TheNewsMedia&TheLawSpring2015

CONTENTS

LIBEL

TheclashofethicsandlawThe Rolling Stone report, and how professional journalism standardsgetmixedupinlibelcases

Anti-SLAPPstatutesfacesetbacksCongressmayagainconsiderananti-SLAPPbill,butWashingtonstatelosesitslaw

SECRETCOURTS

TweetingfromcourtsstillslowincatchingonHowcourtsacrossthecountryapproachreal-timereporting

Whitepaper:AccesstodivorcecourtproceedingsIntruding into some cases may appear unseemly, but openness isessentialforaccountability

NATIONALSECURITY

AnatomyofaBrief:Merrillv.Holderetal.AdetailedlookatarecentReportersCommitteeamicusbrief

NEWSGATHERING

ThosewhopaidthepriceJailed journalists gather to tell their stories, advocate for reporter'sshieldlaw

ThedangersofdoxxingWhat journalists can do to avoid attacks using their personalinformation

FREEDOMOFINFORMATION

CybersecuritylegislationraisesconcernsforjournalistsBodycams:seeing,butnotbeingseenReportersfacechallengesinobtainingpolicebodycameravideos

Publishedby

TheReportersCommitteeforFreedomofthePressEditorBruceD.BrownEditorGreggP.LeslieContributorsKristinBergman,HannahBloch-Wehba,KimberlyChow,TomIsler,AdamMarshall,KatieTownsendAdministrationLoisLloyd,MicheleMcMahonSteeringCommitteeStephenJ.Adler,ReutersJ.ScottApplewhite,TheAssociatedPressWolfBlitzer,CNNDavidBoardman,TempleUniversityChipBok,CreatorsSyndicateJanCrawford,CBSNewsMichaelDuffy,TimeRichardS.Dunham,TsinghuaUniversity,BeijingAshleaEbeling,ForbesMagazineSusanGoldberg,NationalGeographicJohnC.Henry,FreelanceNatHentoff,UniversalUclickDahliaLithwick,SlateTonyMauro,NationalLawJournalJaneMayer,TheNewYorkerDoyleMcManus,TheLosAngelesTimesAndreaMitchell,NBCNewsScottMontgomery,NPRMaggieMulvihill,BostonUniversityBillNichols,PoliticoJeffreyRosen,TheNationalConstitutionCenterCarolRosenberg,TheMiamiHeraldThomasRubin,Seattle,Wash.EricSchmitt,TheNewYorkTimesAliciaShepard,FreelanceMargaretLowSmith,TheAtlanticJenniferSondag,BloombergNewsPaulSteiger,ProPublicaPierreThomas,ABCNewsSaundraTorry,USATodayJudyWoodruff,PBS/TheNewsHourAffiliationsappearforpurposesofidentification.

©2014bytheReportersCommitteeforFreedomofthePress.Publishedfourtimesayear.Price:$20/year.Addresscorrespondenceto:TheNewsMediaandTheLaw,1101WilsonBlvd.,Suite1100,Arlington,VA22209Telephone:(703)807-2100E-mail:magazine@rcfp.orgISSN:0149-0737

TheNewsMedia&TheLawSpring2015

TrackingFOIAProjectsNeed help tracking your FOIA requests? Be sure to use the Reporters

Committee'siFOIAservice,afreesystemthathandlesFOIArequestsbyemailandkeepseverythingorganizedforyou.

Tolearnmore,viewourtutorialorgostraighttoiFOIA.org.

TheRollingStonearticle.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·Libel·Feature

Theclashofethicsandlaw

TheRollingStonereport,andhowprofessionaljournalismstandardsgetmixedupinlibelcases

ByKimberlyChowAs controversy swirled around

Rolling Stone in the wake of its storyaboutrapeattheUniversityofVirginia,themagazinequicklysoughttopubliclyexamine what happened. ItcommissionedtheColumbiaUniversitySchool of Journalism to perform anaudit of the journalistic processinvolved, and the resulting reportcarefully picked through every aspectofthestory.

Butimmediatelyafterthereport’srelease, thefraternityimplicatedinthestorythreatened to sue, and a school dean whose supposed lack of sympathy for thevictimwas portrayed in the article has now filed suit for defamation.AsRollingStone confronts at least one plaintiff who quotes the Columbia report in hercomplaint, it now faces a tricky situation: the report examining the conduct ofjournalists against the aspirational standards of ethics codes is being used in thelawsuitsthatfaceacompletelydifferentlegalstandard.

When reporters and editors make mistakes, most would say that the onlyresponsible thing for them to do is to assess what went wrong so that similarblunders can be avoided in the future. Even before mistakes occur, manypublicationsand journalismorganizationshaveprofessional ethics codes to showjournalistswhattheyshouldbestrivingforastheypracticethetrade.Butwhiletheseeffortsundoubtedlyhelptoelevatethequalityofjournalism,theycanalsobeusedbylibelplaintiffstopointoutmistakesorshortcomingsthatsupporttheirlawsuits.

RollingStonefacesthemusicWhen Rolling Stone asked Columbia Journalism School dean Steve Coll to

examine the reporting of “A Rape on Campus,” it was clear that mistakes hadoccurred during thewriting and editing ofwhat it thoughtwould be a bombshell

story, but was ultimately centered around a false narrative. When the report,authored by Coll, academic dean Sheila Coronel, and postgrad scholar DerekKravitz,was released inApril, itwasan indictmentof themanypoints inRollingStone’sprocesswherethesystembrokedown:thewriter,SabrinaRubinErdely,hadnotspokentoseveralofthevictimJackie’smaligned“friends;”shedidn’tgivethefraternityenoughinformationtocommentanddefenditself;hereditorsdidn’tpushback on the failure to investigate the alleged rapists, and more. Rolling Stonepromptlyretractedthearticle.Soonafter,PhiKappaPsi,thefraternityaccusedinthestoryofhavingapledgeprocessthatinvolvedthegangrapeoftheallegedvictim,announcedthatitwasexploringlegaloptionsagainstErdelyandRollingStone.

“The report byColumbiaUniversity’s School of Journalism demonstrates thereckless nature inwhichRollingStone researched and failed to verify facts in itsarticle that erroneously accused Phi Kappa Psi of crimes its members did notcommit,” fraternity chapter president Stephen Scipione said in a statement. “Thistype of reporting serves as a sad example of a serious decline of journalisticstandards.”

Thefraternity’sstatementillustratestheissueattheheartofdebateoveruseofsuch reports and ethics codes in lawsuits: the conflation of legal standards withprofessionalethicalstandards.Bysayingthatthereportdemonstratedthe“reckless”natureofthereporting, thefraternityappearedtobereferingtothelegalstandardfor defamation of a public figure, under which a plaintiff must show that thedefendantactedwithactualmalice,whichcanbeprovenbyrecklessdisregardforthe truth. On the other hand, by pointing to the “serious decline of journalisticstandards,”thefraternitybroughtupethicalstandards,whichdonotdirectlyaddresstheissueoflegalculpability.

WhilePhiKappaPsihasnotyettakenlegalaction,anothersubjectofthearticlehas.OnMay12,DeanNicoleEramo filedsuit againstErdely,Rolling Stone, andpublisherWennerMedia, asking for $7.85 million in compensatory and punitivedamages. Her suit alleges that Erdely cast her as the “chief villain of the story,”describingherasindifferenttothevictimandotherstudents'rapeallegations,andsayingshewasdiscouragingwhentheytriedtomakeofficialcomplaints.

Eramo’scomplaintcitestheColumbiaJournalismSchoolreportseventimestoprovidesupportforthedean’sclaims.Shefirstpointstothereport’sconclusionthatthearticlewasa“journalisticfailure.”Shethenreferstointerviewsthatthereport’sauthorsconductedwithErdelyandseveralof thearticle’s subjects.ThecomplaintstatesthatErdelytoldCollthatshechoseUVAwithanagendainmindofportrayinga shocking rape and rape culture that were inadequately addressed by the schooladministration, and that even though Erdely admitted to Coll that she was“incredulous”whensheheard Jackie’s story, she“ignoredcountless red flags” ingoing aheadwith publishing it.The complaint cites theColumbia interviewswith

APPhoto/CraigRuttleColumbia Journalism School Dean Steve Colldiscusses findings of his report on Rolling Stonemagazine'sstoryonsexassaultsattheUniversityofVirginia.

othersportrayedinthearticle,whotoldCollthatErdelyhadnotcontactedthemand that theywouldhaveset therecordstraight if she had. Finally, thecomplaintstatesthat“Erdelyadmittedtothe Columbia Journalism School thatshe had serious doubts about Jackie’scredibility” a week after the story waspublished, but that she continued togeneratepublicityforthestory.

LikePhiKappaPsi’s threatof legalaction, Eramo’s complaint uses theevidence and conclusions of the reportas fodder for libel suits. They arebenefiting from the impetus behind thereport, the desire to assess thejournalistic practices employed and tolearnfromthemistakesthatweremade.In that spirit, Erdely and her editorsspoke honestly about their thoughtprocesses and actions, and Coll was candid in his assessment. He used no legalterminologyinthereport,avoidinganyconclusionsthatErdelyandRollingStonehad been negligent or reckless. Instead, his analysis that the article fell shortwasbasedonprofessionalethicalstandards.

ForJaneKirtley,UniversityofMinnesotaprofessorandformerdirectoroftheReportersCommitteeforFreedomofthePress,“thisisnotadistinctionwithoutadifference.”

“Ireallythinkit’simportanttokeepthelinebetweenlawandethicsveryfirmlydrawn,”shesaid.

Butinthecourtroom,whenplaintiffs’attorneysaretryingtoconvincethejurythatthedefendantwasnegligentoractedwithactualmalice,shownbyknowledgeoffalsity or recklessness, evidence of unethical behavior is often raised, sometimessuccessfully.

EthicscodesinthecourtroomHoward Cooper, a Boston attorney who has represented plaintiffs in several

high-profilelibelcasesagainstthemedia,saidhehasoftenusedtheCodeofEthicsof the Society of Professional Journalists to cross-examine reporters. He hasreferred to two provisions in particular to raise concerns about the professionalconductof thesedefendants—aprovisionon theuseof anonymous sources andanotherrecommendingthatthereportershouldcareaboutthesubjectoftheirstory

APPhoto/SteveHelberThePhiKappaPsi fraternityhouseat theUniversityofVirginiainCharlottesville,Va.,whichwasdescribedasthesiteofagangrape.

and the impact that the storywillhaveon thatperson.WhileCooper saysheusesreporters’ noncompliance with the SPJ code as “some evidence on issues ofnegligenceandactualmalice,”heacknowledgesthatthecodeisnotbindingonSPJmembers.

Indeed, the aspirational and non-binding nature of the SPJ code is perhaps itsmost important caveat.The code comprises four principles of ethical journalism:seektruthandreport it,minimizeharm,act independently,andbeaccountableandtransparent. Each principle contains numerous recommendations, includingavoiding conflicts of interest and balancing the public’s need for informationagainstpotentialharmordiscomfort.But theorganizationwarnsprominently thatthecodeisnotbinding:

Thecode"isnotasetofrules,ratheraguidethatencouragesallwhoengageinjournalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless ofmedium.…Itisnot,norcanitbeundertheFirstAmendment,legallyenforceable.”

InspiteofwhatKirtleydescribesastheeffortsofsomeSPJmemberstomakethecodeenforceable,SPJhasneversetupasystemforjudgingwhethermembershaveadheredtothecodeorforremovingoffenders.

“[A]s a practical matter,professional enforcement of standardsfor news reporting would require abody of more detailed provisions andcase law that are far beyond ourresources to provide, even if thatweredesirable,” the code reads. “Nor couldany set of rules, however detailed,possibly apply to all the nuances andambiguitiesoflegitimateexpression.”

Despite the code’s non-enforceability, plaintiffs’ lawyers suchas Cooper still bring it up in court toshowthatthereporterengagedinpracticesthatothersintheprofessionwouldlookaskanceon.Butasfarasprovingactualmalice,noncompliancewiththecodecannotbe dispositive because of the subjective nature of the actual malice standard: thereporter must have subjectively possessed knowledge of falsity or recklessdisregardforthetruth.Itisnotenoughtosaythatareasonablereporterwouldnothaveactedashedid.Ifthepublicationexpresslyadoptedthecode,itisslightlymoreprobative,butstillnotconclusiveproofofliability.

Therefore, Kirtley said, “it’s up to the lawyers representing these [media]organizationstomakesurejudgesandjuriesknowtheethicscodesaren’tdirectlyrelevant.”

LongtimeFirstAmendmentlawyerFloydAbramsofCahillGordon&ReindelLLPhasdefendedlibelcasesinwhichplaintiffsattemptedtouselackofcompliancewithjournalisticguidelinesagainstmediadefendants.

“Arguments followed from the journalistic perspective about the improprietyandharmfulsocietalimpactofallowingthosestandardstobeused,”Abramssaid.“Harmful in the sense that if theprice tagofhaving themwas that theywouldbeusedagainstjournalistsinlitigation,thatitmightnotbeworthwhiletohavethem.”

TheconfusionoflegalstandardswithethicalguidelinesEnsuringthebroadprotectionsgiventojournalistsundertheFirstAmendment

is the fundamental reasonwhy ethical guidelines should not be enforced as legalstandards,Kirtleysaid.

“Thelawgivesjournalistsalotofleewaytodoalotofthingsthatasanethicalmatterwouldbequestionable,” shesaid,citingasanexample theclear legality inmany states of tape-recording a telephone conversationwithout the knowledge oftheotherparticipant,apracticethatmanyethicistswouldfrownupon.

Thedividinglineisnotalwayssoclear.RollingStone’sordealisreminiscentofanotherhigh-profile journalismsnafu thatresulted ina third-partyassessmentandindictment. But in the case of CNN’s broadcast on Operation Tailwind, it wasAbrams,alongwithCNN’sinsidecounsel,whodidthepostmortem,notajournalistlikeColl.

WhenseriousquestionswereraisedaboutCNN’s1998“ValleyofDeath”reportontheallegeduseofnervegasinLaosduringtheVietnamWar,Abramsreviewedinterview outtakes and did interviews to get to the bottom of the problems. Hisconclusionthat“CNNshouldretractthestoryandapologize”wasbasedonfindingsthat the evidence could not sustain the broadcast’s central thesis, despite thejournalists’deeplyheldfaithintheirreporting.

The report makes his point of view clear, starting out by saying, “We arelawyers,not journalists,and itmust restwith journalists todeterminehowbest toavoid in the future the pitfalls illustrated by this broadcast. We do offer thefollowingthoughtsthathaveoccurredtousaswereviewedthebroadcast.”

Abrams avoided legal terminology in his report, as Coll did — there is nomentionofnegligence,recklessness,orlibel.Thatwasdeliberate,hesaid.

“Isoughtascarefullyaspossiblenottogetintoanythingspecificallyconclusoryabout the potential legal consequences of the report,”Abrams said. “Iwas reallypassing on fairness and the degree towhich I concluded that the report had beensubstantiated.”

Yetatthetime,Kirtleyandothersraisedquestionsaboutthewisdomofhavingalawyerperformtheassessment.

“I say thiswith themassive respect Ihave forFloyd,”Kirtleysaid.“The issuethat Ihadwitha lawyerpreparing theTailwindreportwas that Iwasafraid itwas

goingtosendthemessagethatitwasalegalanalysiseventhoughthatwasn’twhatitwasintendedtobe.”

Kirtleysaidshewouldpreferthatlawyersstucktoaskingreporterswhethertheybroke the law, such as by making illegal surreptitious recordings, rather thanmaking editorial and ethical judgments about the propriety of newsgathering andeditingtechniques.

TheTailwindreport,whichmeticulouslylaidoutCNN’sjournalisticerrors,wasfollowedby several defamation suits.Abrams said that there is always a risk thatlibel suitswill followsuchevaluations,but thathe felthecould,withhisbodyofexperience reviewing and assessing journalistic products, carefully articulate hisconclusionsinawaythatwouldultimatelybeveryhelpfultoCNN.

TheimpactonRollingStoneIt remains to be seen how theRolling Stone plaintiffs use the report to their

advantage.ObservingthatEramo’scomplaintmakesmuchuseofstatementsmadeduringthecourseoftheColumbiainvestigation,Coopersaidthatitisafairuseofthe report for it to serve as an investigatory aid in establishing facts that can beasked about in depositions or at trial. But he said it would be problematic andgenerallyinadmissibleincourtasevidence,unlessRollingStonecommissionedthereportandadopteditsconclusionsbywayofanadmission.

“I thinkthereportwillbea tremendousguideduringdiscovery,”Coopersaid.“Itmayservetonaildownthetestimonyofwitnesseswhoarequotedandwhoarereferenced,butitmaynotbeusableinitsfindingsagainstRollingStone.”

The report could support theRollingStone team's assertions that they thoughttheyhadagoodstoryandthatassoonasthereweredoubts,theydidthebesttheycould, includingcommissioning the report, to fixmistakes.On theotherhand,byshowingthat thereweremanysourceswhowerenotinterviewed,thereportcouldpointtopossiblenegligentfailuretoinvestigate,ifnotactualmalice.

RollingStonemayhavehandedpotentialplaintiffsagiftbycommittingfullytotheColumbia report, but the careful analysis of its internal editorial standards aswellas the transparentpublicaccountingwillbenefitboth themagazineandotherjournalistsasacautionarytaleforthefuture.Likewise,theexistenceofethicscodeshave surely more often prevented journalistic failures than they have causedjournaliststobefoundliable.

“Withrespecttoaflawedjournalisticeffort,Ithinkhavinganoutsideentityhavea look at it can have a cleansing impactwhich can lead to better journalism, andmorecarefuljournalism,inthefuture,”Abramssaid.

APPhoto/SusanWalshA federal court upheld the dismissal of a libel suitbroughtbyYasserAbbas,sonofPalestinianNationalAuthority President Mahmoud Abbas, but did notapplytheanti-SLAPPstatute.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·Libel·Feature

Anti-SLAPPstatutesfacesetbacks

Congressmayagainconsiderananti-SLAPPbill,butWashingtonstatelosesitslaw

ByKimberlyChowNotlongafterafederalanti-SLAPP

bill with bipartisan co-sponsors wasintroduced in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives last month, theWashingtonStateSupremeCourtstruckdownthatstate'santi-SLAPPlaw,sayingitdeniedlitigantstheirrighttoatrialbyjury.As anti-SLAPP laws become evermore important to journalists, the lossof a strong state statute leaves manyhoping that the federal effort willfinallybearfruit.

Ifenacted,thefederalSPEAKFREEAct, introduced by Reps. BlakeFarenthold, R-Texas, and Anna Eshoo,D-Calif., would be an important steptoward nationwide protection againstmeritlesssuitsthatchillspeech.

ASLAPPsuit isa "strategic lawsuitagainst public participation," or anattempt byoneparty to silence anotherin a controversy by burdening themwithlitigation.

Afederalanti-SLAPPbillwouldfillcurrent gaps in protection by providing a uniform defense against SLAPP suitsnationwide,addressingtheproblemsofsomecourtsnotapplyingstateanti-SLAPPlawsinfederalcourtandotherstatesnothavinganti-SLAPPlegislationatall.TheSPEAK FREE Act is largely based on the strong anti-SLAPP laws of Texas andCalifornia. While some worry that the ease with which defendants can removeactionstofederalcourtwouldbeaburdenonthefederalcourtsystem,proponents

A management fight over the Olympia Food Co-opwasledtoaholdingthattheWashingtonanti-SLAPPstatutewasunconstitutional.

ofthelawarguethattheburdenwillbeminimalandthattheremovalprovisioniscriticaltothelaw’seffectiveness.

The bill's other co-sponsors areReps.Darrell Issa,R-Calif., Trent Franks,R-Ariz.,andJaredPolis,D-Colo.

Theanti-SLAPPstatutesonthebooksin28statesandtheDistrictofColumbiavarywidely, but their general aim is tomake it easier for defendants to dismisslawsuitsdesignedtointimidatespeakersorburytheminlegalfees,eventhoughtheclaims arewithoutmerit.By suing for defamationor other speech-related claimsand embroiling defendants in litigation, SLAPP plaintiffs effectively silencevaluable public discourse. Stronger anti-SLAPP laws put the burden of proof onplaintiffstoshowthattheirclaimsarenotfrivolousandallowdefendantstomovefordismissalifthatshowingcannotbemade.Someoftheweakerstateanti-SLAPPlawsonlyapplytonarrowcategoriesofspeech,suchasspeechmadeinconnectionwithagovernmentproceeding.

Mirroring the Texas and California anti-SLAPP laws, the SPEAK FREE Actwould broadly apply to lawsuits involving speech "in connectionwith an officialproceedingor about amatterofpublic concern."Thebill furthergives relativelyrobustprotectiontospeakersbyputtingtheburdenofproofontheplaintifftoavoiddismissalwithprejudicebydemonstratingthattheclaimislikelytosucceedonthemerits. The stay on discovery imposed during the adjudication of an anti-SLAPPmotion to dismiss is also important in preventing a chilling effect on speech, asinvolving defendants in expensive, time-consuming discovery is another way tointimidateandsilence.Finally,theactwouldawardcostsandreasonableattorney'sfeestoadefendantwhoprevailsonananti-SLAPPmotion.

Asignificantfeatureofthelawisitsallowanceforremovalofstatecourtcasesimplicating speech issues to federal court for consideration of the anti-SLAPPmotion. If the federal court dismisses themotion, the action is remanded back tostatecourt.

Evan Mascagni, policy director ofthe Public Participation Project, whichwasadrivingforcebehindthebill,saidconcerns that the removal provisionwould burden the federal court systemwith many more cases are unfounded.The number of cases involving anti-SLAPP motions is very small incomparison to the overall number ofcivilcases,hesaid,citingCaliforniaasan example. And yet, the number issignificantenough to show thatSLAPP

suitsareaproblem,hesaid.According to Mascagni, the law must provide for removing SLAPP suits to

federal court because the protections against SLAPPs vary widely from state tostate,withsomestateshavingstronganti-SLAPPlawsandothershavingveryweaklaws or none at all. A federal law from which anyone could benefit woulddiscouragetheforum-shoppingthathappensnow.

“The removalprovision is for individualswho live in stateswithout any anti-SLAPP protection, which is almost half the states,” he said. “For me, the wholepurpose of a federal anti-SLAPP law would be to provide uniform protectionagainstSLAPPsforallAmericans,nomatterwhatstatetheylivein.”

ComingontheheelsofadecisionbytheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbia,whichruledinAbbasv.ForeignPolicy that theD.C.anti-SLAPPlawdoesnot apply in federal court, the introductionof a federal anti-SLAPPbill is awelcome step forward for journalists. Federal anti-SLAPP legislation has beenproposedinCongressinrecentyearsbuthasnotgainedthemomentumtobecomelaw. The House of Representatives first considered such a bill, the CitizenParticipation Act of 2009, several years ago, but the act stalled in the HouseJudiciaryCommitteewithoutmovingtothefloorforavote,andsimilarbillshavenotprogressedfarther.

TheAbbasdecisionThedecisionoftheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiatothrow

outadefamationsuitinAbbasv.ForeignPolicy inAprilwasabittersweetvictoryforFirstAmendmentadvocates,asthecourtalsodecidedthattheD.C.anti-SLAPPlawdidnotapplyinfederalcourt.ThisnegativeresultshowsclearlywhyCongressshouldpassfederalanti-SLAPPlegislationthatwouldprotectspeakerswhocannotbenefitfromtheirstate’santi-SLAPPlaw,aswellasthoseinstatesthathavenosuchlaw.

Thecourt’srulingthatthequestionsposedinForeignPolicy’sarticleonYasserAbbasweremerelyquestionsandnotactionabledefamationwasindeedwelcome.Inasking questions such aswhetherAbbas, a son of PalestinianAuthority PresidentMahmoudAbbas, and his brother were “growing rich off their father ’s system,”ForeignPolicywriterJonathanSchanzerwasnotmakingfactualrepresentations,thecourtheld.Reporters askquestions toobtain information, the courtwrote, and“asevere infringement on free speech”would result if those questions could not beasked.

Butthetroublingaspectofthecourt’sopinionwastheholdingthattheD.C.anti-SLAPPlawwasinapplicablebecausethecasewasinfederalcourt,andthustheD.C.lawwaspreemptedbyfederalproceduralrulesthatsupposedlyaddressedthesameissue.TheD.C.Anti-SLAPPAct,passed in2010,makes iteasier fordefendants todismiss meritless lawsuits consisting of “any claim arising from an act in

furtheranceoftherightofadvocacyonissuesofpublicinterest.”“FederalRulesofCivilProcedure12and56establishthestandardsforgranting

pre-trial judgment to defendants in cases in federal court,” the court wrote. “AfederalcourtmustapplythoseFederalRulesinsteadoftheD.C.Anti-SLAPPAct’sspecialmotiontodismissprovision.”

Sincethefederalrulesdonotrequireaplaintifftoshowalikelihoodofsuccesson themerits,while theD.C. anti-SLAPP lawdoes, the court held that the federalrules governed.And because theD.C. lawwas inapplicable, themedia defendantswerenotentitledtoattorney’sfeesfollowingthedismissaloftheaction.

TheD.C.governmenthadsupportedtheapplicabilityofthelawinfederalcourtwithanamicusbrieftotheCourtofAppeals.TheReportersCommitteealsojoinedanamicuseffortsupportingthedefendants.

Several federal appellate courts, including the First, Fifth, andNinth Circuits,have previously held that state anti-SLAPP laws apply in federal court. But thepossibilitythatothercourtswoulddecidetheissuedifferentlyispartlyresponsibleforapushforfederalanti-SLAPPlegislation.Inaddition,effortshavebeenspurredbythefact thatmanystatesdonothavesuchstatutesandothersonlyhavenarrowprotections,suchasonlyapplyingtospeechonmattersbeforepublicbodies.

Washington'santi-SLAPPlawisstruckdownInadisappointing ruling inMay, theWashingtonSupremeCourt struck down

thestate’santi-SLAPPlawinitsentirety,holdingthatitviolatestherighttotrialbyjuryundertheWashingtonConstitution.

The decision marks the first time an anti-SLAPP law has been heldunconstitutional.TheWashingtonlaw,RCW4.24.525,requiredjudgestoweighthedisputedfactsofcasesanddismiss themif theydeterminedthat theplaintiffcouldnotshowbyclearandconvincingevidenceaprobabilityofprevailingontheclaim.TheWashingtonSupremeCourtheld that itmustbe juries,not judges,whomakethosedeterminationsoffact.

Thewidelatitudethatjudgeshavetodismisspotentiallynonfrivolousclaimsiswhatledthehighcourttofindthattherightoftrialbyjurywasjeopardized.

“RCW 4.24.525(4)(b) creates a truncated adjudication of the merits of aplaintiff’s claim, including nonfrivolous factual issues,without a trial,” theCourtwrote. “Such a procedure invades the jury’s essential role of deciding debatablequestionsoffact.”

Particularlyproblematicwasthehighstandardofproofthatthelawrequiredforplaintiffs to show that their case had merit. While the Washington law requiredplaintiffs to showby“clearandconvincing”evidenceaprobabilityofprevailing,otheranti-SLAPPlawsrequirealessershowing,suchas“sufficient”evidence.

Findingthatthesectionofthelawallowingforswiftdismissalofsuitswasnotseverable from the remainder ofRCW4.24.525, theCourt struckdown the entire

law.“Naturally, we’re disappointed,” Bruce Johnson of the firm Davis Wright

TremaineLLP,whichrepresentedthedefendants,said.“The2010lawwasdesignedto enable ordinary citizens to participate in discussions of publicmatterswithoutfear of expensive and debilitating retaliatory litigation. That risk has returned,unfortunately.”

The Reporters Committee, joined by 29 other media parties, submitted anamicusbriefinsupportofthedefendants.

ThedecisionoftheWashingtonSupremeCourthasalreadyaffectedatleastoneotherstate’santi-SLAPPlaw.LawmakersinNevada,facingattemptstomodifytheirown law, agreed to change the standard of proof from “clear and convincing”evidence to the lower standard of “prima facie” evidence of a probability ofprevailing. It remains tobeseenwhether thedecisionwillaffect the laws inotherstates. The proposed federal anti-SLAPP law requires that a plaintiff show that aclaimislikelytosucceedonthemerits.

ThisstorycombinesandupdatesthreestoriesthatinitiallyappearedonourwebsiteinAprilandMay.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·SecretCourts·Feature

Tweetingfromcourtsstillslowincatchingon

Howcourtsacrossthecountryapproachreal-timereporting

ByTomIslerInApril, thePennsylvaniaSupremeCourt rejectedaproposal thatwould have

banned real-time reporting — including tweeting and live-blogging from cellphones, tablets or laptops — from inside state courtrooms. Without the ban,Pennsylvania judges will continue to permit or prohibit real-time reporting on acase-by-casebasis.

That ad hoc approach appears to be how the majority of courts across thecountry still treat courtroom reporting.At this time, there is no broad consensusabout whether to permit journalists to use portable electronic devices to publishupdatesfromthecourtroom.

Evenwhencamerasarepermittedinthecourtroomandatrialisbroadcastlive,somejudgesstillrestrict theuseofcellphonesorcomputersbyobservers.That’sthe case in themurder trial now proceeding in Colorado against JamesHolmes,whokilled12peopleinamovietheaterinAurorathreeyearsago.Reporterswhowant to live-tweet theproceedingshave tobestationedoutside thecourtroom andprovideupdatesbasedonthelivecamerafeed.

Itmay seem inevitable that real-time reportingwill becomemore common asmorecourtspermitsuchactivitywithoutincident,asjudgesmorecomfortablewithmobiletechnologyjointhebench,andasthepublicincreasinglyconsumesnewsonsocialandmobileplatforms.Butcourtsthatpermitreal-timereportingasamatterofcourseare still in theminority,according toaReportersCommittee reviewofmediaandcellphonepoliciesfromall50states.

Abriefnoteonmethodology: the62policies reviewed for this article arenotnecessarily representative of the roughly 900 federal and state judicial districtsacrossthecountry.Weexaminedoneortwopoliciesperstate,whichweidentifiedusing online searches. In a few cases, we contacted court information officersdirectlyformoreinformation.Someofthepoliciessetdefaultrulesfortheentirestate,whileothersconcernonlyasingledistrictorcourthouse.Thepurposeofthisanalysis was to better understand the variety of approaches that courts take on

courtroommedia coverage, not to review a statistically representative sample ofpolicies.

Onlynineofthe62policiesexaminedpermitreal-timereportingwithelectronicdevices as a matter of course or set up a presumption in favor of such activity.Twelvepolicieseitherbanthecoverageorsetupapresumptionagainstit.Another15 policies expressly leave the decision to the individual judge,without setting adefaultrule.Thebalanceofthepoliciesdonotaddressthemedia’sorthepublic’suseofcellphonesorcomputersincourt,withmostfocusingontheproceduresthemediamustfollowtousecamerasorotherrecordingequipment.

Jurisdictions thatpermit real-timereportingbyrulegenerallyallowelectronicdevices to be used in the courtroom to transmit data or connect to the Internet,providedthatthedevicesaresilentanddonotdisrupttheproceedings,andfurtherprovided that the devices may not be used to take photographs or record audiowithout permission. At all times, the use of electronic devices is subject to thediscretionofthejudge.

Someofthepolicies,liketheoneinFlorida’sNinthJudicialDistrict,permittheuse of electronic devices only for authorizedmembers of themedia; others, likethatinColorado’sFifthJudicialDistrict,extendtherighttomembersofthepublicgenerally.InUtah,judgesmayrestricttheuseofelectronicdevicesincourt,buttherule expressly discourages judges from doing so unless “use of a portableelectronic device might interfere with the administration of justice, disrupt theproceedings,poseanythreat tosafetyorsecurity,compromisetheintegrityoftheproceedings,orthreatentheinterestsofaminor.”

Manyjurisdictionsleavethemattertothediscretionofthejudge.InKansas,cellphonesaregenerallybannedbutmaybeusedwithcourtapproval.Thestate’smediacoverageruleacknowledgesthattheuseofcellphonesandotherdevicesincourts“continually challenges a court’s legitimate concerns for courtroom security,participantdistraction,anddecorum.”Nonetheless, therulestates thatdevices“areredefining the news media, the informational product disseminated, and thetimeliness of the content. They also result in new expectations for the court andparticipantsforimmediateaccesstoinformation....Thecourtsshouldchampiontheenhancedaccessandthetransparencymadepossiblebyuseof thesedeviceswhileprotectingtheintegrityofproceedingswithinthecourtroom.”

In theEighth JudicialDistrict ofNevada,which encompassesLasVegas, real-timereportingispermittedbycustom,butnotexpresslyauthorizedbyaformalruleor guideline. In West Virginia, each judge "is in charge of his or her owncourtroomandcanallowornotallowanycameras/audio/electronicdevice,ornot,depending upon the case and circumstance," Jennifer Bundy, public informationofficer for the Supreme Court of Appeals ofWest Virginia, wrote in an e-mail."Somedo,somedon’t.Someallowforsomecasesandnotothers.Itvarieswidely."

Thepolicyused in theDelawareCourtofChancery,which expresslybans theuseof laptops “tobroadcast,webcast, recordaudioorvideo,photograph, e-mail,blog,tweet, text,post,ortransmitbyanyothermeans”informationfromcourt, isnotable because it offers a scientific rationale for the ban: “electronictransmissions”and“Internetusage”“interferewith thecourt reporters’equipmentand ability to provide a ‘live feed’ to the parties,” and therefore “electronictransmissions via WiFi, air card, wave card or any other means is strictlyprohibited.”

Other examples of policies that expressly permit or create a presumption infavor of real-time reporting include those inArizona,Georgia,Mississippi,NewYork, and Washington. Policies that generally ban or leave the matter to thediscretion to the judge include those in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa,Maine,Michigan,andOklahoma.

Whetherandhowtohandleelectroniccourtroomreportingisadebatecurrentlytaking place at the Tennessee Supreme Court, which is considering adding cellphones,tabletsandlaptopstothelistofequipmentapprovedforusebyjournalistsinthecourtroom.Currently,thestate’smediaaccessruleoutlinestheprocedureforbringing cameras or audio recording equipment into courtrooms but is silent onwhether journalists must request permission to transmit real-time, text-basedupdatesfrompersonaldevices.

“Theseproposedchangesembracethetoolsusedbythemediatokeepthepublicinformedaboutwhat’shappeninginourcourtsystem,”ChiefJudgeSharonLeesaidin a statement. She observed that reporters routinely use electronic devices totransmitdescriptionsofcourtproceedings.

Jack McElroy, editor of theKnoxville News Sentinel, said he appreciates theSupreme Court’s efforts “to make courtrooms as accessible to the public aspossible,” but is concerned that the proposed rule “actually will result in asubstantialstepbackwardinpublicaccesstocourtproceedings.”

McElroy recently outlined his concerns in written comments sent to theTennessee Supreme Court. One problem: by expanding the rule’s definition ofmedia “coverage” to include information transmitted from personal devices, therule’sformalrequestmechanism,whichnowgovernsonlyrequestsforcamerasorotherrecordingdevicesinthecourtroom,wouldbetriggeredbyjournalistsseekingto blog or post to socialmedia frompersonal devices. Thus, reporterswould berequiredtoobtainpermissionfromthecourtasmuchastwodaysinadvanceofanyproceeding.Currently,McElroypointsout,“judgesinKnoxCountyallowreportersvirtuallyunrestricteduseof digital phones and tablets as reporting tools”withoutmaking formal requests, and the added administrative hurdle “would seriouslyhampertheflexibilityofreporterstocoveravarietyofproceedings,evenifthe48-hourdeadlineroutinelywerewaived.”

McElroyisalsoconcernedthatbyaddingtweetingorbloggingtothedefinitionofmedia coverage, the current ban on “coverage” of the jury selection process,whichnowonlybansaudio-visualrecordingofthatprocess,wouldsubsumeotherkindsofreporting,too.“Thiswouldmeanthatareporterusingatraditionalpenandnotebook could take notes on voir dire” but that a “reporterwould be prohibitedfrompostingthesameinformationfromanelectronicdevice.”

The Tennessee Supreme Court has extended the comment period on theproposedrulechangetoAugust15.

PhotobyRichardShotwell/Invision/APThe unsealing of actress Jeri Lynn Ryan's divorcecasepromptedherhusbandtowithdrawfromaU.S.Senateelection.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·SecretCourts·Feature

Whitepaper:Accesstodivorcecourtproceedings

Intrudingintosomecasesmayappearunseemly,butopennessisessentialforaccountability

ByJamieSchumanThis is a condensed version of a

white paper on access to family courtproceedings, which will be publishedsoononourwebsite.

Davis Wright Tremaine medialawyer Alonzo Wickers IV likes topointoutthataccessbattlesfordivorce-court records helped launch PresidentBarackObama’spoliticalcareer.

When Obama first ran for U.S.Senate, in 2004, he trailed opponentBlairHullintheDemocraticprimaryinIllinois.

But,aspartofits“regularscrubbingof all of the candidates,” the ChicagoTribunetriedtogetrecordsfromHull’s1998 divorce, recalls John Chase, apolitics reporter at the paper. A courthadsealedmostofHull’sdivorcefiles,buttheTribunediscoveredanddivulgedthat Hull’s ex-wife had sought aprotective order against him. Amidstpublic pressure, Hull personallyreleasedhisclosedfiles,whichrevealedthat his ex-wife alleged that that heemotionallyabusedher.1

Obama then cruised to victory in the primary. His opponent in the generalelectionwasJackRyan,awealthybankerwhohaddivorcedactressJeriLynnRyan

inaCaliforniacourt.Theserecordsweresealed,too,andtheTribuneandWLS-TVfoughttoopenthemandwon.

ThematerialsrevealedthatJeriLynnRyanallegedthattheRepublicancandidatehadforcedhertogoto“sexclubs”inParis,NewYork,andNewOrleans,whereheinsistedthatthetwohavepublicsex.2

ManyRepublicansurgedRyantodropoutoftherace,andhedidsojustafewdaysafterthenewsbroke.ThispavedthewayforObamatobecomeasenator.

Chase remembers that some readers blamed the Tribune for suing to openRyan’sdivorcefiles.Thecandidatecriticizedthenewspaperaswell.

“Themediahasgottenoutofcontrol,”Ryansaid inastatement.“Thefact thatTheChicagoTribune sues for access to sealed custodydocuments and then takesuntoitselftherighttopublicdetailsofacustodydispute—overtheobjectionsoftwoparentswhoagreethatthere-airingoftheirargumentswillhurttheirabilitytoco-parenttheirchildandhurttheirchild—istrulyoutrageous.”3

Chasethinksthestorieswerefairgame.Ryanhadpubliclydeniedthatthefilescontainedredflags,andthatputthecandidate’strustworthinessatissue,thereportersaid.

“They’recourtrecordsforgod’ssake,”Chasesaid.“That’soneoftheprinciplesofdemocracy–beingabletohaveyourcourtrecordspublic.”

Theseepisodes illustrate thecompeting issues thatarisewhen themediawantsaccess to divorce records or proceedings. On the one hand, openness gives thepublicatooltocheckpoliticalcandidatesandothercivicleaders,andithelpsensurethat the rich and powerful are not getting special treatment in the courts. On theother,divorcefilescancontainveryintimatepersonaldetails,andchildren’swell-beingcanbeatstake.

Courts nationwide grapple with these competing interests. Although divorceproceedingshavehistoricallybeenopen,judgessometimesclosethem.

This guide provides background on divorce proceedings, and an overviewofaccess law in these areas. It also looks at the types of stories that can arise fromthese cases, and arguments that attorneys can make as well as factors that theyshouldconsiderwhenseekingaccess.

BackgroundonfamilyanddivorcecourtsDivorcecasesarecivilproceedingsthatarenormallyheldinfamilydivisionsof

courts.Sometimes,though,theyareingeneralcivildivisionsofstatecourts.Thesecases often include custody and child-support matters that are related to thedissolutionofmarriage.

Family courts handlemanymatters separate from divorce. These can includejuvenile dependency issues, such as abuse, neglect, abandonment, visitation, andcustody, as well as juvenile delinquency cases. The Reporters Committee forFreedom of the Press’s “Access to Juvenile Justice” guide details the law for

dependency and delinquency proceedings. Historically and due to concerns forchildren’swellbeing,courtstypicallyaremorewillingtoclosethosejuvenilecasesthantheyaremanyothertypesofproceedings,includingdivorceproceedings.4

Still,manycourtsdoclosedivorcecases.Whenclosuresoccur, theynormallystemfromprivacyconcernsrelatingtochildrenorfinances.

Wickersexplainedthatfamilycourtjudgescanbemoretriggerhappytoclosecourtrooms, including in divorce cases, because they often view their jobsdifferentlythanotherjudgesdo.Theywantto“findawin-win,”agoodresultforanentirefamilyratherthanoneparty,hesaid.

Theunique cultureof the familybar also can lead to sealing efforts,Wickerssaid.“Thefamilybarisamuchmoreinsularbar,”hesaid.“Theyknoweachother.They’reincourteverydayagainsteachother.They’reallkindofincahoots.Theyallwantitsecret.”

SouthCarolinafamilylawyerMelissaBrownsaidthereisgoodreasontosealmanydivorcecases:Theyrevealsomanyintimatedetailsaboutclients’lives(fromtheirparentingdecisionstowheretheyshop)yetmanyoftheclientsneverwantedtoendupincourt.

“Familycourtisadifferentplace,”saidBrown,whowrotealawreviewarticleon identity theft in family courts.5 “You’re dealing with real people’s personalsituations.It’snotjustawreckoranemploymentdisputewhereit’sverynarrowlytailored.It’severythingabouttheirlives.”

Anotheruniquefeatureofdivorcecases is that thevastmajorityof themsettleout of court, explained David Sarif, chair of the family law division of theAmericanBarAssociation’s committee on trial practice and techniques. This canaffectaccess.

InSouthCarolina, at least,whenparties settlewith a formal agreementby thecourt,theagreementisnormallypublicbutismuchlessdetailedthanatrialorder.The document focuses on the terms of the agreement rather than the underlyingallegations, Brown said. If parties use a private arbitrator, their information willnormallybeprivate.

ThelawofaccessindivorcecasesThisguidefocusesondivorcecasesthatreachtrial.The Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether the public has a

constitutional right to attend civil proceedings such as divorce cases, though aplurality found that “historically both civil and criminal trials have beenpresumptivelyopen.”6InNixonv.WarnerCommunications,theCourtfoundthatthepublichasarightatcommonlawtoaccesscivilrecords.7

Policies and practices for access to divorce cases vary from state to state andevenfromcourtroomtocourtroom.

According to the legal encyclopediaAmerican Jurisprudence,public access to

matrimonialcases“isstronglyfavored.”8AmericanJurisprudencecontinues,“Themeredesireofdivorcelitigantstoholdaprivatedivorceproceedingisinsufficientjustificationtoclosethehearingtothepublicandthepress.”9

Inmany states, divorce proceedings and records are presumptively open, andjudgeswillonlyclose them if theymake specific findings thatprivacyoutweighsthe public right of access. Some states have statutes that restrict public access toparts of divorce cases, such as certainmatters dealingwith children or financialdocuments.(Our50-stateguidegivesthelegalstandardsforaccesstodivorcecasesinall50states,plustheDistrictofColumbia.)

Historically,divorcecases,likeothercasesintheAmericancourtsystem,havebeenpresumptivelyopen.

An1891treatiseonmarriageanddivorcecasesemphasizesthatthereisapublicright of access to these matters: “As a general rule, wherever, the common lawprevails,trialsinallcausesareinopencourt,towhichspectatorsareadmitted.Thismethodisregardedforthepurityofourjudicialsystem,andasaprecautionagainstpossible injustice. In reason and in ordinary practice, it extends to divorcecauses.”10

By1931,19stateshadstatutesthatgovernedaccesstodivorceproceedings,andopennesswasthestartingpresumptioninmostinstances.11

Some early case law tried to chip away at this transparency by arguing thatdivorces are different than other legal matters. In 1893, in In re Caswell, theSupremeCourtofRhodeIslandrejectedareporter ’srequestfordivorcerecords.12Thecourtexplained:to“broadcastthepainful,andsometimesdisgusting,detailsofadivorcecase,notonlyfailstoserveanyusefulpurposeinthecommunity,but,onthe other hand, directly tends to the demoralization and corruption thereof, bycateringtoamorbidcravingforthatwhichissensationalandimpure.”13

TheCaswellcourtfurtherfoundthat,whilepeoplecangetrecordsfor“properpurposes,”theycannotdosoto“gratifyprivatespiteorpromotepublicscandal.”14TheU.S.SupremeCourtusedthatlanguageindictainNixon,andpartiesopposingaccessoftencitethosewordstoday.15

However,oneleadingpro-accesscase,PetitionofKeeneSentinel, rejected thisargument: “The motivations of [the press] – or any member of the public – areirrelevant to thequestionofaccess.Wecannotdictatewhat shouldandshouldnotinterestthepublic.”16

Keene Sentinel involved a New Hampshire newspaper ’s attempt to unseal therecordsoftwoseparatedivorcesofCharlesG.DouglasIII,anincumbentcandidatefortheU.S.HouseofRepresentatives.Douglasarguedthathisprivacyoutweighedthepublicinterest,andthatthenewspaperhadnoproperinterestinhisdivorce.17

In rejecting Douglas’ arguments, the Supreme Court of New Hampshireestablisheddetailedguidelinesfordivorceaccesscases.Itfoundthatdivorcecourt

recordsarepresumptivelyopenandtheburdenofproofrestswiththepartyseekingclosure to “demonstrate with specificity” that there is a “sufficiently compellinginterest”thatoutweighsthepublic’srightofaccess.18

Theopinion continued that a “general privacy interest” is insufficient and thatcourts must examine all documents separately to determine if they should besealed.19Anyclosuremustbeasunrestrictiveaspossible–forinstance,redactionsofsmallsegmentsarebetterthanwholesalesealing,thecourtexplained.20

Otherkeypro-access cases areBarronv.FloridaFreedomNewspapers, Inc.21andCalifornia’sBurklev.Burkle,22whichbothfoundthatdivorceproceedingsarenodifferentthananyothercivilmatter.

But Katz v. Katz,23, in Pennsylvania, held the opposite. There, formerPhiladelphia 76ers owner Harold Katz argued that his equitable distributionproceedingshouldbeclosedbecausehehasarighttohaveprivacyinhispersonallife,andbecausepublicitycouldcauseharassmentandharmhisbusinessinterests.

The court “sympathize[d]”withKatz, reasoning that “he need not be exposedmore than isnecessary to the lessenviable featureswhichaccompany[his]publicstatus.”24

In contrast withKeene Sentinel, which found the public’s reason for seekingaccessirrelevant,theKatzcourtconcludedthat“nolegitimatepublicpurposecanbeservedbybroadcastingtheintimatedetailsofasouredmaritalrelationship.”25Suchdisclosure“couldserveonlytoembarrassandhumiliatethelitigants,”asthepubliccan have little or no interest in how marital property is divided, the courtexplained.26

State statutes and court rules also help define the right of access to divorceproceedings.

Though divorce proceedings are presumptively open in many states, statutesdefinetherightindifferentways.TheIowaCodestatesthatdivorcehearings“shallbeheldinopencourt”butthe“courtmayinitsdiscretionclosethehearings.”27InIdaho, the “court may exclude all persons” in divorce cases.28 In Virginia, thepresumption is that testimony in divorce proceedings is closed unless the courtdeemsitotherwise:“Inanysuitfordivorce,thetrialcourtmayrequirethewholeoranypartofthetestimonytobegivenorallyinopencourt.”29

The least access-friendly law is in Nevada, where divorce proceedings areprivateupondemandofeitherparty.30

NewYork is uniquebecausedivorceproceedings are presumptivelyopen, butdivorce records are presumptively closed. But it is not uncommon for parties toleak divorce records to the press, said Edward Davis, a media lawyer at DavisWrightTremaineinNewYork.Whilereportersarefreetorelyonleakeddivorcerecords, theydonotget thebenefitof the fairandaccurate reportprivilege if theinformationinthefilesisnotaccurate.31Thismeansthatifthejournalistsaresued

fordefamation,theymustrelyontraditionalfaultdefenses.Somestateshaveexplicitprovisionsthatletcourtsclosecertainpartsofdivorce

hearingsthatdealwithchildcustody.Somestatesalsohavestatutoryprovisionsthateither automatically seal financial records or do so at the request of a party in adivorcecase.Thisguidehassectionsonchildren’sinterestsandfinancialmatters.

MakingthecaseforaccesstodivorcerecordsTheSupremeCourt inNixon v.WarnerCommunications, Inc. warned in dicta

that people should not get to see divorce records to gratify spite or promotescandal.32When,then,dothesecasesprovidenewsworthyinformationforthepressandpublic?

Media lawyers say their case is strongest when the divorce involves aninfluential businessperson whose finances are of legitimate public concern or acandidate’sfitnessforoffice.Butthesearesomeoftheverypeoplewhotrytosealtheirdivorcerecordsinthefirstplace.

California is especially pro-access in divorce proceedings. Two cases thatestablishedthestate’sstandardsinvolvedpartieswithabigcivicpresence,explainedKarleneGoller,formerdeputygeneralcounselattheLosAngelesTimes.

Burkle v. Burkle, in 2006, involved billionaire grocery-store magnate andpoliticaldonorRonaldBurkle.33After finding that the FirstAmendment right ofaccesstocivilproceedingsinCaliforniaextendstodivorceproceedings,thecourtstruckdownastatutethatletpartiessealfinancialrecords.

Goller said Burkle’s dissolution of assets with his ex-wife were newsworthybecause of his influence in Los Angeles and beyond. “He has financial tentacleseverywhere,”shesaid.

A second access victory in California involved the divorce records ofBroadcom co-founder Henry Nicholas.34 Around the time of his divorceproceedings,Nicholaswasindictedonstockfraudandoptionsbackdatingcharges,andwellasondrugcharges.(Allofthechargeswereeventuallydropped.)

NewsoutletshadalreadywrittenextensivelyofNicholas’allegedharddruguseandsexualexploits.35Themedianeededthedivorcerecordsbecause,asheadofalargepubliclyheldcompany,his legalmattersaffectedshareholders, explainedE.ScottReckard,aLosAngelesTimesbusinessreporterwhocoveredthecase.

“Idon’tthinkanybodywantstopokearoundinanuglydivorcejustforthesakeof poking around in an ugly divorce,” Reckard said. “The issue becomes whatelevatesanyofthisstufftoalevelofwhereyouwanttotellpeopleaboutit.”

Incontrast to theBurkleandNicholascases, themediadidnot fareaswell inattemptstogetdivorcerecordsfrompopstarsBritneySpearsandKevinFederline,said Wickers, who litigated the access matter. The court only unsealed certaindocuments,andlikelyviewedthesuitas“prurientinterestinthedisasterthatwasK-FedandBritneySpears’relationship,”Wickerssaid.

Another instance when courts are especially willing to open files that wereinitiallysealedisifthecharacterofacandidateforpublicofficecouldbeatissue.Thiswasthecaseinthe2004U.S.SenatecampaignsofJackRyanandBlairHull.

ItalsowasatissuewhenFreedomNewspaperssuedforthedivorcerecordsofFlorida state senator Dempsey Barron.36 Barron’s ex-wife claimed he defraudedher by attempting to convey property in Wyoming to his aide, whom he latermarried.

Barron was involved in a reelection campaign in 1988, but argued that hisdivorce was a proceeding between private individuals that did not involve thestate.37He reasoned that even if he is a public figure, he should have a right toprivacy.38Themediawon,andBarronlosthisstatesenateseatthatyear.ObituariesyearslaterlinkedBarron’sdefeattohis“unusuallypublicdivorcefight.”39

While wealthy people or public figures are often the ones that seek closure,Gollersaidmediavictoriesinthesecasesareanimportantwaytoshowpeoplethatcourtsaredispensingjusticefairly.

“Ittakesthesebigcasestomakethecaselawfortheaveragecase,andtomakesurethatjudgesareawarethattheserulesofopennessapply,”shesaid.

There are many policy reasons why transparency is especially important indivorceproceedings.Onesideoftenhasmorepowerandleverageinthesecases,sotheprospectofpublicitycaneventheplayingfield.40Additionally,asinglejudge,insteadofajury,typicallydecidesthesematters,soopennessisanimportantcheckonthepoweroftheoneperson.41Moreover,manyofthefactorsajudgeindivorcecasesdecides,suchasthe“bestinterestofthechildstandard,”havegrayareas.42

Endnotes:1DavidMendell,Hull’sex-wifecalledhimviolentmanindivorcefile,Chi.Trib.,

Feb.28,2004,http://trib.in/1tyrdbe.2 JohnChase&LiamFord,Ryan file a bombshell, Chi. Trib., June 22, 2004,

http://trib.in/1q9CgWW.3DanCollins,Sex Scandal EndsRyan SenateBid, Associated Press, June 25,

2004,http://cbsn.ws/XJDP4J.4See Jennifer L. Rosato, The Future of Access to the Family Court: Beyond

NamingandBlaming,9J.L.&Pol’y149,150-51(2000).5MelissaF.Brown,FamilyCourtFiles:ATreasureTroveforIdentityThieves?,

55S.C.L.Rev.777(2004).6RichmondNewspapers,Inc.v.Virginia,448U.S.555,580n.17(1980)(plurality

opinion).7Nixonv.WarnerCommc’ns.,Inc.,435U.S.589,597(1978)(footnoteomitted).824Am.Jur.2d,DivorceandSeparation,§283(1998).9Id.10MaryMcdevittGofen,TheRightofAccesstoChildCustodyandDependency

Cases,62U.Chi.L.Rev.857,867(1995),citingJoelPrentissBishop,2Marriage,Divorce,andSeparation§674at278(T.H.Flood,1891).

11Id.at867-68.12InreCaswell,29A.259,259(R.I.1893).13Id.14Id.15Nixonv.WarnerCommc’ns,Inc.,435U.S.at598.16PetitionofKeeneSentinel,612A.2d911,915(N.H.1992).17Id.at913.18Id.at916.19Id.20Id.at917.21531So.2d113(Fla.1988).22135Cal.App.4th1045(Cal.Ct.App.2006).23514A.2d1374(Pa.Super.Ct.1986).24Id.at1380.25Id.at1379.26Id.at1379-80.27IowaCode§598.8(2000).28IdahoR.Civ.P.77(b).29Va.CodeAnn.§20-106(1990).30Nev.Rev.Stat.Ann.§125.080(LexisNexis2000).31Shilesv.NewsSyndicateCo.,27N.Y.2d9,19(N.Y.1970).32435U.S.589,598(1978).33PeterY.Hong, JeanGuccione&CarlaHall,CourtUnsealsBurkleDivorce

Papers,L.A.Times,May20,2006,http://lat.ms/1v2anob.34InretheMarriageofStacey&HenryT.Nicholas,186Cal.App.4th1566(Cal.

Ct.App.2010).35 See, e.g., Bethany McLean,Dr. Nicholas and Mr. Hyde, Vanity Fair, Nov.

2008, http://vnty.fr/1mueKPF; Keren Blankfeld & Matthew Miller, Broadcom’sNicholas After The Fall, Forbes, Oct. 1, 2009, http://onforb.es/1qB62Bd; R. ScottMoxley,HenryNicholas’Divorce IsMore Secret ThanYours, OCWeekly, July 8,2010,http://bit.ly/1sgwnGO.

36Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 115 (Fla. 1988);DonnaO’Neal,File Open In Divorce of Barron Supreme Court Ruling HasWideImplications,OrlandoSentinel,Aug.26,1988,http://bit.ly/1twh26Q.

37Barron,531So.2dat116.38Id.39 Craig Base & Lucy Morgan,Dempsey Barron dead at 79, St. Petersburg

Times,July8,2001,http://bit.ly/1AIf8TX.

40W.ThomasMcGough, Jr.,PublicAccess toDivorceProceedings:AMediaLawyer’sPerspective,17J.Am.Acad.Matrim.Law.29,37-38(2001).

41Id.at38.42MaryMcdevittGofen,TheRightofAccesstoChildCustodyandDependency

Cases,62U.Chi.L.Rev.at857(1995).

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·NationalSecurity·Feature

AnatomyofaBrief:Merrillv.Holderetal.

AdetailedlookatarecentReportersCommitteeamicusbrief

ByHannahBloch-WehbaInMarch,theReportersCommitteefiledafriend-of-the-courtbriefintheUnited

StatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkweighinginontherighttoknowmoreaboutashadowyadministrativesubpoenaprocess:"nationalsecurityletters,"knownasNSLs.

NationalsecuritylettersandgagordersNSLsarewarrantless requests that are issuedbyhigh-rankingFBIofficials to

thirdpartiesfornon-contentrecordsrelevanttonationalsecurityinvestigations.ByfarthemostcommonlyusedNSLauthorityisthatintheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct(ECPA),whichenablestheFBItorequest the“localandlongdistancetoll billing records” of any person from a “wire or electronic communicationserviceprovider,”suchasISPs,emailproviders,andphonecompanies.

NSLs are frequently accompanied by a nondisclosure order that prevents therecipientfrompubliclyacknowledgingthattheyhavereceivedtherequest.Thegagorders are issued by the FBI if the issuing official certifies that disclosure “mayresult” in a danger to national security or to the safety of any person. Thenondisclosure orders are usually issued at the same time as the NSL is issued,without any judicial oversight. Recently, the Office of the Director of NationalIntelligenceannouncedimpendingchangestothepolicygoverningtheissuanceofgag orders: “the FBI will now presumptively terminate National Security Letternondisclosure orders at the earlier of three years after the opening of a fullypredicated investigationor the investigation’sclose.”While the three-year limit isanimprovement,itdoesnotsolvetheseriousconstitutionalproblemswiththeNSLauthorityandthenondisclosureprovisions.

This isnot thefirst time theReportersCommitteehasweighed inon theFBI'sNSL authority. In April 2014, the Reporters Committee filed an amicus brief insupport of petitioners challenging ECPANSLs in two cases in the Ninth Circuit.Thosecaseshavenotyetbeendecided.

ThefactsofthecaseIn 2004,NicholasMerrill received an ECPANSLwith a nondisclosure order.

Merrill, who ran an Internet Service Provider called Calyx Internet Access,challenged the NSL and the gag order. In subsequent litigation in the SouthernDistrict of New York, the scope of the nondisclosure order was narrowedsignificantly.In2010,Merrillwaspermittedtoacknowledgethathewasthelitigantand the recipient of theNSL.And inFebruary 2014, theFBI permittedMerrill torevealthetargetoftheNSL:thecustomerwhoserecordsweresought.ButtheFBIcontinues tomaintain thatMerrillmay not reveal theAttachment to theNSL thatspecifiesthekindsofinformationthattheFBIsoughtusingtheNSL.Asaresult,thegagorderhasbeeninplaceforovertenyears.Merrillbroughtthissuit tolift thegag preventing him from disclosing what types of information the FBI soughtpursuant to their authority to compel disclosure of “electronic communicationstransactionalrecords.”

TherighttoreceiveinformationfromMerrillabouttheAttachmenttotheNSL

The Reporters Committee argued that the press and the public have a FirstAmendment right to receive the information thatMerrillwants todisseminate: thecontentoftheAttachmenttotheNSL.

The right to receive information is an independent “corollary” of theguarantees of free speech and a free press. Young v. American MiniTheatres,Inc.,427U.S.50,76(1976)(Powell,J.,concurring).“Therightoffreedomofspeechandpressincludesnotonlytherighttoutterortoprint,but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read . . . .”Griswoldv.Connecticut,381U.S.479,482(1965).

...The “willing speaker”doctrine is usually invoked to establish that the

presshasstandingtochallengeanunconstitutionalrestraintonspeechthatpurportstobindathirdparty.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Simon,664F.Supp.780, 786 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) .... But the doctrine also demonstrates theinextricableconnectionbetweentheFirstAmendmentrightsofthespeakerand the related, independent rights of his or her audience. Indeed, “[i]twould be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and nobuyers.”Lamontv.PostmasterGeneralofUnitedStates,381U.S.301,308(1965) (Brennan, J., concurring).Accordingly, in the freemarketplace ofideas,“therightofthepublictoreceivesuitableaccesstosocial,political,esthetic,moral, and other ideas and experiences” is paramount.Red LionBroad.Co.v.F.C.C.,395U.S.367,390(1969).

The Reporters Committee argued that the content of the Attachment is ofheightened interest to the press and the public because it concerns governmentconduct: it is evidence of the government's interpretation of its own authority tocompelthedisclosureofcommunicationrecordstolawenforcement.

[Disclosure of the Attachment] would inform public debate aboutgovernmentconduct—specificallythegovernment’suseofNSLs—andenablepublicoversightoftheexecutivebranch.SpeechofthiskindliesatthecoreoftheprotectionsguaranteedbytheFirstAmendment,whichwere“fashionedtoassureunfetteredinterchangeofideasforthebringingaboutofpoliticalandsocialchangesdesiredbythepeople.”Rothv.UnitedStates,354U.S.476,484(1957).

…Indeed, the only publicly available government interpretation of the

FBI’s authority tocompel theproductionof communications records is a2008memofromtheOfficeofLegalCounsel,whichconcludedthatNSLsmay only be used to seek subscriber information, “toll billing records,”and“parallel”categoriesofinformation.SeeRequests for Info.Under theElec.Commc’nsPrivacyAct,32Op.O.L.C.2(2008).TheOLC,however,acknowledged that ambiguity exists in the application of the phrase “tollbilling records” to electronic communications. See Dep’t of Justice, AReviewoftheFBI’sUseofNSLs:AssessmentofProgressinImplementingRecommendations and Examination of Use in 2007 through 2009 (Aug.2014)(“NSLReportIII”),at74.Nondisclosurerequirementsliketheoneatissue here prevent the public from knowing how the FBI interprets thatambiguousphraseandwhattypesofcommunicationsrecordsitbelievesitis authorized to seekwithNSLs.The result is that citizens are essentiallyunable togain access to the executivebranch’s interpretationof a federalstatute.

Thegagorderimpedesspeechthathassignificantlegalandpoliticalimplications

The Reporters Committee argued that the content of the Attachment is ofparticularvaluebecauseonlybyknowingwhattypesofinformationthegovernmentobtains through NSLs can the public evaluate the statutory and constitutionalimplicationsoftheprogram.

For example, the collection of email content is not authorized underECPA’sNSLprovision.See18U.S.C. § 2709(a) (authorizing requests for

subscriber information and toll billing records). Indeed, courts haveheldthat the acquisition of the content of email requires a warrant under theFourthAmendment.SeeWarshakv.UnitedStates, 631 F.3d 266, 282 (6thCir. 2010) (finding that compelling a service provider to turn over thecontentofemailwithoutawarrantisaFourthAmendmentviolation).Yet,as the OIG has found, the lack of clarity surrounding the definition ofcommunications records has resulted in at least five “unauthorizedcollections”ofcontent informationfrom“oneof thelargeremailserviceproviders.”NSLReportIII,131–32.

Moreover,thetypesofcommunicationsrecordsthattheFBImightseekusinganNSLalso implicatesotherstatutoryprovisionsof federal law. InresponsetoStanfordDaily,CongressenactedthePrivacyProtectionActof1980, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa (“PPA”), which prohibits searches for certaintypesofmaterialsrelatedtonewsgathering.ThePPA“affordsthepressandcertainotherpersonsnotsuspectedofcommittingacrimewithprotectionsnotprovidedcurrentlybytheFourthAmendment.”S.Rep.No.96–874,at4(1980), reprinted in 1980U.S.C.C.A.N. 3950, 3950–51.As a result, to theextent that NSLs purport to authorize searches or seizures of materialsbelongingtopersonsengagedinnewsgathering,thosesearchesarebarredbythePPA,exceptinveryfew,limitedcircumstances.Forthisreasontoo,publicscrutinyoftheFBI’suseofNSLstoobtaincommunicationsrecordsisnecessary.

TheReportersCommitteealsoemphasizedthat,totheextentthatNSLsareusedtoobtain recordsbelonging tomembersof thenewsmedia,additional regulatoryprotectionslimittheFBI’sauthoritytocompeldisclosureofthoserecords.

FederalregulationsconstrainthecircumstancesunderwhichtheFBIcanobtainrecordsofmembersofthenewsmedia.28C.F.R.§50.10.Generallyspeaking, the Attorney General must authorize the use of a subpoena orwarranttoobtainrecords,includingcommunicationstransactionalrecords,ofmembersofthenewsmedia.§50.10(a)(3).The“affectedmemberofthenews media” must also be given “reasonable and timely notice” of therequest. § 50.10(a)(4). While these regulations do not refer expressly toNSLs or FISA warrants or applications, they raise questions as to theproprietyoftheFBI’susageofNSLstoobtainrecordsofmembersofthenewsmedia.

…The use of NSLs to obtain the communications records of reporters

flouts,ataminimum,regulatoryprotectionsforjournalistsandunderminespress freedom. Information of the kind that Merrill is restrained frommakingpublicconcerninghowtheFBIinterpretscommunicationsrecordsforpurposesofrequestinginformationinanNSLisneededinorderforthepressandthepublictoensurethattheFBIisactingwithinitsauthorityandwithadequateregardforFirstAmendmentvalues.

These concerns are especially strong here because the use of NSLs to obtainreporters’ electronic communication transactional records puts confidentiality atrisk.

Thegovernment’suseofNSLstoobtaintheelectronicequivalentofareporter ’s contact list or research history would destroy the ability ofreportersto,amongotherthings,communicateinconfidencewithsourcesthroughanyelectronicchannel.Indeed, thethreatofcompelleddisclosureofemailaddressesandURLvisitsalonelimitsjournalists’abilitytogatherinformation and report the news by chilling the exercise of FirstAmendment rights. … The chilling effect of compelled disclosure ofcommunicationsinformationisallthemoreconcerningwhere,ashere,thetypes of information that may be obtained by the government remainundefined.Thelackofclarityregardingthedefinitionofcommunicationsrecordsimpedestheabilityofindividuals—includingreportersandtheirsources—tocommunicatewithoneanotherinconfidence.

TheReportersCommitteewas joinedby21mediaorganizations insupportofMerrill'sefforttoliftthegag.

Brian Karem moderates a panel of journalists whohave spent time caged by the state for doing theirjobsataNationalPressClubFreedomofthePressevent, June 1, 2015.Panelists from left to right areJosh Wolf, Brad Stone, Lisa Abraham, VanessaLeggett,JudithMiller(obscured)BradStone,RoxanaKopetmanandLibbyAveryt.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·Newsgathering·Feature

Thosewhopaidtheprice

Jailedjournalistsgathertotelltheirstories,advocateforreporter'sshieldlaw

ByKimberlyChowGoing to jail to protect a source,

whether for a weekend or severalmonths, comes with a heavy price forjournalists—andtheunpleasantnessoftheexperiencecanlastforyears.

At the largest gathering to date ofjournalistsjailedintheU.S.forrefusingto testify,nine reporters spokeon June1 at the National Press Club inWashington, D.C., about theirexperiences and the importance ofenacting a federal shield law. Theorganizer, Brian Karem, the executiveeditor of the Sentinel Newspapers inMaryland,washimselfjailedfourtimesforprotectingaconfidentialsource.Theotherpanelists,includingformerNewYorkTimes reporter JudithMiller and Texas authorVanessa Leggett, were imprisonedforavarietyof journalisticpractices, includingrefusing to turnover informationonajailhouseinterviewandrefusingtotestifybeforeagrandjuryaboutinterviewswithalocalofficialaccusedofmisspending.

The journalists took turns giving sobering accounts of their time behind barsandtheactionsthathadlandedthemthere.

“Itwasnotfun.Nooneshouldhavetogothroughwhatanybodyupherewentthroughinordertodisseminateinformationtothepublic,”Karemsaid,addingthathehopedtheywouldallserveasexamplesforyoungreporters.

Thehumiliating,dangerous,andlife-disruptingexperiencestheywentthrough,fromstripsearches to jail fights, truly tested thepanelists, theysaid,underminingclaimsthatjournalistswhorefusetotestifyandareimprisoneddoitforthegloryandtofurthertheircareers.

“Jailisn’taniceplace,evenwhentheytreatyouwell.I’mverygratefulIstayed

Judith Miller who covers national security issuesdiscusses the 85 days she spent in jail rather thanrevealhersource.

in thisprofession,but that’sahellofaprice topay,”saidLibbyAveryt,whowasjailedforaweekendwhenshedeclinedtohandoverunpublishedinformationonajailhouseinterview.

BradStonehadtoleavetheDetroitareabecausehefoundit toodifficulttodoinvestigativeworktherefollowingthepublicitysurroundinghisimprisonment.LisaAbrahamcontinuedreporting fromjail,buthad tomopfloors inorder toget thepayphoneturnedonfortheday.Whentheotherinmatesdawdled,shemoppedallthefloorsherselfinordertomakeadeadline.

Miller spent 85 days in jail in 2005 to protect the identity of her confidentialsourcesintheValeriePlameaffair.Duringhertimeinjail,shelost30pounds,madelipstickfromredM&Ms,andtradedacovetedapplefortheopportunitytodeliverlaundrytofellowprisonerZacariasMoussaoui,whomshewantedtoaskabouthisinvolvementintheSeptember11terroristattacks.Sheleftjailconvincedoftheneedforafederalmediashieldlawandformoresolidarityamongallreporters.

“Ifyouwalklikeaduck,quacklikea duck, and write or broadcast like aduck, you’re a duck,” she quipped, inresponse to questions of how broadlytheprivilegeshouldbeapplied.

The panelists agreed that moreshould be done to bring journaliststogether in supportofanational shieldlaw that protects all those who gatherinformation to report to the public, sothat they do not become tools of lawenforcementbyhavingtotestifyorturnovermaterials.

“This is a small club,nooneaskedtobeamember,andwedon’twantanymoremembers,”Karemsaid.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·Newsgathering·Feature

Thedangersofdoxxing

Whatjournalistscandotoavoidattacksusingtheirpersonalinformation

ByJennHenrichsenThreateningjournalistsovertheirreportingisnotanewconcept,buttheageof

electronicmediahasbroughtanewmethodofintimidationandharassmentknownasdoxxing.

Doxxing – named for docs or documents and also called doxing or d0xing –starts with publishing someone’s personal information in an environment thatimpliesorencouragesintimidation.Typicallydoneonline, theinformationthenisusedbyothersinacampaignofharassment,threatsandpranks.

Journalists targetedbydoxxingattacks,whichareusuallybasedon somethingthey’vewritten,findtheirpersonalandprofessionallivesdisruptedandsometimesturnedcompletelyupsidedown.

Doxxing is not unique to journalists. It has been a source of controversy formanyyears,includingthewell-knownGamergatedebacle,inwhichseveralfemalegamers were doxxed and still suffer significant, repeated online harassment andabuse.

Theconceptofdoxxingisfluid,butitoftenstartswithaslewofabusivephonecalls and text messages from random numbers, sometimes in conjunction with aseries of harassing tweets and emails. These can range from relatively benignmessages to rape and death threats, such as those received by Slate journalistAmandaHess.

In her January 2014 article for The Pacific Standard, "Why Women Aren’tWelcome on the Internet," Hess described how disoriented and terrified she feltwhen reading a series of tweets that threatenedherwith rape anddeath.AlthoughHesswenttothepolice,littlewasdonetoeffectivelyaddressthethreat,andshestillreceivesthreateningmessages.

Thedoxxingleadstoattacksonmultiplelevels,includingtheoldorder-pizzas-to-your-houseprank.

Jezebel journalist Anna Merlan, recounted her experience in a recent articlenoting the food delivery was nothing “anyone with functioning taste buds wouldorder.” It included “two large pies, one with triple cheese, triple sausage, triplesalami,triplebarbecue,hotsauce,halfonionsandhalfpineapple,theotherwithno

cheeseandtriplesausage,plusalargebottleofCoke.”Whatspurredtheabuse?Shehadwrittenablogpostearlierthatdaycallingouta4Changroupforengaginginaballot-stuffingeffortinaTimemagazinepollofwordstoban–theword“feminist”wasleadingthepoll.

But the pranks get a lotmore dangerous, including “Swatting.”Here, doxxerscallinafalseemergencyorthreatatyouraddressrequiringSWATteamresponse.Information security journalist Brian Krebs was swatted and the target of aDistributedDenial ofService (DDoS) attackonhiswebsite – allwithin24hours.Theattackswereapparently in response toanarticleKrebswroteabouta servicethatcanbehiredtoknockwebsitesofflinemorethansixmonthsearlier.

Even media organizations that cover doxxing are not immune from attack.ShortlyafterArsTechnicawroteabout thedoxxingand theswattingattackagainstKrebs,itbecameavictimofaDDoSattackthatusedinpartthesameattacktoolandusercredentialsthatwereleveragedintheDDoSattackagainstKrebs.

Some claim that journalists have committed their own form of “doxxing” byposting personal information about people online. These cases include, amongothers,Newsweek’sstorythatrevealedtheidentityofthepresumedBitcoininventorand theNewYorkTimes article thatpublished the streetwhereDarrenWilson, thepoliceofficerwhoshot18-year-oldMichaelBrowninFerguson,Mo.,lived.

But the motivation for journalists to reveal investigative information in thepublic interest is different from the harassment of doxxing and typically faces amorestringentlitmustestbeforepublication.

Forexample,whendeterminingwhethertopublishpersonaldetails,suchasanaddressoraname inastory,editorswill likelyconsiderwhether the informationhadbeenpreviouslyreportedoriswidelyavailableandwhetheritisimportantforthepublictoknow.Ifitis,editorsaremorelikelytopublish.TheNewYorkTimesfacedthesequestionsbeforepublishingthenamesofundercoverCIAagents inanApril2015storyonthedroneprogram.

Ongoing online harassment can take a toll on journalists’ lives.Hess recordseverythreateningmessagesoshehasevidenceoftheabusetoshowpolice.Shealsoreportedly lugsherprotectionorder andcase files aroundwhen she travels tobeprepared should somethingnegative happen.Otherswhohave experiencedonlineharassmenthave left the profession altogether – a significant and sad victory forthoseseekingtosilenceothervoices.

Unfortunately, security researchers like Bruce Schneier predict doxxing willcontinue to increase, afflicting journalists and others who may express viewsperceived as controversial. Indeed, online harassment in general appears to berising.Althoughharddataisdifficulttogather,onlineharassmentdata.orgfoundthatmore than one in four Americans has experienced online harassment – andanecdotalaccountscontinuetopileup.

Without a comprehensive solution involving the technical, political, and legalsectors,whatcanbedonenowforjournaliststobetterprotectthemselves?

ThefirststepislimitingtheamountofpersonallyidentifyinginformationontheInternet.Obviously,journalistsneedtokeepsomeinformationpublic(workemailaddress, Twitter profile, PGP key, etc.) so sources can contact them, but otherinformationdoesn’tneedtobepublic.

Herearesomesimpleactionsjournalistscantaketohelpmitigatetheirriskofadoxxingattack:

ProtectyourdomainWHOISinformation.Ifyouhaveapersonalblogorwebsite, protect your domain WHOIS information by using a service thatobfuscates personal information such as your address, phone number, andemailaddress.

Use two-factor authentication and strong passwords. Add two-factorauthenticationtoyouronlineaccountsandbeefupyourpasswordstolimitthelikelihood that your accountswill be successfully hacked.Many activists andsomejournalistsnowuseYubikeys,whicharesmalldevicesregisteredwithaservicethatsupportstwo-factorauthenticationandonlyrequireasimpletaportouchtoensureyourloginissecure.

Set up alerts in your name. Keep tabs on when your name shows uponline.SetupalertsonPastebinwhere a lotofhackedmaterial ispublished,andalsoonMentionorGoogle.

Opt out. Periodically search your name online and remove personallyidentifiableinformationfromdataaggregatorslikeSpokeo,Pipl, Inteliusandsuch,orpayaservicewhichwilldo it foryou.Also installservices,suchasEFF’sPrivacyBadger,GhosteryorAbine,whichcanhelptopreventsomeoftheonlinetrackinganddatacollectioninthefirstplace.

These are just a few steps that journalists can take to help protect theirinformationandmitigatethethreatofdoxxing.

Additional resources to help prevent ormitigate doxxing include: gamer ZoeQuinn’santi-onlinehatetaskforce,CrashOverrideNetwork;athree-partseriesbyKenGagneofComputerworld; and reportingbyArsTechnica staff editorNathanMattiseabouthisexperiencesandsuggestionstomitigateexposuretodoxxing.

Doxxing isn’t a fad that is likely to burn out soon. It invokes seriousintimidation, harassment and threats against journalists that could interfere withtheirreporting,placetheminrealdangerand,ultimately,drivethemfromtheworkthey love.Byeducating themselves about thepractice and taking steps tomitigatedoxxing attacks, however, journalists can stand up against thosewho seek to shutdownafreepress.

ThisispartofaseriesofarticleswrittenforthePoynterInstitutebyReporters

Committeestaffmembers,andfirstappearedonpoynter.orgonMay19.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·FreedomofInformation·Feature

CybersecuritylegislationraisesconcernsforjournalistsByKristinBergman

President Obama's 2015 State of the Union address urged Congress to passlegislationtoaddresscyberthreats:“Ifwedon’tact,we’llleaveournationandoureconomyvulnerable.”

Afteryearsofproposed,butultimatelyunsuccessful,legislation,the“yearofthedatabreach”andexecutivepressurehavepushedCongressclosertopassingfederalcybersecurity legislation. Though focused on the balance between informationsharing and privacy in order to address national security—a goal that seems toprimarily affect consumers, data holders, and the government— these bills havegreatimplicationsforjournalistsandtheirsources.

This year ’s predominant cybersecurity bills take three forms: the Senate’sCybersecurityInformationSharingAct(CISA),theHouseIntelligenceCommittee’sProtecting Cyber Networks Act (PCNA), and the House Homeland SecurityCommittee’sNational Cybersecurity ProtectionAdvancementAct (NCPAA). Eachincludes provisions that reduce transparency and accountability, while providingtools to prosecutors to investigate suspected leakers and those who print theirstories.

CybersecuritylegislationandtransparencyThe proposed legislation creates exceptions to public access for information

sharedunderthecybersecurityacts.CISAcallsforanewexemptionfromtheFreedomofInformationAct,addinga

tenth exemption for “information shared with or provided to the FederalGovernmentpursuanttotheCybersecurityInformationSharingActof2015.”Thisbroad exemption would encompass all information covered by the Act,disregardingexistingFOIAexemptionsandsettingaprecedenttolimittransparencyinothersecurityareas.

InaMarchlettertotheSenateSelectCommitteeonIntelligence,agroupof11organizations, including OpenTheGovernment.org, the American Civil LibertiesUnion,theSocietyofProfessionalJournalists,andtheSunlightFoundation,calledthis“themostfar-reachingsubstantivebroadeningofthe[FOIA]Act’sexemptions—thusbroadlyweakeningFOIAasawhole—since1986.”

Since then, the Senate committee produced a report in mid-April wherein

SenatorsMartinHeinrich,D-N.M.,andMazieHirono,D-Hawaii,recommendedtheremovalofthisnew,tenthexemption.

The Senators declared: “Government transparency is critical in order forcitizens to hold their elected officials and bureaucrats accountable; however, thebill'sinclusionofanewFOIAexemptionisoverbroadandunnecessaryasthetypesof information shared with the government through this bill would already beexemptfromunnecessarypublicreleaseundercurrentFOIAexemptions.”Astheystate,much of the information thatwould be shared by the government from theprivate sector would already be covered under the existing Exemption 4 asconfidentialcommercialinformation.

Ultimately,skepticismaboutthenecessityofanewFOIAexemptiononthepartofsomesenators,combinedwiththenon-existenceofsuchatenthexemptionfromthebillspassedintheHouse,makeitunlikelythatthefinalbillwillretainthisbroadexemption.However,anotherFOIAexemptionremainsineveryversion.

All three bills call for “cyber threat indicators and defensivemeasures” to beexempt “without discretion” from FOIA under Section 552(b)(3), aswell as statefreedom of information statutes,with no time limitations on the exemption fromaccess.Defined broadly, cyber threat indicators include information identifying amethodofdefeatingasecuritycontrolorexploitingasecurityvulnerability,aswellas informationsimply identifyingvulnerabilities.Criticsof the legislationexpressconcernoverthemandatoryandduplicativenatureofthisexemption.

Acoalitionof34pro-accessgroupscriticizedthediscretionlesswithholdinginaletter opposing PCNA, recommending drafters delete the modifier "withoutdiscretion."AsPCNAalreadystatesthatthecyberthreatinformationwillhavebeensharedvoluntarily,theinformationwouldbecoveredbyFOIA'sexistingExemption4 for confidential information. PCNA reframes this by codifying a legalpresumptionagainstdisclosure.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr ’s office defends theseFOIAexemptionsaskeytopromotingmoreinformationsharingbyreducingrisk,anecessarybalancetoprotectprivateinformation.

Comparing CISA to a neighborhood watch program, Sen. Burr, R-N.C., haspromotedtheactanditsscrubbingrequirementsas“asolutionthatcanminimizethethreatstoyourownpersonalinformation,keeptheeconomystrong,andhelpsecurethenation.”

ChairmanoftheU.S.HouseCommitteeonHomelandSecurityMichaelMcCaul,R-Texas, expressed concern for the under-reporting of cyber attacks and theimportanceofincentivizinginformationsharing.

Rep. McCaul supports protections in the bill that encourage the exchange ofinformation in order to overcome companies’ fear that sharing “could put theircustomers’ privacy at risk, expose sensitivebusiness information, or evenviolate

federallawandthedutytheyhavetotheirshareholders.”

InformationsharingandprosecutionsCISAandPCNAauthorize theuseof cyber threat informationprovided to the

government for cybersecurity purposes and for “preventing, investigating,disrupting, or prosecuting” violations of theEspionageAct, among other federalcrimes.

GabeRottman,legislativecounselandpolicyadvisorintheACLU’sWashingtonLegislativeOffice, explained that this provision creates two issues for journalistsand their sources. First, the standard for scrubbing personally identifiableinformation from documents before it goes from the private sector to thegovernment isnotveryrobust.Rottmanasserts that the legislationprovidesbroadliabilityprotectionsthatcreateanincentivetooversharethisinformation.

In addition, the bills authorize investigation of cybersecurity threats.Not onlywill leakers likeSnowden andManning qualify as such threats, but likely anyonesuspected of talking to the press on security issues as well as many securityjournaliststhemselves.

Rottmanwarnsoftheuseoftheseprovisionsin“futureunauthorizeddisclosurecases as an investigative tool for prosecutors” – especiallywhen considering thedifficultyofthepublicholdingthegovernmentaccountableinlightoftheproposedFOIA exemptions. For example, these bills enable investigators in leak cases tocircumvent warrant and due process requirements by going to third partycommunicators to request the voluntary disclosure of information that it deemsrelatestoacybersecuritythreat.

The Sunshine in Government Initiative (SGI) also voiced concerns aboutclassificationwhenfacedwithasimilarprovisioninCISA’spredecessor.

“CISA as proposed would grant the federal government virtually unlimitedauthoritytothwartnewsgatheringandtheuseofconfidentialsourcesbyremovingmeaningfuljudicialoversightandplacingthebalancingofvitaldemocraticinterestsinthehandsoftheexecutivebranchandprivateindustry,”SGIwroteinaJune2014lettertotheSenateSelectCommitteeonIntelligence.

Thiscybersecuritylegislationisjustonepieceinalargerdebateoversecurity,privacy,accountability,andfreedomof thepress.FromtheprosecutionofBarrettBrown under the Computer Fraud andAbuseAct and the use of targetedDMCAtakedown notices against journalists to the monitoring of James Rosen andsubpoenaingofJamesRisen,reportingonimportantsecurityissuesisnotwithoutsignificantrisk.

As CISA and PCNA’s critics fear that the enactment of an authorized useprovision would encourage prosecution under the Espionage Act and create achilling effect on newsgathering and reporting, their concerns are reminiscent ofQuinn Norton’s farewell to security journalism following Brown's sentencing

earlierthisyear:“Imaybeincarceratedfordoingmyjob.”

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·FreedomofInformation·Feature

Bodycams:seeing,butnotbeingseen

Reportersfacechallengesinobtainingpolicebodycameravideos

ByAdamMarshallPolicedepartmentsacrossthenation

are implementing body-worn cameras(alsocalledBWCs,orbodycams)inaneffort to improve community relationsand create a more objective record ofofficers’ activities. As recent newsevents have proved, these videos canprovidecrucial informationaboutwhattranspiredinasituation.Gainingaccesstobodycamvideos,however,isprovingtobeachallengingendeavorforjournalists.

Bodycamvideosare,atleastpresumptively,publicrecordssubjecttodisclosureundermost states’ open records laws. The definition ofwhat constitutes a publicrecord is incredibly broad in most states. For example, Colorado defines publicrecords to include all “documentary materials, regardless of physical form orcharacteristics”thataremade,maintained,orkeptbystateorlocalagencies.

BWCvideosarecreatedaspartoftheofficialoperationsofpolicedepartments,areundertheircontrol,andrelatetothepublic’sbusiness.Assuch,thereshouldbelittle argument that public records laws apply. But whether those laws result inreleaseofthevideosinpracticeisanotherquestion.

Somepolicedepartmentsarehandlingrequestsforvideosmuchastheywouldany other public record. Jack Gillum, a reporter with the Associated Press,submittedapublicrecordsrequesttoanArizonapolicedepartmentforvideoofanincidentandreceivedaCDinthemailshortlythereafter.Hewascharged$5,whichincludedpostage.

Butotherpolicedepartmentsareadoptingbodycamsbeforecreatingpoliciesorprocedures for compliance with open records laws, leading to erratic disclosurebetweenjurisdictionsandcases.

In Denver, Brian Maass, a reporter with a local CBS station, has had somesuccessinrequestingbodycamvideosunderColorado’sopenrecordslaw.Recently,

APPhoto/JimMoneADuluth,Minn.,policeofficerwearsabodycameraonthefrontofhisuniformduringacarstop.

alocalpoliceofficerwassuspendedafterusingexcessiveforceduringanarrest—anincidentthatwascapturedonafellowofficer ’sBWC.Maasswasabletoobtainthevideo,whichwas of incredible value to the public because it contradicted thesuspendedofficer ’sstatementsandshowedpreciselywhyhewassuspended.

But in other instances,Maass hasn’t been so successful.Different requests forBWCvideostotheDenverPoliceDepartmenthavebeendenied.Hesaysthatreleaseof the videos is inconsistent, andwhen they are released, it’s in caseswhere theywerepartofan internalaffairsproceeding thathasbeencompleted.According toMaass,that’s“theonlytimeIhavebeenabletosuccessfullyobtainthesevideos.”

ThetechnologybehindredactingvideosEven when a police department

releasesvideo, theymaywant toredactcertainportionsofitinaccordancewiththe provisions of the applicable publicrecordslaw.

Redacting exempt images from avideo before it is released is possible,despite what some agencies mightargue. There are several affordablevideoeditingprogramsthatcanblurorpixilate faces and other informationfromwhatever part of the video needsto be redacted. Some programs evenhave intelligent features that canautomatically track faces, substantially reducing a department’s administrativeburden.

Third-party vendors are also springing up to handle the demand for videoediting services. One Florida-based company is already contracting with policedepartments in several states to redact videos for public records requests. Inresponse to an inquiryby theReportersCommittee, the company estimates that itcanredactanhourofvideoinlessthan3.75hours.ThattimeframelargelymirrorstheconclusionsofareportissuedbyaCityofBaltimoreworkinggrouptaskedwithresearchingbodycameras.

The Seattle PoliceDepartment has taken a different approach to redactions. Itproactivelypostsbodycamvideosthatarecompletelyandheavilyblurredandtheninvites the public to submit requests for specific segments. The department thenemploysmoretargetedredactionsandreleasestherestofthevideo.

Whether Seattle’s system is useful for journalists remains to be seen. Theproactively posted videos have no sound and are blurred so much that they aredifficult to analyze. And even when a reporter requests a specific segment to be

released, it may take a long time for the police to comply. Eileen Sullivan, areporterwiththeAssociatedPress,saidthattheSeattlePDestimateditwouldtakeuptosevenweekstocomplywitharequestshemadeforbodycamvideos.Suchadelaymeansthatwhilethevideosmightbevaluableforlong-terminvestigativereporting,journalistsmightnotwanttocountonthemforbreakingnews.

ExemptionstodisclosureRecent discussions over the implementation of body cameras have shown that

privacy isasubstantialconcern.Civil libertiesgroupshavenoted thatbecause thecamerasgowhereverthepolicedo,itisquitepossiblethatsensitivematerialwillberecorded. Depending on the situation, this might include the identity of a sexualabusevictim,ayoungchild,orsimplytheinteriorofahome.

Almost every state has a privacy exemption that would allow this type ofinformation to be withheld. For example, the freedom of information law inWashington,D.C.,allowsanagencytowithholdinformation“ofapersonalnaturewherethepublicdisclosurethereofwouldconstituteaclearlyunwarrantedinvasionofpersonalprivacy.”

A bodycam video published by the Metropolitan Police Department inWashington,D.C.,showshowthismightworkinpractice.Thevideo,whichdepictsa traffic stop, has certain elements pixelated or blurred, including the face of theperson that was stopped, her identifying documents and license plate, and theofficer ’scomputerscreen.Certainsegmentsoftheaudioarealsomuted.

A video released by the police in Flagstaff, Ariz., takes a slightly differentapproach.Thevideo,whichshowsthelastfewminutesbeforeanofficerwasshotandkilled,includesaminuteoffootageinsideaprivateresidence.Whilethatminuteisblurred,therestofthevideo,whichtakesplaceoutsidethehome,isshowninitsentirety.

Insomesituations,itisentirelypossiblethatthepublicwouldwantandneedtosee a bodycam video that would otherwise be exempt for privacy reasons. Forexample,anexcessiveuseofforceincidentmighttakeplaceinsideaprivatehome.Somestatesbalanceprivacyexemptionswith thepublic interest,whichmayallowthese videos to be released. Research your state’s law to understand privacyconcerns thatmay arise in bodycamvideos andwhat youmight do to encouragetheirrelease.

Asecondexemption thatmayapply tobodycamvideosconcerns investigatoryrecords.Manystateopenrecordslawsexemptrecordsthatarepartofanongoingpolice investigation,whichcould includevideofrombodycams.However,aswithprivacy exemptions, many states require a balancing test between the possibleimpairmentofan investigationand thepublic interest.Whenmakinga request,besure to include the best possible argument as towhy the information needs to beavailabletothepublic.

Another common exemption police departments may assert when facing arequest forBWCvideorelates topersonnel filesand/ordisciplinary records. It isnotuncommonforstatestowithholdcertaintypesofinformationaboutemployees,whether it relates to sensitive data (such as Social Security numbers and homeaddresses) or performance evaluations. Generally, however, these exemptions donotallowagenciestowithholdrecordsthatindicateemployeewrongdoing,whichisimportant to note when requesting access to videos that may show policemisconduct. InOklahoma, bodycam videos that show law enforcement personnelunderinvestigationmaybetemporarilyredactedtoobscuretheiridentity,unlesstheinvestigationlastsforanunreasonableamountoftime.

ChargingfeesforvideosAs with traditional public records, agencies may charge high fees for

processingrequests,creatingabarriertodisclosure.Manystatelawsallowfortherequestertobechargedforthetimeittakestolocate,review,andproducerecords,whichcanaddupquicklywhenitcomes toBWCvideos. InFlorida, forexample,onetownissuedabillfor$18,000inresponsetoarequestfor84hoursofvideo.

ThecityofChesapeake,Va.,notonlydeniesmostrequestsforBWCvideo,butalsoappearstobeissuingbillstoanyonewhoasks.Theychargeforthetimeittakesthemtorespond,regardlessofwhetherthevideoexistsorisdisclosed.Thecityhasbilledrequestersover$2,000inthelast15months.

Journalists requesting videos can try to avoid these costs by researchingagencies’ practices ahead of time, requesting as little video as needed, andrequestingafeewaiver.

NewstatelegislationonbodycamsandpublicrecordslawsAlthoughitwouldseemthatmostexistingopenrecordslawsadequatelybalance

privacy,lawenforcement,andtransparency,manystatelegislaturesareconsideringnewexemptionsforbodycamvideos,andsomehavealreadybeenenacted.

In North Dakota, a bill was recently signed by the governor that exempts allimages“takeninaprivateplace”fromdisclosure.Floridapassedasimilar lawinlateMay that exempts videos taken inside private residences, healthcare facilities,and places “that a reasonable person would expect to be private.” Other states,including, Michigan and Texas, have introduced similar measures to deal withvideosinprivateplaces.

Oklahoma passed a law in 2014 that requires police departments to releasebodycamvideosbuttoredactanyportionsthatdepictthedeathofaperson,adeadbody,anypersonwhoisnude,orminorsunder16yearsofage.

Other states are considering more drastic exemptions. Bills have beenintroduced in Louisiana,Massachusetts, NewHampshire, andVirginia thatwouldcompletelyexemptbodycamvideosfrompublicrecordslaws.Someofthesebills,

alongwiththoseproposedinotherstates,wouldallowindividualswhoarecapturedbythecamerasandotherinvolvedpartiestorequestthevideos.

TheReportersCommitteehasarguedthatmostexistingprivacyexemptionsaremorethansufficienttoaddressprivacyconcernspresentedbypublicaccesstoBWCfootage,andnoadditionallegislationisnecessary.

ChallengesandopportunitiesforcooperationAsidefrompassedorpendinglegislation,somepolicedepartmentsaresimply

refusing to releaseanybodycameravideos.TheLosAngelesPoliceDepartment,for example, has stated that it considers all such videos to be “evidence” andthereforecompletelyexemptundertheCaliforniaPublicRecordsAct.

InWashington,D.C.,theMetropolitanPoliceDepartmenthasrefusedtoreleaseany body camera videos, claiming it cannot make the necessary redactions. TheReportersCommitteehassubmittedseveralpublicrecordrequestsforvarioustypesofbodycamvideos,andhasbeendeniedeachtime.Administrativeappealsofthosedenialshavebeenupheldbythemayor.

Astheuseofbodycamsexpands, journalistsandnewsorganizationsshouldbeaware of these issues and any legislation that might affect their ability to accessthesevideorecords.Butpolicedepartments,reporters,andthepubliccanalsoworktogethertofindcreativesolutionstotheissuesraisedbythesevideos.

Despite the shortcomings of Seattle’s current approach, they have made anunparalleledefforttoengagethecommunityontheseissues.Thepolicedepartmentrecentlyhostedapublic“hackathon”togatherideasonhowtobestredactvideoinorder tocomplywith records requests.Andsince then theyhavebeendevelopingtoolsthatwillautomaticallyredactvideos,atleasttosomeextent.Inablogpost,thedepartmentsaidthat theywillfreelyshare theresultingsoftwarewithotherpolicedepartmentsasitisrefined.

Bringingcommunities together towork towards transparency isgood for lawenforcement, good for reporters, and good for the public – the ultimate intendedbeneficiaryofthisnewtechnology.

ThisispartofaseriesofarticleswrittenforthePoynterInstitutebyReportersCommitteestaffmembers,andfirstappearedonpoynter.orgonApril15.