8/13/2019 Fordham Law Mass Media Outline MD

1/34

MASS MEDIA LAW Prof Sims Spring 2012 Diana Sanders

I. 1stA and the media

A. Introduction

-1stA limits the fed govt Also limits the states thr! 1" thA-1stA prote#tions don$t e%tend to private parties& !nless state a#tion re'!irement is met (eg& state la) sa*s

that A shall have a#tion agst +& the state is giving A the means of enfor#ement !nder the la),B. Theories for the 1stA

1 maretpla#e for ideas (f!n#tional theor*,

- its ne#essar* to have a free e%#hange of idea so that )e #on )eed o!t tr!th from fi#tion- #ore of 1stA val!es

2 Politi#al theor* (f!n#tional theor*,- po)er of people in a demo#ra#* is fo#!sed on e%#hange of ideas re. govt& parties and legis- Meile/ohn arg!ed that false polit spee#h has no val!e ()o!ldn$t have approved of imes

v S!llivan,- Seditio!s Li3el in Eng& govt p!nished people for speaing agst the #ro)n (diff from modern

da* defamation 3# defamation has a falsit* re'!irement in Eng& the* p!nished even if it )astr!e4tr!th )as not a defense, See 5enger #ase

- Alien and Sedition A#t (1678, 9S govt p!nished false #riti#ism and defamator* #ommentsa3o!t govt (diff from seditio!s li3el in Eng& 3# the 9S a#t had a falsit* re'!irement, his )asdeemed !n#onst 3* the S!llivan holding

: Personal ;al!es (li3eral theor*,

- t didn$t e%pressl* overr!le Dennis&its /!st that +randen3!rg )ent 3e*ond it and is no) that test that$s !sed

- >PD dvlpd in Brandenburg #&&&,- The CPD testo Spee#h is dire#ted to in#ite4prod!#e imminent!nla)f!l a#tion

o Spee#h is liel* to in#ite4prod!#e s!#h a#tion

o (here is no #onsideration regarding )hat dangers are at stae ,

- Man* #ts have applied >PD test in a non-polit spee#h #onte%t (eg& ?i#e hitman 3oo #ase,'. Categorical Approach: Emergent Conseratie Model

- @!tside of !m3rella

o @3s#enit* (Miller,

o haplins*,

o Defamation (S!llivan,

o >ommer#ial spee#h (3efore 1670,

o ostile a!dien#e (


2/34


if it is advo#a#*4in#itement of !nla)f!l a#tion & if spee#h falls !nder either of these #ategoriesthen its not prote#ted Sho)s ho) diff #onservatives and li3erals vie) the 1stA !niverse

- Li3erals (ma/,o )ant to prote#t spee#h4more spee#h !nder the !m3rella

o all spee#h !nder !m3rella given same )eight

o !sed +randen3!rg test (ver* stri#t test,

this )as not advo#a#* of !nla)f!l a#tion 3# arti#le said not to tr* this

Was not o3s#ene 3* Miller standard

herefore& spee#h fell !nder the !m3rella and )as prote#ted (high tier,- >onservatives (dissent,

o e%halt polit spee#h

o sho!ld have left the '!estion of o3s#enit* to the /!r*

o also& even if this spee#h )as prote#ted (!nder the !m3rella, there #o!ld still 3e a tort

#laim 3# all spee#h !nder !m3rella sho!ld not 3e treated e'!all* so emerging#onservative theor* dis#!sses raning spee#h )ithin the !m3rella (inde#en#* is at3ottom of totem pole& polit, spee#h is at the top

b. *ighting $ords

- Chaplins+y (/ehovah )itness, #ase that formall* re#ogni=ed fighting )ords (spee#h that isoffensive to the person and is spoen fa#e to fa#e,

- ,A- teens 3!rned #ross in 3a# of famil*$s ho!se violating #it*$s hate #rime ord )hi#hprohi3ited hate spee#h (not a


3/34


4/34


5/34


d 8ibel9proof !laintiffs Ps rep!tation is so 3ad that he$s not entitled to damages otver* fla) in #hara#ter is serio!s eno!gh to mae him li3el-proof

e ingle publication rule all p!3li#ations of the same )or are treated as a singlep!3li#ation o##!rring on the date of 1stp!3li#ation his e#onomi=es the amnt of /!rison a #ase9 &eeton . )ustler P )as allo)ed to 3ring !stler to #t in even tho!gh#ir#!lation in onl* #onstit!ted 1 of total #ir#!lation (the SL had r!n o!t in allother states,

B. Constitutional Categories 1. !ublic (fficials and !ublic *igures -

a / Times . ullian #it* #ommissioner f%ning as poli#e #hief #laims to 3e defamed 3* imes rial /!dge instr!#ts the /!r* it )as li3el per se /!r* had to de#ide )hether statement)as Fof and #on#erning the P F if so then general damages )ere pres!med

Damages.(1, general Pres!med - don$t have to 3e proved

A#t!al - prove that a#t!al in/!r* o##!rred(2, spe#ial !s!all* tied to spe#ifi# prova3le finan#ial harm

(:, p!nitive a#t as p!nishment Paid dire#tl* to P

Rule of Sullivan J proof of Fa#t!al mali#eG is re'!ired for p!3li# offi#ial to re#over fordefamation Mali#e is an element of defamation if theres no mali#e then P #ant re#over !nderdefamation >t holds that here there )as no a#t!al mali#e

- 3* K70s S!llivan had e%panded to #over p!3li# fig!res& #andidates& non-offi#ial d!tes of p!3li#offi#ials

2. !riate !laintiff but Matter of !ublic Concern

a ;ertriti#al '!estion )as )hether attorne* )as p!3li# fig!re so as to 3es!3/e#t to S!llivan$s a#t!al mali#e re'!irement >t held that he )as not a p!3li# fig!re eventho!ght the matter )as one of p!3li# #on#ern >t held that he #o!ld #olle#t spe#ial and a#t!aldamages )itho!t sho)ing a#t!al mali#e all he$d have to do is prove negl In order tore#over pres!med or p!nitive damages& ho)ever& he )o!ld have to prove mali#e

- rationale for not appl*ing S!llivan test to matters of p!3li# #on#erno p!3li# offi#ials have a##ess to media and therefore have a #han#e of self-help the*

#an go to media and re3!t o

p!3li# offi#ials e/e#t themselves into the p!3li# e*e he* e%posed themselves top!3li# s#r!tin* )hereas the private Plaintiff has not3 Chapadeau has a higher 3aseline then ert= (instead of negl& P has to prove gross-negl,

'. !riate !laintiff and /ot a Mater of !ublic Concern

a "un = Bradstreet . ;reenmoss - involves an erroneo!s #redit report (said that #orp hadfiled for 3anr!pt#*, that )asn$t )idel* distri3!ted Ma/ re/e#ts distin#tion 3t)n media andno media (S!llivan and ert= involved media & )hile this #ase doesn$t, >t holds that #orp isnot a p!3li# fig!re for S!llivan p!rposes (#orp )anted to 3e seen as p!3li# fig!re ho)ever,ot a mater of p!3li# #on#ern 3# onl* 8 people s!3s#ri3e to ne)sletter >t holds thatdeminim!s re'!irement is negl (a#ross the 3oard for al damages #ategories,

"amages ()hat a Pm!st prove to re#overB,

ullianp!3li#offi#ials4p!3li# fig!res

;ert


6/34


C. "istinguishing >!riate? and >!ublic? !laintiffs

1. 3ho is a >!ublic (fficial?5

- Polit #andidateso ,osenblatt designation applies to those )ho appear to p!3li# as having s!3st

#ontrol4resp over govt affairso &assell : fa#tor test

?e#ognition that dis#!ssion of iss!es of p!3li# importan#e m!st 3e!ninhi3ited & ro3!st

Ps a##ess to media to #o!ntera#t impa#t of false4in/!rio!s statements (gert=,

he degree to )hi#h P has ass!med the ris of e%pos!re (gert=,

As per this test& Poli#e offi#ers& prin#ipals and !ublic *igure?5

- *irestone maga=ine in#orre#tl* reported that a mem3er of a high profile famil* divor#ed his)ife 3# he )as having an affair Even tho!gh she )as a mem3er of a prominent so#ial #ategor*she )as #onsidered a private& not a p!3li# fig!re r*ing to 3e prominent does not mae *o!p!3li#

- 3olston - P )as said to have 3een #onvi#ted of espionage )hen he )as reall* #onvi#ted of#ontempt >t held that the fa#t that *o! have 3een a #onvi#ted #rim doesn$t mae *o! a p!3li#fig!re

- )utchinson senator said that giving grants to #ertain s#ientists )as a )aste of govt f!nds P)as one of those s#ientists e )as #onsidered to 3e private 3# his )or onl* rea#hed a smalln!m3er of people he fa#t that he applies for fed f!nds does not mae one a p!3li# fig!re

a general purpose public figure a )ell no)n #ele3& his name a ho!sehold )ord& the p!3li#re#ogni=es him

- to determine a general p!rp p!3li# fig!re #t m!st #onsidero Ps name re#ognition

o Previo!s press #overage

o ;ol!ntariness of Ps prominen#e

3 limited purpose public figure one )ho is attempting to have or realisti#all* #an 3e e%pe#ted tohave a ma/or impa#t on a p!3li# disp!te Limited p!rpose p!3 fig!res are s!3/e#t to the S!llivanr!le (th!s moving #ertain H of #ases o!t of ert=,

- Mc8emore 9)hether a reporter )ho s!es a ; station has the stat!ts of a limited pr!p p!3

fig!re : part testo >ontrovers* at iss!e m!st 3e p!3li# 3oth in the sense that people are dis#!ssing it and

people other then the immediate parti#ipants are liel* to feel the impa#t of itsresol!tion

o P m!st have more then a trivial role in the #ontrovers*

o Alleged defamation m!st 3e germane to the Ps parti#ipation in the #ontrovers*

# inoluntary public figures if *o! have a #ertain relationship to people (eg& #hildren of highprofile people& vi#tims of notorio!s #rimes& people )ho marr* spo!ses 3efore the* are famo!s,

d. right of reasonable rebuttal of defamatory remar+s $@out ma+ing oneself a public figure.

-


7/34


Altho!gh fail!re to investigate alone )ill not s!pport a finding of a#t!al mali#e& the p!rpavoidan#e of the tr!th )ill

- Masson #t hols that a deli3erate alteration of )ords !ttered 3* P doesn$t J no)ledge offalsit* !nless the alteration res!lts in a material #hange in the meaning #onve*ed 3* thestatement

b. ,ight to en4uire into editorial process

- )erbert . 8ando er3ert s!ed prod!#er and reporter of ; program for remars a3o!t his#ond!#t in vietnam D!ring deposition the prod!#er ref!sed to ans)er some '!estions a3o!t )h*

he made #ertain investigations and not others #laiming that the tho!ght pro#esses and internaleditorial dis#!sion )ere prote#ted 3* the 1stA the s!p #t disagreed& his #ase seems to deterp!tting an*thing into )riting 3# an*thing *o! p!t in )riting or dis#!ss internall* )o!ld 3e s!3/ todis#los!re

c. proof of malice $ith conincing clarity m!st sho) )ith #lear and #onvin#ing eviden#e that theD ne) that their info )as in#orre#t or had a high degree of a)areness of its pro3a3le falsit*

e independent appellate reie$ appellate #ts m!st e%er#ise independent revie) to ass!re thatthe re'!ired proof has 3een presented )ith re'!ired #larit*

9 Bose #t held that app #t m!st #ond!#t de novo revie) his is not the normal r!le 3# these /!dgesdidn$t have the opport!nit* to )itness live testimon* at trialf. ummary udgment standard

- Anderson . 8iberty 8obby #t held that the standard for #onsidering S/ motions m!st tae intoa##t the 3!rden that P )ill have to meet at trial So standard is #lear and #onvin#ing #larit*

2. !roof of *alsity: Burden of !roof on !- )epps ne)spaper p!3lished arti#les sa*ing that a #hain of stores and its o)ners )as

#onne#ted )ith the mo3 State stat!te gave D 3!rden of proving tr!th 3!t S >t held that privatePs sho!ld 3ear the 3!rden of proving falsit*

E. *alsity and (pinion: The !ress as Commentator

- Mil+oich 3ra)l at S )restling mat#h >oa#h testified on 3ehalf of his s#hool ?eporter)ho )as at S 3!t not at hearing )rote arti#le sa*ing that #oa#h lied on stand >oa#h s!ed fordefamation State #t holds that this spee#h )as #onst prote#ted 3!t the s#t reversed sa*ing thatsome e%pressions of opinion impl* assertion of fa#t

- (llman " fa#tors to determine )hether something is falsit* or opiniono he #ommon !sage4meaning of the spe#ifi# lang!age of the #hallenged statement

o he statement verifia3ilit* it the statement #apa3le of 3eing o3/e#tivel*

#hara#teri=ed as tr!e or falseo he f!ll #onte%t of the statement

o he 3roader #onte%t4setting in )hi#h statement appears

*. ,epublication: The !ress as ,epeater 9 ?ep!3li#ation is treated lie p!3li#ation ?epetition of defamator* material is#onsidered to 3e a ne) p!3li#ation and the repeater is a p!3lisher )ho is /!st as lia3le as if he originated the defamator*statement he rationale for this is that other)ise the media )o!ld defame at )ill merel* 3* finding someone to )hom the*#an attri3!te the defamator* statements

1.!ublishers and "istributors

eran message posted on Aol advertising gross -shirts )ith Ps n!m3er P tried to get A@L to remove ad andthe* didn$t respond a##!ratel* Aol said it )asn$t lia3le 3# stat!te prote#ted them P #laimed that stat!teprote#ted p!3lishers not distri3!tors and that A@L )as a distri3!tor >t disagreed& holding that A@L )as ap!3lisher (th!s it )asn$t lia3le,

Blumenthal . "rudge #o!rt prote#ted A@L even tho!gh it paid the a!thor to )rite the Dr!dge ?eport& and itretained rights to edit the material Altho!gh A@L had a#tive role in maing the #ontent availa3le >DA )asintended to prote#t ISPs so #o!rt rel!#tantl* dismissed #ase

2. /eutral ,eportage allo)s media to report #ertain things& even if defamator*& 3# the* are /!st repeating thene)s9Ed$ards #t held that )hen prominent organi=ation maes allegations& it$s the d!t* of the media to report in ane!tral fashion and there sho!ld 3e a #onst priv prote#ting the right of the reporter and paper to report allegations)4o 3eing held lia3le for defamation

7


8/34


;. !rior ,estraints on "efamation

9 /ear . Minnesota

9 Tory . Chochran tor* defamed >o#hran to get him to pa* him mone* >o!rt ordered permanent in/!n#tionpre#l!ding or* from displa*ing signs or speaing a3o!t >ho#hran or* arg!ed it )as a P? >o#hran died d!ring#ase& so #o!rt held in light of death& in/!n#tion )as over3road >ase didn$t addressNeartho!gh

3hile it ma+es it sound li+e inunctions are almost impossible in "ef cases they may be upheld if there is aplausible ustification.

). urisdiction and 8ibel Tourism

&eeton . )ustler Mag allo)s state /!r even if < has minimal #ir#!lation in a stateInternet Content to limit /!r& some #o!rts find )here internet !sers )gi a#tivel* do 3!siness )ith #!stomersin the for!m state8ibel Tourism P$s attempt to for!m shop for a /!r )ith the most favora3le li3el la)s

ecuring the !rotection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional )eritage Act domesti# #o!rtsshall not re#ogni=e or enfor#e a foreign /!dgment for defamation !nless the part* seeing enfor#ementesta3lishes either (1, the foreign la) provided as m!#h prote#tion as 1A and state def la)O or (2, D )o!ld have3een fo!nd lia3le 3* a domesti# #o!rt appl*ing 1A and state la)

I. ,eform and !roposed ,eform

- li3el ins!ran#e- proposal to #!t 3a# on s#ope of prote#tion offered 3* ert= and S!llivan- proposed de#larator* /!dgment a#tion that permits de#iding if statement )as tr!e or false )itho!t addressing fa!lt- proposed retra#tion and repl* as )a* to red!#e harm done

8


9/34


III. !rotecting !riacy

!riacy rights li+e "efamation is person so it doesnDt hae suriorship

A. !ublic "isclosure of !riate *acts no >@A !nless dis#los!re )o!ld 3e highl* offensive to a person of ressensi3ilities and is of no legit p!3li# #on#ern

1. /ature of the Tort statements are tr!e 3!t em3arrassingChanging ie$ of $hat is public concern:

- )aynes D p!3lished 3oo a3o!t 3la#s and slaver* in )hi#h he maes a referen#e to a)oman )hose h!s3and )as an al#oholi# and )ho 3eat her !s3and s!ed for li3el andinvasion of priva#* >t held that he had no #laim 3# )hat )as said )as s!3st tr!e Intimatedetails )eren$t dis#losed (this is the 3iggest #laim to priva#*, a*nes$s 3ehavior )as importantto stor*& #onne#ted themes of povert*& govt& ghetto

o !roposition that people $ho donDt desire limelight hae no legal right to

e0tinguish it if their e0periences are ne$s$orthy.

!ublic interest trumps priate 1A right.

"o !ublic *igures hae this right5

- es here is no formal distin#tion 34) private and p!3li# fig!res in priva#* la) !nlie indefamation +9 the s#ope of legit p!3li# #!riosit* is )ider )hen the s!3/e#t is a p!3li#fig!re

- ipple 3oo dis#losed that P )as ga* >t granted S for D 3# fa#ts )ere not private and the*

)ere ne)s)orth* sho)ed ho) president felt to)ards ga* people,eecting the !riacy ,ight

- ,oberton = / tatute re/e#ts #ommon la) remedies for invasion of priva#* In &onl* remed* for an* of the " t*pes of tort!o!s invasions of priva#* is a stat!te that permitsa#tions for damages and in/!n#tions for !na!thori=ed !se of person$s name or lieness 3!t onl*if the !se is Ffor advertising p!rposes or for the p!rposes of tradeG

2. 1A "efense

till no ans$er as to $hether truthful publications may eer be

subected to ciil or criminal liability

- Co0 Broadcasting . Cohn A #rim stat!te made it a misdemeanor to identif* an* female)ho had 3een raped ?eporter !sed it& vi#tims father 3ro!ght a#tion >o!rt held that on#e tr!einfo is dis#losed in p!3li# #o!rt do#s open to p!3li# inspe#tion& press #an$t 3e san#tioned for

p!3lishing ito Emphasi


10/34


B. *alse 8ight !riacy #ases involving false #harges that pla#e P in a false light 3!t do not harm his rep!tation soas to permit an a#tion for defamationItDs li+e a hybrid defamation tr!e fa#ts revelation

"oes ullianDs Malice applyQ E on matters of public concern- Time . )ill (16N7, famil* held hostage Press falsel* reports that their #aptors )ere violent

>t treats #ase as #lassi# defamation pro3lem and imposes mali#e re'!irement >t holds thatthere #o!ld 3e no lia3ilit* !nless the falsit* )as either deli3erate or re#less sin#e the press has

#onst privilege to #omment on matters of p!3li# #on#erno >ase is more similar to ert= then to S!llivan& ho)ever& 3# the famil* is a private P

)ho )as involved in a p!3li# matter (3!t ert= not o!t till 167",- Cantrell . *orest City (167", >antrell famil* feat!red in a maga=ine stor* after h!s3and dies

in 3ridge #ollapse ?eporter )rote a3o!t povert* and 3ad #ondition famil* lives in no) (ineffort to do#!ment lives of families after #ollapse, 3!t she lied a3o!t some st!ff (e% Mother)asn$t home, o!rt appeared to appl* a >L mali#e (not mali#e, standard& finding that paper

ne) a3o!t the falsehoods and p!3lished an*)a* so therefore lia3le It sho)s that it)as ine%pli#itl*4IDI?E>L appl*ing a ert= t*pe of standard

>o!rt has not dire#tl* addressed )ither private Ps in matters of p!3li##on#ern that are depi#ted in false light sho!ld re#over )4o proof of a#t!almali#e

Silen#e 3* >o!rt on S!llivan4ert= (private P, distin#tion has left lo)er #o!rts #onf!sed ,estatement of Torts FG62Elia3ilit* for invasion of priva#* for pla#ing the P in a false light ma*

e%ist if the D a#ted )ith R of falsit* of statement or in ? disregard as to the tr!th or falsit*

this leaves open the of )hether there ma* 3e lia3ilit* 3ased on a sho)ing of as to

tr!th4falsit*

C. Appropriation #,ights of !ublicity% #laims that involve attempts to #ontrol #ele3$s names& lieness and fameand an* T val!e res!lting therefrom he remed* is #onfined almost e%#l!sivel* to #ommer#ial e%ploitation(!na!thori=ed !se of #ele3$s pi#t!re in an ad or endorsement, So it$s !s!all* relevant to media in their advertisingdepts

6 states prote#t a #ele3s right of p!3li#it* after his death

16 states have p!3li#it* stat!tes or adopt it thro!gh >L

re#ogni=ed 3* stat!te

o Stefano #ase

Common 8a$ ,ecognition

Haelan v. Topps Chewing Gum 3ase3all pla*er li#ensed his name to g!m to promote& then a #ompeting

g!m man!f ind!#ed him to sign a deal >o!rt re#ogni=ed pla*er$s right to #ontrol #ommer#ial !se of hisname

"ifference b@$ the other priacy rights

this is lie a priva#* AD propert* right herefore& sin#e it$s lie a propert* right& it is inherita3le eirs of

the famo!s person #an prevent !na!thori=ed e%ploitation of a famo!s person 3ased on rights of p!3li#it*Priva#* rights& ho)ever& are personal and individ!al so don s!rvive death

he interest prote#ted is different here it is an e%#l!sive !se& rather than invasion of something se#ret

o Toffolini v. LFP Publishing (h!stler !n#overs and p!3lishes n!de pi#t!res of famo!s )restler$s )ife

after she died o ne)s)orth* e%#eption here 34# death )as in#idental to pi#s it )as all a3o!t then!de pi#s& @ the a##o!nt of her death,

F 9nlie intr!sion& dis#los!re or false light& appropriation doesn$t re'!ire the invasion ofsomething se#ret& se#l!ded or priate pertaining to P& not does it involve falsit* he interestprote#ted is not so m!#h a mental as a proprietar* one& in the e%l!sive !se of P$s name andlieness as an aspe#t of his identit*

E0ception to consent re4uirement ne$s$orthiness

o report matters of p!3li# #on#ern& one$s name and lieness #an 3e !sed

tate tatutes E0pand the Tort

Cali ,ight of !ublicity tatute

o >an s!e if name and lieness is !sed for p!rposes of advertising In#idental !se gets re3!tta3le

10


11/34


pres!mption against need for #onsent e)s& p!3li# affairs don$t need #onsent

ound ali+es Count too

o !ette "idler v. #ord "otor Company(6th >ir 1688, ad #o ased +ette to !se her voi#e for their

#ar ad 3!t she ref!sed he* then )ent to her 3a#!p singer and told her to sing /!st lie +ette Shes!ed Midler )on the #ase even tho!gh ad #o se#!red a li#ense from the U o)ner of the song ando)ned all the rights to the ne) re#oring FWhen a distin#tive voi#e of a professional singer is)idel* no)n and is deli3eratel* imitated in order to sell a prod!#t& the sellers have appropriated)hat is not theirs and have #ommitted a tort in >aliforniaV

-irtual@digital actors that sound moe = loo+ li+e fam person count too

o Vana White v. Samsung(6th#ir 1662, Sams!ng had ;>? add !sing virt!al ;ana and )heel of

fort!ne She s!ed for right of p!3li#it* and #o!rt fo!nd of fa#t to overt!rn S

1A Affirmatie "efense. Transformatie Hse. Even if the spee#h is #ommer#ial& #an sho) it has signifi#anttransformative elements or that the val!e of the )or doesn$t derive primaril* from the #i#3rit*$s fame

Comed !!! P"odu#tionsAnd* Warhol$s images !sing #ele3rities #onve*ed a message 3e*ond the

e%ploitation It )as an form or ironi# so#ial #omment on the deh!mani=ation of #ele3rit* itself

Hi#$s v. Casablan#aheirs of Agatha >hristie )anted to stop the 3oo and movie a3o!t her >o!rt finds

that the right of p!3li#it* does not atta#h here& )here a fi#tionali=ed a##o!nt of an event in the life of ap!3li# fig!re is depi#ted in a novel or a movie& and in s!#h novel or movie it is evident to the p!3li# that theevents so depi#ted are fi#titio!s

Hnauthorio!rt ass!med ?@P )o!ld tr!mp 1A and held for

5a#hinni sa*ing it )as lie getting #onsent for !sing U )or It )asn$t a3o!t h!rting the rep for #ommer#ialprod!#t as m!#h as it )as a3o!t appropriation of the ver* a#tivit* 3* )hi#h the entertainer a#'!ired that repin the first pla#e

elf !romotion by Media

A p!3li#ations !se of an earlier stor* to advertise its o)n prod!#t doesn$t #ome )ithin Fadvertising

p!rposesG

&ootholida* mag p!3lished an attra#tive pi# of Shirle* +ooth in a stor* a3o!t a resort Months later&

olida* too o!t add in e) orer and reprinted the +ooth photo as a sample of its #ontent >o!rt heldthat the photo )as in#idental& nothing in ad s!ggested P endorsed the mag

*alse or Misleading !romotional Material

@verlap )ith her >ase share gave intervie) to mag reserving right to de#line p!3li#ation and she did 3!t mag

sold stor* to 2 other mags )ho ran it She re#overed onl* from one that made 3elieve the* )ereintervie)ing her& )hi#h )as patentl* false !nder ime v ill he other one tho!gh )as /!st ane%#erpt of the intervie)& )hi#h )as o

Data Prote#tion Stat!tes

11


12/34


I; 8iability *or Emotional Economic and !hysical )arm

A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional "istress

?efers to #ond!#t )4 no other p!rpose 3!t to infli#t ED& or goes 3e*ond tolera3le #ond!#t

1. By Means of atire of !ublic *igures /( C(A

- )ustler . *al$ell 1688 ad /oing that the 1sttime of public

concern? !,(TECTE"

9 nyder . !helps 2771 +aptist #h!r#h had a '!iet and pea#ef!l protest a3o!t od p!nishesAmeri#a for tolerating homose%!alit* d!ring a eneral$s f!neral o!rt said it )asn$t an iss!eof fa#ts& 3!t )hether it )as a matter of p!3li# #on#ern& )hi#h it )as M!st mae an

independent e%amination of the #ontent form and #onte%t of spee#h Sin#e it )as a matter ofP>& the* )ere on p!3li# propert* and )ere pea#f!#& it$s prote#ted spee#h

. By !ublicly Insulting a !riate !erson ,egarding Matter /(T of !ublic Concern CA/ ,EC(-E,

a Esposito9)ilder radio station #alled 3ride the F!gliest3rideG and pro#eeded )ithh!miliating #ommentar* o Def 3e#a!se it$s opinion >t allo)ed #ase sa*ing it$s. 1 She$snot a p!3li# fig!reO 2 ot a matter of P>O 2 D$s #ond!#t sho)d intentional intent to infli#tin/!r on her

6. By !ublishing the name of a $itness to a iolent crime $hen the perpetrator is still at large and

unidentified CA/ ,EC(-E,

a Times Mirror #not scotus% ne)spaper p!3lished name of girl that dis#overed dead 3od*and sa) the perpetrator >t denied S to D (then then parties settled, finding name of )itnessnot to ne#essaril* 3e p!3li# information and m!st 3alan#e state interest in prote#ting

)itnesses& sin#e then the*$d 3e rel!#tant to provide infoG. By adocating iolence against a group

a Citio!rt denied a#tion& finding tort lia3ilit* onl* for fighting)ords& in#itement& or tr!e threat here )as no imminen#e here

B. /egligent Infliction of Emotional "istress

- lia3ilit* still limited and !n#ertain- some #o!rts /!st allo) re#over* for famil* mem3ers )itnessing in/!r* or death

- )o$ell . / !ostphotographer trespassed ps*#h )ard and got pi# of !ss3a!m (#harged)ith illing his id, )ith another !nno)n patient >o!rt fo!nd that photog$s #ond!#t )asn$tA o!trageo!s not Fatro#io!s& inde#ent& and !tterl* despi#a3le as to meet the rigoro!s

re'!irements of IIED

C. Economic )arm most #ases agst the media for e#on harm involve loss s!ffered 3* a reader or vie)er )horelied on the #ontent of a report to his4her detriment (3!t see >ohen harm to part*,

1. Breach of !romise

- eneral appli#a3le la)s don$t offend 1A simpl* 3e#a!se their enfor#ement against press hasin#idental effe#ts on its a3ilit* to gather and report ne)s

o Press gets no spe#ial imm!nit* from general app la)s (not la)s that single o!t press,

- Cohen P? #ons!ltant to rep!3 part* offered reporters (on #ondition that the so!r#e not 3edis#losed, do#!ments sho)ing that the demo#rati# #andidate had a prior shoplifting #onvi#tion9pon f!rther investigation& it )as fo!nd that the info )as e%aggerated and the reporters

12


13/34


dis#losed >ohen$s name )hi#h res!lted in him losing his /o3 >t held that media didn$t haveright to 3rea 4promise of anon*mit* (so promissor* estoppel )ors here, >t relies on t said sing P )asn$t

named at all& it )asn$t Fof and #on#erningG him At most it #o!ld 3e & 3!t that$s not eno!gh

- Auil . CB N0 min!tes had segment on the dangers of Washington State apples herea#tion )as so great that man* #rop gro)ers #o!ldn$t sell their apples he* s!ed >+S >theld for >+S ()ho #laimed ne!tral reportage prin#iple the* )ere rel*ing on govtdo#!ments, In response to this #ase man* states passed disparagement stat!tes that info m!st3e 3ased on relia3le s#ientifi# fa#ts

-eggie 8ibel 8a$s

- State spe#ifi#& 3!t generall* allo)s a #oa for prod!#ers of perisha3le goods to s!e an*one )hodamages the prod!#er 3* )illf!ll* or mali#io!sl* disseminating false information that a food

prod!#t is not safe for h!man #ons!mption- Te0as Beef ;roup . (prah 3infrey she had sho) a3o!t mad #o) diseaseO someone said

it$s 3ad in 9S and she said she$ll never eat another ham3!rger >attle prod!#ers s!ed th>ireld for her sa*ing the sho)$s pepople didn$t no) of the falsit* of the statements made a3o!tmad #o) disease So no R or ? as to falsit*

". !hysical )arm

1. "angerous and@or Erroneous Instructions

- )erceg . )ustler as )ell as an o3s#enit* #ase& this #ase #an 3e #lassified as an e%ample ofdangero!s or !nla)f!l instr!#tion It gives #lear instr!#tions 3!t )arns agst follo)ing them

- 3inters . Authors m!shroom #ase )here the* mae a mistae on )hi#h m!shrooms arepoisono!s and people rel* on this and eat the dangero!s m!shrooms >t holds that p!3lishersare generall* not lia3le 3# it )o!ld go 3e*ond negl and 3e stri#t lia3ilit*4prod!#ts lia3ilit* he

onl* p!3li#ations that are treated lie prod!#ts lia3ilit*4stri#t lia3ilit* )here p!3lishers arelia3le are for maps2. >Inspiration?: Imitation and Mood hifts

- Imitation @livia v +> )oman raped 3* #oe 3ottle and the perp sa*s that he got the ideafrom a movie ;i#tim s!ed maer of movie >t held that prod!#ers not lia3le if !na3le to provein#itement

- "ood Shift - )here people vie) movies a3o!t gang violen#e and then the* go #ommit a#ts ofviolen#e on the )a* home

- $ttracted violence if *o! are sho)ing a movie )ith violen#e it #an 3e forseen that it ma*attra#t a #ertain t*pe of person into the neigh3orhood to vie) it

a. "istinguish E0hortation and Incitement

1:


14/34


9 3eirum e%hortation #ase @n the air a D anno!n#ed )here a pri=e van )as and that the fistlistener to get to it )o!ld )in a pri=e A listener for#ed someone off the road& illing him& on his )a*to the van his #ase falls !nder +randen3!rg3# D in#ited !nla)f!l driving 3* !rging listeners tora#e to the pri=e van (impli#it not e%press, he #o!nter arg!ment is that he didn$t e%pli#itl* sa* todrive !nla)f!ll*

'. *acilitation of Criminal and@or Tortious Acts

a. Aiding and Abetting: Criminal Instructions

9 ,ice . !aladin : people illed 3* hitman Iss!e J )hether p!3lisher of the 3oo Fho) to 3e a hit manG

is lia3le P!3lisher #on#eded that he intended 3oo to 3e instr!#tion man!al >ase sho!ld go !nder+randen3!rg3!t it #ant 3# it la#s the imminen#e prongb. /egligence

a Endangering ,eelations in these : #ases& #t fo!nd for P- )yde rape vi#tims name )as inadvertentl* released 3* the press and her assailant is at large- TimesMirror )oman #omes home to find her roommate m!rdered and the assailant r!ns

o!t er name is p!3lished and she #laims to 3e harassed after that&- anche


15/34


-. Copyright

doesn$t prote#t the idea& 3!t the a!thor$s e%pression of the idea Po)er of the o)ner is to prevent reprod!#tion and distri3!tionof their )ors of e%pression

!o$er granted in Article I ection K of the constitution.

!rotection: a!thor$s ForiginalG e%pression of an idea that is fi%ed in an* tangi3le medi!m of e%pression

- E0pression: *or literary $or+s- he total #on#ept and feel& theme& #hara#ters& plot& se'!en#e& pa#e and setting

- E0clusie rights: reprod!#e& adapt& distri3!te& p!3li#all* perform& p!3li#all* displa* the )or- doesn$t need to 3e p!3lished- no prote#tion for an idea or fa#ts

- see generall**eist- )eoling 9person )rote h% of inden3!rg& and P #laimed that a!thor stole his a##o!nt of the disaster +oo

event!all* 3e#ame movie and P s!ed a!thor and prod!#er >t held that there #o!ld 3e no theft for Ps idea idea is in the p!3li# domain P #o!ld$ve #laimed that his e%pression )as stolen 3!t he didn$t do so

- Amistad

,egistration: not re'!ired 3!t re#ommended for litigation strateg*- ?egister )4 Li3rar* of >ongress to p!t U offi#e on noti#e

- >an get stat!tor* damages"uration:

- Life of a!thor 70 *ears- If organi=ation. 120 *ears from #reation or 6 *ears after p!3li#ation )hi#hever e%pires first

!enalties for infringement

- in/!n#tions- impo!ndment and destr!#tion of infringing #opies- a#t!al damages and lost profits- stat damages !p to T100R per infringement- >riminal penalties for )illf!l infringement and for #ommer#ial advantage or private gain

1


16/34


C(!,I;)T 8A3 A/" MA ME"IA

A. ($nership o)nership initiall* invests in the #reator of the )or (e%#ept )hen a )or is made for hire thenthe emplo*er is the o)ner, Media organi=ations are normall* the o)ner of #op*right in p!3li#ations43road#asts#reated 3* its emplo*ees

a W>; )as not an emplo*ee even

tho!gh he )as engaged spe#ifi#all* to #reate the )or and did so in #onforman#e )ith>>;$s #on#ept and general design ideas

c. !ublishing or bcasting org o$nes L if it meets re4s of 172

i It )as spe#ifi#all* ordered or #ommissionedii It )as #reated as a #ontri3!tion to one of the inds of )or des#ri3ed in the stat!te

iii he parties agree in )riting that it has to 3e #onsidered a Wt re/e#ts thisarg!ment sa*ing that 1stA iss!es )ere alread* taen into #onsideration 3* the drafters of Y107

i (


17/34


the letters 3# he is the a!thor 3!t the re#ipient of the letters has ph*si#al possession and th!s#an do )hat the* please )ith them igher #t granted in/!n#t 3# of fa#tor H" even to!gh P didnot intend to p!3lish the letters he #o!ld #hange his mind or his heirs ma* )ant to do so

# /e$ Era #8. ,on )ubbard% !nflattering !na!th 3iograph* that relied on !np!3lished diaries andletters )ritten 3* !33ard (s#ientolog*, *ears ago !33ard so!ght in/!n#tion to prevent p!3li#ationSame lo)er #t as in Salinger #t denied in/!n#tion here too In/!n#tion denied 3# #t holds that it )as


18/34


>op*right infrginment a#tion is !s!all* against the mediaWhen it$s on the internet ISPs are imm!ne per @>ILLA See end of o!tline&

-I. /e$sgathering Torts

level of prote#tion media re#eives diminishes sharpl* )hen tort o##!rs in the pro#ess of gathering information (rather then atp!3li#ation,

A I/T,HI(/harm #a!sed 3* #ond!#t& not 3* the p!3li#ation of informationnote that this is a priva#* #oa pre p!3li#ation

Shulman v. G"oup W P"od ; #amera taped a patient getting into a heli#opter& getting medi#al #are from

flight n!rse d!ring e%tri#ation and transport to hospital >t denied S for D& finding that there$s of fa#to Establishes the 2 elements:

Intrusion into a priate placem conersation or matter

Intentional penetration into the


19/34


ItDs a distinction b@$ priate and public concern

1, p!3li# iss!e (la3or disp!te,2, defendant had no role in illegal inter#eption of #omm!ni#ation

". A -iolations $hen Media !articipates in ;ot erice of earch 3arrants

Berger . )anlon poli#e enter R )ith > to tape a sear#h )arrant in progress Poli#e had '!alified imm!nit*

3e#a!se #onst right against 3ringing media in )asn$t *et firml* esta3lished +!t Media #o!ldn$t lat#h on to govtimm!nit* >t loos at )hether there )as a R to #onspire 34) govt and private part* It )as done to 3enefit parties

and govt a#ted to enhan#e entertainment rather than la) enfor#ement val!e So media lia3le for the trespass andIIED

E. *raud and Breach of *iduciary "uty

Taus . 8oftus

*ood 8ion A+> reporters lie on appli#ation in order to get a /o3 at s!permaret for p!rpose of filming an e%pose

he* then 3road#ast program sho)ing mishandling of meato !ress is liable for iolating la$s of general applicability #Cohen%

resspass - It$s entr* into 3!siness& not home altho!gh the* )ere let in& the* e%#eeded theira!thorit* (3* e% Silming in non p!3li# areas averse to onsent is vitiated 3* an a#t thate%#eeds and a3!ses privilege of entr*

+rea#h of lo*alt* fo!nd their interests )ere adverse to , 3!t #t sa*s it)as at )ill emplo*ement and the* )ere pa*ing them for the )or the* )ere doing& 3ot 3e#a!se ofstatements on appli#ation

o CanDt recoer !ublication damages the* tr* to get aro!nd proving a#t!al mali#e (the*$re p!3li# fig!res,

for rep!tational damage 1A pre#l!des this re#over* !nless li3el re'!irements are met

*. /E;8I;E/CE

ormall* don$t permit lia3ilit* for p!3li#ation or 3road#ast !nless something more than ordinar* negligen#e

o >o!rts are more re#eptive )ith ne)sgathering torts

>o!rts )ill allo) lia3ilit* for F!n#ontrolla3le imp!lseG if of D #a!ses him to #ommit s!i#ide

Media #o!ld 3e lia3le for deaths and in/!ries of fed agents if the medial alerted P to an impending raid on a se#t$s

#ompo!nd

+!t none of these #ases )ent an*)here& even tho the #laims )ere allo)ed;. "AMA;E

>an re#over for ne)sgathering torts even if info is never p!3lished or 3road#ast

?e#over* depends on.

o Does the tort la) allo) it

2 different vie)s on trespass damages.

P!3li#ation damages not availa3le in a trespass #ase Damages are limited to o#onse'!n#es

flo)ing from interferen#e )ith possession not for sepera3le a#ts more properl* allo#ated!nder other #ategories of lia3ilit* So damages are nominal and p!nitive onl*

P!3li#ation damages are availa3le it in#l!des nonph*si#al harm s!3se'!ent to trespass

@ther)ise trespasser en/o*s 3enefits of tort )4o f!ll* #ompensating P for losso Does 1A permit it

1A does not prote#t tort!o!s ne)sgathering

>ts are split tho a3o!t )hether 1A permits damages to 3e in#reased to tae into a##o!nt harm #a!sed3* p!3li#ation

Dietman& Sanders nothing in 1A is adversel* affe#ted 3* permitting damages for

intr!sion to 3e enhan#ed 3* later p!3li#ation P entitled to re#over* of real harm

Pierson v Dodd in/!r* from intr!sion and p!3li#ation sho!ld 3e separate P!3li#ation

sho!ld loo at )hether something is of p!3li# or private #on#ern If p!3li#& then thep!3li#ation has not invaded priva#* interests even tho!gh the #ond!#t !sed to o3tain infoma* have

o an$t

16


20/34


re#over defamation t*pe damages !nder non rep!tational tort #laims )itho!tsatisf*ing the stri#ter standard

Inducing Breach of &thin a3o!t W*gand and the movie the Insider (press pers!aded W*gand to 3rea his R of#onfidentialit* and dis#lose that heads of to3a##o #o$s per/!red themselves, R terms that prevent emplo*ees from revealingper/!r* sho!ld 3e void agst p!3li# poli#*Loo at other o!tlines

20


21/34


-II ubpoenas and earches

A. ,eporterDs !riilege does the media en/o* the spe#ial priv of not having to div!lge its so!r#esQ

1. Is there a 1A Constitutional priilege5 /( /( C(TH !,I-I8E;E

Brant held that 1stA doesn$t prote#t press$s so!r#es from grand /!r* in'!iries (th!s press m!stdis#lose names of so!r#es, (doesn$t 3!* into #hilling effe#t arg!ment,

o White )riting opinion sa*s media no diff than others (eg >ohen v Rahls, States #an ena#t their shield la)s

if the* )ish

o Po)ell$s #on#!rren#e& ho)ever& s!ggests that some sort of '!alifies priv remains (him "dissenters, So he

gives his vote to " /!sti#e ma/orit*& 3!t sa*s there$s privilege )hi#h means /!sti#es are agreeing toprivilege

his is the opinion most shield la)s are 3ased !pon (li3erals, Sa*s that if the s!3poenad info isonl* remotel* related to the investigation& reporter #an move to '!ash

o disting!ish from >ohen 3# this #ase is a3o!t govt enfor#ement of the la) In >ohen& a#tion is 3ro!ght 3* the

so!r#e and the press vol!ntaril* revealed the so!r#es name to the p!3li#2. Is there a common la$ priilege

3* 2002& all 3!t one federal #ir#!it #o!rt re#ogni=ed some '!alified #onstit!tional or federal #ommon la) privilege

he* mostl* read!ran&bur%'s#on#!rren#es and dissent to esta3lish some privilege

'. tatutory !riileges

State Shield La)s !ran&bur%had no effe#t on the 17 state shield la) stat!tes alread* in e%isten#e +* 2011& 22

more states ena#ted them


22/34


(#ivil and #rim #ontempt, S!p #t affirms the #ontempt #onvi#tion 3# +ran=3!rg held that mediahad no priv While #t re#ogni=es that has a state shield la) the #t held that there )as tension3t)n the state shield la) and the #onst right of the D to #onfront )itnesses and the #onst rightsm!st prevail over state shield la)

o P@. What if @9S re/e#ts #laim that sear#h )arrant #o!ldn$t 3edire#ted at :rdparties and 1A for3ids sear#hes dire#ted at media premises

o 1A doesn$t prevent sear#hes of ne)spaper offi#es

22


23/34


*ederal and tate tatutes:

o "2 9S> 2000aa- ena#ted in response to 5!r#her


24/34


-II. Media Access to udicial !roceedings@

!rotecting the Criminal "Ds ,ight to a *air Trial

this is to ens!re that the D has a fair trial I also #onsiders the interests of vi#tims and /!rors to have priva#* as )ell asintegrit* of the legal s*stem

A. Control of the Courtroom = !roceedings

hepard . Ma0$ell m!rder #ase )here the #onvi#ted D #laimed that press #reated #ir#!s-lie atmosphere and

denied him DP (3# /!r* tainted, S#t granted ne) trial holding that )hile press had a right to report on the trial itdoesn$t have a right to interfere )ith the Ds right to a fair and impartial trial r #t sho!ld have ins!lated )itnessesontrolled leas S #t s!ggests gag orders (prior restraints that #o!ld$ve 3een iss!ed agst parti#ipants & W$s& /!rorso!nsel,

B. Access to Courtrooms

Criminal !roceedings generally crim trials are open to media

o Constitutional ri%ht of access to crim trials may only be overcome in rare cases4 not only must the party

see+in% closure demonstrate and 5overridin% interest)6 but closure order must contain detailed findin%s that

(ill allo( an appellate court to conclude that it (as narro(ly tailored to conclude that interest.

o Trials

;annet (1676, 1st#o!rtroom #ase to rea#h s#t A /!dge in 3arred the press and the p!3li#from a pre-trial hearing to determine )hether #onfessions in a m!rder #ase sho!ld 3e s!ppressed ongro!nds that the* )ere invol!ntar* he p!3lisher of a lo#al paper #hallenged the #los!re on Nthand

1

st

A gro!nds NA g!arantees a p!3li# trial to the D& not to the p!3li#

>t didn$t de#ide )hether 1A #reated right of a##ess to the pro#eedings& 3!t held that even

if it did& the tr /!dge #o!ld properl* determine that the right )as o!t)eighed in the #ir# ofthe #ase 3* the Ds right to a fair trial

Note that althou%h this is still %ood la() it's been eroded

OHA8I*IE" 1A ,I;)T T( ATTE/" C,IM T,IA8

,ichmond /e$spapers (1680, m!rder #harge lad to a string of trials D )ants #t #losed Psdon$t o3/e#t so tr #t #loses #o!rtroom /e$spaper challenges

here is a pres!mption of openness !nder o!r s*stem

1A guarantees right to attend criminal trials. A #rim trial #an onl* 3e #losed to the

p!3li# )here eviden#e s!pporting the ne#essit* of the #los!re is prod!#ed and the tr /!dgeis satisfied that no less restri#tive alternatives )o!ld s!ffi#ientl* safeg!ard the right of the

D to a fair trial +# tr /!dge didn$t mae s!#h a finding& the #losing order )as reversedo This is high tiered analysis:

o Ct. relies on "nis test #learned hand% must determine $hether the graity of

the eil discounted by its improbability ustifies such inasion of * and is

necessary to aoif the danger

>t 3ases this on traditional approa#h. ppl assem3le in p!3li# pla#es to spea& listen&

o3serve& learn

78annet (as distin%uished bc it decided only that there (as no const ri%ht for the public

to attend a pre,trial suppression hearin%. $lso) 8annet (as decided on 9th$ %rounds :

and this case is on 1st$ %rounds.o !re9trial !roceedings

See annet& s!pra

,ichmond open access rule e0tends to !retrisl hearings

!ress9Enterprise (168N, n!rse a##!sed of m!rdering patients e opted for #losed

hearing and trans#ript of hearing )as sealed earing m!st 3e open to the p!3li# !nless#los!re is essential to a fair trial 1A applies if (1,the pro#ess has histori#all* 3een open tothe p!3li# and (2,a##ess pla*s a signif role in proper f%ning of the pro#ess& f!rthermore& #tfelt that Fs!3stantial pro3a3ilit*G& not Kreasona3le lielihood$ (that pre/ )o!ld o##!r,sho!ld 3e the standard

o annet has not 3een reversed& Press Enterprises deals )ith a diff ind of pre-

trial hearing Pre-trial hearing !nder >A is diff from that in annet 3# in >A its aadversarial hearing that s!3stit!tes for a grand /!r* hearing (so its more lie?i#hmond,

o Terrorism Cases

2"


25/34


Moussaoui case: onl* person #harged in for parti#ipation in 6411 >ts ept #ase se#ret for 20months >o!rt event!all* allo)ed some a##ess Media tried to get trans#ripts of 3en#e #onferen#esand same da* a##ess to do# e%hi3its 3!t "th#ir Denied a##ess to e%hi3its not *et p!3lished to /!r*or #on#ealed from p!3li# for reasons of national se#!rit* >t fo!nd no 1A or >L right to#ontemporaneo!s a##ess to these things 3efore end of trial >t also ref!sed to release a!dio tape of#o#pit voi#e re#order (even tho the* released trans#ript, finding that priva#* interests of vi#timsand famil* o!t)eighted an* right of p!#li# to a##ess it

Most !antanamo 3at #ases of 200" )ere open to press on #onditions that the* don$t p!3lish

an*thing the presiding offi#er )anted to eep se#ret Se#ret Do#ets held !n#onstit!tional 3!t still e%ist

Ciil Trial

o S> onl* r!led right to a##ess to #rim trial in ?i#hmond he* haven$t r!led on #ivil *et Lo)er #ts have

ass!med tho that 1A right to attend #ivil trials is at least as strong as the right to attend #rim ones so there$s apres!mption that #ivil trials too sho!ld 3e open

o Imigration earings. these are heard in spe#ial #o!rts o 1A right 3e#a!se no histor* of these trials 3eing

open It$s a li3eral position

uenile !roceedings

o Delin'!en#* pro#eedings are !s!all* #losed 3* stat!tor* mandate or dis#retion of /!dge he* prote#t the

selin'!ent from stigma of #ond!#to >hild #!stod* pro#eedings are also !s!all* #losed Standard is F3est interest of the #hildG

o

Globe *ewspape" v. Supe"io" Ct. invalidated a#t re'!iring #los!re of /!3enile hearings >t said#ategori#al e%#l!sion too 3road his isn$t a3o!t histori#al openeness 3!t state interests So to den* a##ess&it$s still #ase 3* #ase SS anal*sis& 3!t state interests here are o3v higher than in ad!lt #ases

o Conditional ##ess, !dges sometimes allo) reporters #onditional a##ess on #ondition that the* don$t report

on #ertain matters

Courtroom photography and BDcasting

o Photographing and4or 3road#asting #o!rtroom pro#eedings is vie)ed ver* differentl* than a##ess

It$s a3o!t adverse effe#ts on D& )itnesses& /!rors& et#o Chandle" v. FL#1NK1% #t !nanimo!sl* re/e#ted the vie) that televising #rim trial over o3/e#tions of D

a!tomati#all* rendered trial !nfair D$s didnZt sho) adverse impa#t from the ;

-stes v. Tprevio!sl* held that !se of ; pres!mes pres!di#e and denial of DP +!t >handler saidthis onl* applies to #ases of )idespread interest It$s not a 3arring of media in all #ases and !nderall #ir#!mstan#es

o tate Courts permit some photograph* to some e%tent E% Limiting television of /!r* sele#tion& 3en#h #onferen#e& et#

o *ederal Courts: s!3stantial resistan#e to televising trials >ameras in #rim pro#eedings is prohi3ited

Ele#troni# so!nds re#ordings are sometimes oo +etching:!sed in states )here #ameras are 3anned S)eeping 3ans have 3een re/e#ted It$s liel* 3e#a!se

the danger (of pple /!rors 3eing identified, is not signifi#ant or immanent eno!gh to /!stif* #ensorship4

C. Access to urors and 3itnesses

W@ '!estions.

o Does media have the right of a##ess to /!rors and )itnesses

o Do /!rors and )itnesses have the right to spea to mediaQ

&utte"wo"th v. Smith onl* s# #ase addressing this iss!e ?eporter )as s!3poenad 3efore grand /!r* investigation

#orr!ption in lo#al states A@ >t held reporter #alled as (itness3efore grand /!r* has 1A right to dis#lose )hat hene) a3o!t the matter !nder investigation S!ggests that non /o!rnalist )itnesses have the same right

o is right to dis#lose tr!thf!l& la)f!ll* o3tained info o!t)eighed interest sin preventing s!spe#ts from

learning a3!t grand /!r* pro#eedings and in prote#ting those )ho might 3e a##!sed 3* not indi#ted

!rors names are !s!all* p!3li# information !dges sometimes eep names #onfidential in possi3l* endangering

trials (e% Mafia trials, 3!t press has good arg!ment here the*$re den*ing a##ess to info histori#all* availa3le

Intervie)ing /!rors . narro) restri#tions are allo)ed #an limit them from taling a3o!t deli3erations @ther)ise it

ma* affe#t #andor of f!t!re /!rors

9n#lear )hether rights of )itnesses to mae e%tra /!disi#al statements sho!ld 3e governed 3* the rights of /!rors&

rights of attorne*s (entile, or rights of media (e3rasa,

". !rior ,estraints on the Media

;ag (rders against the media must meet a high tier test:

2


26/34


o ustified uppn a sho$ing of substantial ris+ of material preudice by pre9trial publicity and no iable

alternaties.

o Note0 this is the conservative model. Liberals (anted no %a% orders

/ebras+a !ress Assoc . tuartfamil* m!rdered in small to)n Simants arrested >t determined that there )as a

#lear and present danger that pre-trial p!3li#it* #o!ld impinge on Simant$s right to a fair trial and iss!ed a gag orderthat prohi3ited all p!3li#it* Ct held that the rights of an accused must be balanced agst the publics right to+no$ but before a ct issues a protectie order they must consider:

(1, the nat!re and e%tent of the ne)s #overage

(2, )hether other reas alternatives )o!ld 3e liel* to mitigate the effe#ts of !nrestrained pretrialp!3li#it*

(:, ho) effe#tive a restraining order )o!ld 3e in preventing the anti#ipated pre/ere& there )as onl* the possi3ilit* of pre/ no #onsideration )as given to other possi3le remedies (e% >hangeof ven!e& se'!estering /!r*& trial postponement, h!s& S#t reversed the gag order

/oriega Tapes 9> o3tained tapes 3t)n oreiga and his attorne* > ref!ses to t!rn over the tapes and /!dge

iss!es restraining order > violates the order and 3road#asts the tapes > arg!ed that !nder e3rasa Press& noprior restraint #o!ld 3e iss!ed in the a3sen#e of a finding that the info )o!ld threaten oreiga$s right to a fair trial >tof app held that > #o!ldn$t insist that s!#h findings 3e made and at the same time den* the tr #t a##ess to thetapes he* )ere held in #ontempt for violating the ?@

E. ;ag orders and ,estraints on Trial !articipants

An alternatie to restricting media publication is to target its source restrict attys and others in proceeding

from ma+ing statements to media that may preudice the trial.

Most states hae rules regulating $hat attys can say

entile v State +ar (1661, ; state 3ar r!le 3ars e%tra/!di#al statements that have a s!3st lielihood of pre/!di#ing

pro#eedings entile )as la)*er representing #rim D after #lient indi#ted att* held a ne)s #onferen#e in )hi#h hemaintained that #lient )as inno#ent and that poli#e dete#tive )as g!ilt* State 3ar reprimanded att* for violating ;stat!te S> reverses holding that r!le )as !n#onst vag!e 3!t held that la)*ers spee#h #o!ld 3e reg!lated !nder aless demanding standard than that esta3 in e3rasa Press for reg!lation of the press

o @nl* need legit govt interest to reg!late att* lie rational 3asis& not SS

+ea!fort >o!ntr* +@E v +ea!fort >o!nt* of >ommisionser (> 2007, +@E alleged #ommissioners deli3eratel*

!nderf!nded p!3li# s#hool s*stem > on its o)n motion orall* for3ade parties and their att*s from #omm!ni#ating)ith mermers of ne)s media regarding the litigation >t applied E3rasa rather tan entile sa*ing to maintina gagorder& need to meet SS part* esta3lisheing order m!st sho). 1 >lear threat to fairness of triaO 2 hreat is posed 3*

the a#t!al p!3li#it* to 3e restrainedO : o less restri#tive alternatives >t va#ated order 34# > didn$t sho) eviden#eof detrimental effe#t on trial

ag @rders on.o Media not !nless SS met- it$s a P? (e3rasa,

o rial Parti#iapnts not !nless SS met it$s a P? (+e!fort appl*ing e3rasa,

o >!rrent att* o if meet ?+ (entile,

o


27/34


IP. ,egulation of Broadcast ournalism

A. Introduction: the nature of the broadcast spectrum and the )istory of *ed licensing.

need li#ensing 3# onl* so man* fre'!en#ies (ele#tromagneti# spe#tr!m is a limited reso!r#e and )e need to prevent

#haos Li#ensee might have gotten li#ense that 10 others )anted Li#ensee held li#ense for 3enefit of the p!3li#

1N2 Act onl* persons li#ensed 3* fed govt #o!ld 3road#ast& and onl* then on the fre'!en#ies and d!ring the times

assigned to them +road#ast li#enses )ere iss!ed for a limited time rather then in perpet!it*

*ed Communications Act of 1N' repla#ed the $27 A#t -o >overs ?adio and ;

o Still the 3asi# frame)or for over the air #omm!ni#ation in 9S

o >entrali=ed all fed #ontrol& in#l!ding li#ensing

o Set !p the >

B. *airness "octrine never part of the stat!tor* frame)or of $:" A#t& instead it )as #reated 3* > +e#a!se at the timethere )ere onl* : ma/or net)ors& li#enses gave a lot of po)er So this re'!ired 3$#asters to (1, #over topi#s of p!3li# interest(#ontroversial iss!es, AD (2, #over them fairl*

Pro3lem is that this is #ompelled spee#h& against 1A

>orrolar* ?!les. ?I @< ?EPL

o 1. !ersonal Attac+ ,ule )hen d!ring the presentation of vie)s on a #ontroversial iss!e of p!3li#

importan#e& an atta# is made !pon the honest*& integrit*& #hara#ter of an identified person or gro!p& a tapeof the atta# m!st 3e sent to that person4gro!p and m!st offer them a reas opport!nit* to respond to theatta# on the air

o 2. !olitical Editorial ,ule )hen a li#ensee endorses a #andidate for offi#e& )ithin 2" hrs the li#ensee shall

transmit to the opponent (a, noti#e of the date and time of the editorial (3,s#ript or tape (#,a free and reasoffer to respond

)0 and (pinion of the doctrineled to more spe#ifi# #orollar* r!les

o #BCAT% ,ed 8ion (9P@LDS LAW, Program 3road#asted 3* ?ed Lion #ontained a personal atta#

on >oo >oo ased for e'!al time to respond to the atta# and ?ed Lion ref!sed ?L #laims PA? violates1A 3!t #o!rt !pholds it sa*ing right of p!3li# is !ninhi3ited maretpla#e od ideas ovt ma* treat li#ense aspro%* for #omm!nit* as )hole >+? 3!t it$s a non p!3li# for!m media doesn$t a!to get heightenedprote#tion

o #!,I/T% Miami )erald . Tornillo (S?IRES D@W LAW, orollar* r!les are still good la)

?ed Lion has never 3een overr!led 3e#a!se (a, the idea that li#ensee holds li#ense to 3enefit the p!3li# 3egan to

erode and (3, li#ensees de#ided not to 3road#ast #ontroversial vie)s

?9LES APPL @L @ +>AS. ote that print media is traditional media and therefore gets f!ll 1A prote#tionraditional media are not li#ensed speaers he* sho!ldn$t 3e for#ed to set aside stories /!st to mae room for repl* Itintr!des on the f!n#tion of the editor +#ast media gets different treatment 3e#a!se of s#ar#it* and pervasiveness +e#a!se ofs#ar#it* of li#ense& there$s nothing in 1A that prevents it from re'!iring it to share its fre'!en#* (pro3a3l* not the #ase no) 34#of so m!#h ne) media, APacifica andLea%ue of ;omensho)s& 3e#a!se of foregoing reasons& +$#ast gets intermediatescrutiny. Cts ac+nolege that media is different no$ but are bound by scotus precedent. #*o0 . *CC%

". !(8ITICA8 BCAT Campaigns for Elected (ffice

E4ual (pportunity tatute #F'16 of communications act%if an* li#ensee shall permit an* #andidate (or their

friends4s!pporters, to !se a 3road#asting station he shall afford his opponents the same e'!al opport!nit* Li#ensee

27


28/34


has no po)er of #ensorship over )hat the #andidates sa* in the 3road#ast o li#ensee has an o3ligation to let#andidates !se its station for this p!rpose

o appel "octrine friends and s!pporters of #andidates are deemed F#andidatesG )ithin meaning of :1 his

is a3o!t politi#al ads that don$t in#l!de fa#e of #andidate& 3!t rather info or his voting re#ord or positions oniss!es

o exceptionsto o3ligations triggered 3* Y:1 . appearan#es in ne)s#asts& ne)s intervie)s& ne)s

do#!mentaries& on the spot #overage of a ne)s events& de3ates among ma


29/34


+$#aster is not a p!re 1A speaer

>aptive a!dien#e pro3lem4 eas* a##ess of #hildren this is important

Pervasiveness of media into the home&

o This speech has limited 1A protection gets I CA/ 8IMIT B T!M

TheyDre analy fines !tteran#es of inde#ent and o3s#ene lang!age 3* radio or ;hese are #ases from a)ards sho)s )here +ono& >her and i#ole ?i#hie drop the < 3om3 or some otherprofane )ord > had #on#l!ded that Ff!#G and FshitG )ere pres!mptivel* inde#ent >t stries do)n >poli#*

9nder D>> poli#*& fleeting e%platives )ere allo)ed onl* if.

+ona fide ne)s

Demonstrae essential to the nat!re of an artisti# or ed!#ational )or or essential to

informing vie)ers on the matter of p!3li# importan#e

Dela*ed transmission is often !sed

>t entertains arg!ment that media is so different no) and theres so m!#h of iti and it #an 3ereg!lated 3* parents thr! te#hnolog* +!t the* are 3o!nd 3* s#ot!s pre#edent (IS in Pa#ifi#a,evertheless the* sa* >$s poli#* is !n#onstit!tional 3e#a!se it$s vag!e I< > #an$t anti#ipate)hat )ill 3e #onsidered inde#ent !nder its poli#*& it #an$t e%pe#t 3#aster to do it It riss

dis#riminator* enfor#ement and #hills spee#h 3#asters )ont air #ontroversial programs o!t of fearof fines

o !olitical Ads = Indecency see aboe

*. /on9commercial Broadcasting

1. 8eague of 3omenDs -oters P+S stations re#eive fed f!nds 3!t are also privatel* f!nded Provision in 16N7a#t said that that an* non-#ommer#ial ed!#ational 3road#asting station that re#eives fed f!nding #ant editoriali=e(vie)point ne!tral,his )as #hallenged 3* the leag!e of )omen voters and )as fo!nd to 3e !n#onst >t heldthat restri#tions of this sort #o!ld onl* 3e !pheld )hen #t is satisfied that the restri#tion is narro)l* tailored tof!rther a s!3st govt interest (Pa#ifi#a and ?ed Lion are pre#edent, s!#h as ens!ring ade'!ate and 3alan#ed#overage of p!3li# iss!es2. Ar+anssas Educ. -. *orbes non#ommer#ial govt station sponsored #andidate de3ate 3!t e%#l!ded littleno)n :rdpart #andidate (remem3er this is o !nder Y:1C, he added element here is that this is a govt o)ned

station :rd

part* #andidate lost 3# #t l!mped him into non-p!3li# for!m #ategor* Moreover& 3road#astersde#ision to e%#l!de him )as a vie)point ne!tral e%er#ise of /o!rnalisti# dis#retion (didn$t in#l!de him 3# no#han#e of )inning,

26


30/34


P. Cable T- and /e$ Technologies

A. "eelopment of Cable T- and Early ,egulation fed reg!lation of over the air media (radio and ;, is not designed to3e preempted 3* state legis >a3le tv& ho)ever& #an 3e preempted 3* 3oth state and lo#al legis

B. *ranchising Cable ystems

Earl* #a3le fran#ises )ere monopolies - lo#al reg!lators give fran#hise to one #a3le #o 3ased on (1, pri#e (2, #ontent

of programming (:, the te#hnolog* the*$re !sing is it e%panda3le (", disr!ption #a!sed 3* la*ing the )ires

o Also 3e#a!se 3ig start!p #osts if no g!arantee of monopol*& too dangero!s4ris*

>3annabes? 9 hose that didn$t get a monopol* fran#hise got mad and s!ed lo#al reg!lators arg!ing the*$re 1A

speaers

o Are Cable erice (perators #C(% pea+ers under 1A5 E.

!referred Communication #1NKG%- >S@ s!ed LA for violating 141"thA rights 3* itsreg!lations4monopol* fran#hise& sin#e there )as s!ff (1, ph*s #apa#it* and (2, e#on demand for a2nd#a3le fran#hise S@ )as #ommon #arrier Ct held they arespea+ers bc they originate a certain amount of orig programming and also editorial control

Lo)er #o!rt m!st then esta3lished standard Sin#e 1A applies& #an$t 3e ?+ They use I

(brienand sa* monopolies are not o (it$s > 3ea!se de#ision is as to )hat >S@ to giefran#ase to is 3ased on TT& not it$s #ontent,

In response& monopol* fran#hises are no longer allo)ed >ongress ena#ts >P>A that #ontains m!st #arr* r!les

C. Must9Carry ,ules #a3le >os m!st #arr* #ertain 3$#ast stations @ther)!se lo#al stations )o!ld go o!t of 3!siness1. Turner I >S@ arg!es against m!st #arr* r!les 3ased on 1A S@? is @3rien (IS, sho!ld 3e !sed )hen talinga3o!t #ontent reg!lation 3!t high tier test sho!ld 3e !sed )hen taling a3o!t #ontent ne!tralit* Ma/ thins thatthis is a3o!t #ontent reg and th!s sho!ld appl* intermediate s#r!tin*2. Turner II loos at the lo)er #ts eval!ation of )hether or not fed govt satisfied @$+rien test >t held that itdid >t holds that 3road#ast #hannels )o!ld 3e harmed if m!st #arr* )as dropped It$s not a >+ iss!e& it$s ana##ess iss!e So m!st #arr* !pheld 3* @3rien @##oner in dissent sa*s it$s F#ontenti restri#tion favoritismto)ards lo#alismG'. ' problems that cable Co.s face

- must carry- P>8(p!3li# ed!#ational got #hannels, #hannels that lo#al govt re'!ires #a3le >o4s to #arr*- Leased access fed govt mandates that #a3le >o$s pi# !p a #ertain n!m3er of #ommer#ial

stations that don$t have the 3enefit of m!st #arr* (#a3le >os have no sa* a3o!t )hat is on thesho)s,=brien -protestor burns draft card. It (as symbolic speech protected by 1$. Statute prohibitin% it (as CN -couldn't ruin card

for other purpose so la(s of %enerally applicability -not C! can have incidental effects on speech and limit 1$ so lon% as

they have a sufficiently important fovt interest in re%ulatin% the non speech elements -impt %ovt interest unrelated to

suppression of speech.

". Content ,egulationJ Indecency on Cable inde#en#* reg loos to Pa#ifi#a ()here the > imposed san#tions, Ma/or#onservative arg!ment is that #a3le >os #annot eep !p )ith the gro)ing n!m3er of #hannels he li3eral arg!ment is thatthere are parental #ontrols )here parents #an 3lo# o!t #ertain #hannelsInde#ent spee#h is lo) val!e spee#h

fleeting e%platives Sho!ld SS appl*Q

?ed Lion X Pa#ifi#a >+ #ontrol is o per IS

Leag!e of Women IS for ; reg!lations Li3erals #on#ede SS isn$t the standard !rner not vie)ed as >+

is re4uired for indecency because regulation is CB.

o H . !layboy (2000, - Y0 of ele#om A#t of 166N added to prevent #hildren from seeing images from

signal 3leed ?e'!ired f!ll s#ram3ling or 3lo#ing of inde#ent programming& or restri#tion of transmission3* time ids )ill )at#h

SS is re'!ired for this >+ reg!lation

>t stries do)n sa*ing 0 is !n#onstit!tional 3lo#ing me#hanisms are s!ffi#ient to prote#t#hildren Pro3lem )ith signal 3leed is not seir!s eno!gh for govt to ena#t stat!tor* s#heme toprevent a##ess !ntil 10pm here )ere less restri#tive means #an 3lo# #hannel )ith s!3s#ri3ersre'!est so there )as less govt interest and narro) tailoring sin#e te#hnolog* )as there to 3lo#a##ess to #hildren

:0


31/34


o Denver Area v >:stat!te re'!ired #a3le operators to segregate inde#ent programming and 3lo# it from

all e%#ept thos )ho spe#ifi#all* ordered it S

SS is re'!ired for >+ reg!lation it )as overl* restri#tive and not narro)l* tailtored to restri#t#hildren$s a##ess S> str!# this do)n S> !phold part of stat!te allo)ing >S@s to ref!se inde#entprograms on #hannels it leased >S@ #a!sed net)ors to s#ram3le #hannels to 3e !nlo#ed )ith afee to the >S@

9pheld provision that prohi3its >S@s to prohi3it inde#ent and o3s#ene programming transmittedover the leased a##ess (#ommer#ial, #hannels (sin#e >S@s #annot pi# )hi#h #ommer#ial stations

to #arr* (:, 10(#, #onst voided >S@s #o!ld prohi3it inde#en#* on PE #hannels +!t #t voided 3#

there$s a diff 3t)n leased a##ess and PE #hannels (PE #hannels s!3/ to other reg!lations that)o!ld pro3a3l* s#reen o!t inde#en#*& and it )o!ld end !p preventing programming that$s notreall* o3s#ene eg& reprod!#tive s*stem shit

aea)a*.

P?ISS his is traditional media& gets f!ll 1A prote#tion

+>ASIS on traditional media& gets less prote#tion 34# of s#ar#it* and pervasiveness

>A+LE.

if the reg!lation is > (e% M!st #arr* r!le applies to all #hannels irrespe#tive of the programming,& then the test is @$+rien PM IS in#idental effe#ts on spee#hIf the reg!lation is >+ (e% Inde#en#*,& then the test is SS

:1


32/34


PI. Computers and the Internet

A. ,egulation of Indecency on the Internet

!rior ,estraints and the Internet

o >ase sho)s )h* ovt #o!ld not p!rs!e a prior restraint in the age of the Internet.

F)e live in ear v M )orldG 3!t prof 3elieves even here& )e #an p!nish releasing >IA agentsnames

o

Ban+ ulies . 3i+ilea+s #/.". Cal 277K% )iileas releases #onfidential govt do#s on its site #laiming&among other things& >a*man Islands 3an #ommitted fra!d and t% evasion +an s!es )iileas !dgeorders ?@ then dissolves WR has Fmirror sitesG in other #o!ntries registered )ith other domains so it#o!ld evade the in/!n#tion so the in/!n#tion doesn$t reall* do an*thing he* p!3li#i=ed on internet that infostill availa3le on other sites (his is liePro%ressive( +om3, #ase, (o go against p!3li#ation of this&

!randenbur%)o!ldn$t )or 34# no immanen#* so needDennis,

!roblems $ith this case:

urisdiction P +an is an alien (s)iss and >an*an Island, and D )e3site is alien

(A!stralia and Ren*a, so >t liel* #an$t get SM

!ublic Interest infringement of 1A right to re#eive info and ideas ?estri#ting spee#h

pending final resol!tion (in/!n#tion, is impermissi3le

Efficacy of Inunction:p!rpose defeated 3e#a!se of mirror sites in diff #o!ntries F#at

is o!t of the 3agG In/!n#tion also m!st 3e narro)l* tailored (e% @nl* reda#ting of

ident*fing info on do#s, *CC ,egulation of the Internet and I!

o Cable ystems are Info Carriers not Common Carriers so >Must Carry? rules do no Apply to I!.

Brand P S> !pholds right of > to determine that +road3and providers did not have to let rivalISPs pigg*3a# on their servi#es

If #a3le operators )ere deemed #ommon #arriers& then the* #o!ldn$t e%#l!de #ompeting

ISPs a##ess to their net)or (e% ;eri=on phone #o m!st 3ring in rival ISPs, +!t 3e#a!seit$s deemed an information #arrier& it does not have to share its lines

Importan#e of this is that it #o!ld determine ho) high speed internet servi#es #omes

online& )hat frat!res it has& and ho) m!#h it$ll #ost

o Comcast . *CC #"C 2717% >om#ast )as interfering )ith !sers$ !se of P2P net)oring apps 9sers filed

#omplaint )ith > > iss!ed order finding that >om#ast impeded #ons!mers a3ilit* to a##ess #ontentand apps of their #hoi#e > #an reg!late #ommon #arriers #an the* reg!late Info >arriers as an#illar*a!thorit*Q @ > la#s an#illar* /!risdi#tion (no a!thorit* !nder :" A#t, to prevent ISPs from slo)ing or3lo#ing a##ess to )e3sites in p!rs!it of its poli#* of Fnet)or ne!tralit*G

ISPs arg!ed for traditional model the* !se po)er to slo) some !sers& and #harge s!r#harges onfaster a##ess treat internet as >a3le ;

> )anted ever*thing given on a non dis#riminator* 3asis no fees for Fpo)er !sersG he* )antnet)or ne!tralit*& )hi#h treats ISPs as #ommon #arriers (lie phone, rather than info #arriers (lie#a3le,

o After >om#ast& > proposed ne) net)or ne!tralit* r!les

Child !orn ,egulation on the Internet

o ,EA8 &I" *erber se%!al depi#tions of a#t!al minors re#eive no #onstit!tional prote#tion

ote that these depi#tions don$t have to meet the Miller test

o /(T ,EA8 &I" H . 3illiams irtual child porn upholds stat!te that p!nished no)ingl* advertising& presenting& promo& distri3!ting or soli#iting

material Fin a manner that refle#ts the 3elief or is intended to #a!se another to 3elieve that thematerial in#l!des a vis!al depi#tion of an a#t!al minor engaging in #ond!#tG eld. offers toprovide or re'!ests to o3tain #hild porn are #ategori#all* e%#l!ded from 1A (even if there are not

real ids, >onsisten#* )ith *o! #an$t p!nish possession of the material (, 3!t *o! #anp!nish mareting and selling it So if hild porn prote#tion a#t #riminali=ed the distri3!tion of an* image that is or appears to 3e of a minorengaging in se%!all* e%pli#it #ond!#t

Indecency ,egulation on the Internet: !orn and &ids

:2


33/34


o Communications "ecency Act #C"A% of 1NNG #F672#e%%9>riminali=ed no)ing transmission of inde#ent

message to an "e#ipient!nder 18& and the no)ing sending or displa*ing of patentl* offensive messages ina manner availableto person !nder 18

,eno #t held the >DA !n#onst vag!e and over3road > noted that this is not lie Pa#ifi#a orins3erg 3# !sers seldom en#o!nter se% material a##identall* (3# have to sear#h& are fa#ed )ith)arnings also 3e#a!se theres no s#ar#it* on internet, and th!s this is diff than radio and ; Alsothere are devi#es and )arnings that parents #an !se ere& the #t pi#s !p on the fa#t that there$s noreal definition of inde#ent spee#h Also& it #hills ad!lt #omm!ni#ation . *ails #since itDs CB%

not narro$ly tailored so as to not interfere $ith legitimate speech b@$ adultso Child (nline !rotection Act #ongress responded to the de#ision in ?eno 3* ena#ting a more limited

inde#en#* provision his a#t is limited to persons engaged in the 3!siness of #omm!ni#ating material that isharmf!l to minors& affirmative defense J if D in good faith has restri#ted a##ess to minors (3* re'!iring !seof >>& ad!lt ID #ode4a##ess #ode& 3* a##epting a digital #ertifi#ate that verifies age& or 3* other reasmeas!res,

Enfor#ement )as en/oined immediatel* finding it )o!ld 3e liel* !n#onstit!tional for same reasonsasReno andPlayboy.

Ashcroft . AC8H II- stries do)n >@PA >o!rt e%amined )hether #omm!nit* standard provisionas per miller sho!ld 3e applied or national standard this is still not respolved stat!te re'!ired *o!to opt in if *o! )ere an ad!lt and ID *o!rself >o!rt stries it do)n& finding this re'!irement toointr!sive So altho!gh the govt interest )as #ompelling& this )asn$t the least restri#tive )a* (failsSS, he* esta3lish filtering as a less restri#tive alternative

M!st find a less restri#tive alternative that is more effe#tive means of restri#ting a##ess

+issent.


34/34


!,I/T &eeton . )ustler P )as allo)ed to 3ring !stler to #t in even tho!gh

#ir#!lation in onl* #onstit!ted 1 of total #ir#!lation (the SL had r!n o!t in all otherstates,

I/TE,/ET "o$ ones !tni# A!stralian high #o!rt held that p!3lisher of

+aron$s mag #o!ld 3e s!ed in A!stralia !nder its la) for statements made on +arron$s)e3site a3o!t A!stralian 3!sinessman& even tho!gh the p!3lisher had no ph*si#al presen#ethere and onl* small H of s!3s#ri3ers there

Iss!e )ith internet is that material posted on internet is 3asi#all* p!3lished ever*)here and th!ss!3/e#t to /!risdi#tion an*)here

o "isparity of Media !rotection

?ameel v. ;S? (9R 0N, #o!rt anal*=ed )hether the arti#le as a )hole )as on a s!3/e#t of p!3li#interest and def statement )as s!ffi#ientl* related to itO and )hether steps taen to gather andp!3lish info )ere responsi3le and fair his )as a 3ig step for them and ma/or advan#e in freeingpress from oppressive li3el la)s

S!llivan& ert=& epps#learl* more prote#tive of press and free spee#h

Copyright infringement on the Internet

o @>ILLASafe ar3or limitations of lia3ilit* providers of itle II of DM>A

Safe har3or stat!te

ISPs #an #laim a3sol!te imm!nit* from #ontri3 lia3ilit* of U infringement

Alleged U violations 3* an ISP

the ans)er doesn$t lie in Y2:0 or the 5eran #ase (this #overs tort lia3ilit* defamation,

+asis of this ne) and evolving stat!te iss!e of

Documents

Fordham Law Mass Media Outline MD