Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fordham Law Mass Media Outline MD
Fordham Law Mass Media Outline MD
Diana Sanders
I. 1st A and the media A. Introduction -1st A limits the fed govt Also limits the states thr! 1"th A -1st A prote#tions don$t e%tend to private parties& !nless state a#tion re'!irement is met (e g & state la) sa*s that A shall have a#tion agst +& the state is giving A the means of enfor#ement !nder the la), B. Theories for the 1st A 1 mar-etpla#e for ideas (f!n#tional theor*, - its ne#essar* to have a free e%#hange of idea so that )e #on )eed o!t tr!th from fi#tion - #ore of 1st A val!es 2 Politi#al theor* (f!n#tional theor*, - po)er of people in a demo#ra#* is fo#!sed on e%#hange of ideas re. govt& parties and legis - Mei-le/ohn arg!ed that false polit spee#h has no val!e ()o!ldn$t have approved of 01 2imes v S!llivan, - Seditio!s Li3el in Eng& govt p!nished people for spea-ing agst the #ro)n (diff from modern da* defamation 3# defamation has a falsit* re'!irement in Eng& the* p!nished even if it )as tr!e4tr!th )as not a defense, See 5enger #ase - Alien and Sedition A#t (1678, 9S govt p!nished false #riti#ism and defamator* #omments a3o!t govt (diff from seditio!s li3el in Eng& 3# the 9S a#t had a falsit* re'!irement, 2his )as deemed !n#onst 3* the S!llivan holding : Personal ;al!es (li3eral theor*, - <o#!ses on personal f!lfillment& personal a!tonom*& the freedom to4not to e%press o!rselves C. Methods of 1st A analysis 1. Balancing - )eighing 2 interests. govts #on#ern a3o!t prote#ting a parti#!lar interest v so#iet*$s interest in e%pression - 2enden#* to)ards #hara#teri=ation4#ategori=ation of spee#h - 9m3rella vie) spee#h prote#ted 3* 1st A is !nder the !m3rella 2he prote#ted spee#h m!st pass stri#t s#r!tin* test (#ompelling govt interest& narro) ends4means #orrelation Some 3alan#ing is implied 3!t strong pres!mption of govt a#tion 3eing !n#onst, 2*pes of spee#h not !nder !m3rella (!nla)f!l advo#a#*& defamation& o3s#enit*& #ommer#ial spee#h& fighting )ords& national se#!rit*, 2. Categorical Approach: Traditional liberal model a. E olution of Brandenburg Clear and !resent "anger Test #for ad ocacy of unla$ful action% - ass!mption that )hat is !nder the !m3rella deserves a high level of prote#tion (stri#t s#r!tin*, and )hat is o!tside of !m3rella is s!3/e#t to the >PD test - >PD esta3 in S#hen#- test )as 3ased on pro%imit* and degree - "ennis s!ggests the pro3a3ilit* m!st 3e dis#o!nted 3* the gravit* of the danger (#onsiders )hat dangers are at sta-e, Doesn$t dis#!ss imminen#e >t didn$t e%pressl* overr!le Dennis& its /!st that +randen3!rg )ent 3e*ond it and is no) that test that$s !sed - >PD dvlpd in Brandenburg #&&&,- The CPD test o Spee#h is dire#ted to in#ite4prod!#e imminent !nla)f!l a#tion o Spee#h is li-el* to in#ite4prod!#e s!#h a#tion o (2here is no #onsideration regarding )hat dangers are at sta-e , - Man* #ts have applied >PD test in a non-polit spee#h #onte%t (e g & ?i#e hitman 3oo- #ase, '. Categorical Approach: Emergent Conser ati e Model - @!tside of !m3rella o @3s#enit* (Miller, o <ighting )ords (>haplins-*, o Defamation (S!llivan, o >ommer#ial spee#h (3efore 1670, o Aostile a!dien#e (<einer, o 0ational se#!rit* iss!e - Inside 9m3rella o Inde#en#* a. (bscenity and indecency - )erceg . )ustler (a!toeroti# asph*%iation, +o* dies )hile imitating )hat he read in a mag M!st determine )hether the arti#le )as o3s#ene (!se Miller test, Also have to determine
Diana Sanders
if it is advo#a#*4in#itement of !nla)f!l a#tion & if spee#h falls !nder either of these #ategories then its not prote#ted Sho)s ho) diff #onservatives and li3erals vie) the 1st A !niverse - Li3erals (ma/, o )ant to prote#t spee#h4more spee#h !nder the !m3rella o all spee#h !nder !m3rella given same )eight o !sed +randen3!rg test (ver* stri#t test, this )as not advo#a#* of !nla)f!l a#tion 3# arti#le said not to tr* this Was not o3s#ene 3* Miller standard 2herefore& spee#h fell !nder the !m3rella and )as prote#ted (high tier, - >onservatives (dissent, o e%halt polit spee#h o sho!ld have left the '!estion of o3s#enit* to the /!r* o also& even if this spee#h )as prote#ted (!nder the !m3rella, there #o!ld still 3e a tort #laim 3# all spee#h !nder !m3rella sho!ld not 3e treated e'!all* so emerging #onservative theor* dis#!sses ran-ing spee#h )ithin the !m3rella (inde#en#* is at 3ottom of totem pole& polit, spee#h is at the top b. *ighting $ords - Chaplins+y (/ehovah )itness, #ase that formall* re#ogni=ed fighting )ords (spee#h that is offensive to the person and is spo-en fa#e to fa#e, - ,A- teens 3!rned #ross in 3a#- of famil*$s ho!se violating #it*$s hate #rime ord )hi#h prohi3ited hate spee#h (not a <W stat!te, All 6 /!dges held that the stat!te sho!ld fall o Liberals - held stat!te over-in#l!sive 3# it p!nished spee#h that is not in *o!r fa#e spee#h <) p!nisha3le li-e in >haplins-* ( 3# teens 3!rned #ross in 3a#- *ard& a)a* from people, 2he* tho!ght that stat!te )o!ld 3e o- if it )ere narro)er 3!t its too 3road to 3# <W o Conservatives stat!te !nder-in#l!sive S#alia said that stat!te sho!ld 3e read as <W stat!te ?e/e#ts notion of !m3rella and sa*s that <W have some 1st A prote#tion <) might 3e lo) on the totem pole 3!t all fighting )ords m!st 3e p!nished the same )a* So s#alia is arg!ing the merging #onservative model. insisting on vie)point ne!tralit* )ithin ea#h ran- e g & fighting )ords ma* 3e in a lo)er #lass of prote#tion 3!t it m!st 3e p!nished in a vie)point ne!tral 3asis (m!st p!nish all <W the same )a*, 2his stat!te is not vie)point ne!tral 3# it p!nishes hate spee#h and not other <W 2 levels of vie)point dis#rim. hate spee#h p!nished 3!t not other <W spee#h indi#ating spe#ifi# things that are hate spee#h (3!rning #rosses& s)asti-asB,
Diana Sanders
". !rior ,estraints - prior restraints #!t off spee#h 3efore it o##!rs (e g li#ensing& #ensorship& in/!n#tions, #ontrast )ith retrospe#tive p!nishment that p!nishes spee#h after it o##!rs (fines& imprisonment& #ivil damages, 1. .trong !resumption agst prior restraints - #t thin-s that P? are rep!lsive to the #onst 3# the* nip spee#h in the 3!d p!3li# doesn$t see the spee#h so it$s a )a* t -eep spee#h !nder )raps (if p!3li# doesn$t hear4see spee#h then the* ant ma-e a /!dgment a3o!t it, a. /ear . Minnesota minn la) en/oins ne)spapers from p!3lishing an*thing &mali#io!s& s#andalo!s or defamator* >t holds the la) !n#onst 3# theres a strong pres!mption agst P? Ao)ever& #t holds that there are #ertain sit!ations (li-e )hen at )ar, )hen P? )o!ld 3e /!stifia3le b. !entagon !apers 0i%on admin tried to en/oin p!3li#ation of a #lassified govt report thin-s that these reports )ill em3arrass the 9S and is arg!ing national se#!rit* >t !sed a test that loo-s li-e the +randen3!rg >PD test 3# report la#-s imminen#e or pro3a3ilit*& it failed the tet and the #t held that in/!n#tions )ere !n#onst c. The !rogressi e arti#le on ho) to 3!ild an A-3om3 <ed #t s!stained in/!n#tion agst the p!3li#ation (ver* rareCCC, de#ision pro3 )o!ld$ve 3een appealed 3!t it didnt get that far 3# arti#le )as p!3lished 3* another periodi#al (in/!n#tion )as eas* to get aro!nd the* passed the info on to another periodi#al )ho )as not 3o!nd 3* the in/!n#tion, this )as diff from Pentagon 3# here there )as a stat!te If *o! are agst this arti#le 3eing p!3lished *o! )o!ld propose !sing the Dennis test )hi#h loo-s at the gravit* of the danger dis#o!nted 3* the pro3a3ilit*& instead of the +randen3!rg test )hi#h onl* loo-s at imminen#* 2. "isobeying Inunctions a Collateral bar rule part* #harged )ith #ontempt for diso3e*ing an in/!n#tion #annot defend on the gro!nd that the in/!n#tion )as !n#onst (#an onl* appeal on 3asis of !n#onst!tionalit* if don$t violate in/!n#tion, b. E0ceptions for prior restraints agst speech - !ro idence 1ournal 2 media )ants to p!3lish logs of <+I s!rveillen#e of de#eased mo3 3oss 2here is an in/!n#tion agst them doing so +# #t is sensitive to pro3lem that press violates in/!n#tions 3# !s!all* !nder time restraints and 3# theres strong pres!mption agst P?s #t holds that the #ollateral 3ar r!le sho!ld 3e th)arted if 3oth 1, the in/!n#tion agst spee#h is transparentl* invalid on its fa#e and 2, a good faith effort has 3een made 3* the press to get an appeal on the merits to overr!le the in/!n#tion& then there sho!ldn$t 3e a #ontempt /!dgment not )ithstanding the #ollateral 3ar r!le - Business 3ee+ #t holds that even tho!gh do#!ments sho!ld never have 3een sealed& +!siness )ee- sho!ldntve diso3e*ed #t order >ase re-iterates strong pres!mption agst P?s c. Are prior restraints more restricti e then subse4uent punishment by crim sanctions or ci il liability5 #67% - Deffries arti#le (E:,
Diana Sanders
"
II. "efamation A. Common 8a$ bac+ground 1. Elements of the tort - p!3li#ation - Fof and #on#erning the PG - false in theor* (reall* a defense 3!t toda* seen as more of an element, - defamator* in/!rio!s to rep!tation (m!st 3e defamator* to a signif portion of the #omm!nit*& m!st #onsider the so#iet* that the defamed indiv is in e g& 3eing ga* isn$t a 3ig deal in 01> 3!t it is in Io)a& notions of defamation m!st #hange )ith time (no 3ig deal to 3e #alled a 3astard toda* 3!t it )as then, - damage - not in >L (3!t in #onstit!tionali=ed #ategories li-e in S!llivan p!3li# offi#ial4fig!re, mali#e is re'!ired a ,omaine s!ggestion that P ma* 3e a#'!ainted )ith a /!n-ie is not defamator* Statement is onl* defamator* if its reas s!s#epti3le of a defamator* meaning in the #onte%t in )hi#h it appears In this #ase& the statement onl* indi#ated that P -ne) a /!n-ie and that her interest stemmed from #ompassion 3 Matherson a singing gro!p implied that P )as ga* over the radio >t held that this )as defamator* 3# a signif H of people still vie) homose%!alit* as immoral >t also held that defamation 3road#ast 3* radio and 2; sho!ld 3e #lassified as li3el rather then slander (s!ggesting that in o!r mass media so#iet* that distin#tion 3t)m the 2 is o3solete, 2. .lander . 8ibel - Slander (spo-en, a P s!ing in slander m!st plead spe#ial damages !nless the defamation falls into an* one of the per se #ategories (slander per se,. o #riminal a#tivit* o a#tivities )hi#h tend to in!re 3!siness interests o loathsome disease o !n#hastit* in )omen - Li3el ()ritten, a P s!ing in li3el doesn$t need to prove spe#ial damages (the e%isten#e of damages is pres!med from the p!3li#ation itself, th!s P #an rel* on general damages o Li3el per se statement is defamator* as a matter of la) (theres no )a* a /!r* #o!ld sa* this )asn$t defamation, Defamator* meaning is apparent on the fa#e of the statement P doesn$t need to prove an* e%trinsi# fa#ts o Li3el per '!od defamator* meaning is not apparent on the fa#e of the statement M!st provide e%trinsi# info to !nderstand the defamator* nat!re '. Common 8a$ and .tatutory "efenses and !ri ileges - privileges are defenses its !p to D to plead privileges and prove fa#ts ne#essar* to esta3 the appli#a3ilit* of a priv Some priv are a3sol!te 3!t most are '!alified or #onditional a fair comment prote#ts literar*& artisti# #riti#ism regardless of its merit as long as its made honestl* )ith honest* 3eing meas!res 3* the a##!ra#* of the #riti#s des#rpitve o3servation 3 *air and accurate report priv to p!3lish a fair and a##!rate report of offi#al pro#eedings Prote#ts media )hen the* report someone elses defamator* statements in Foffi#ial pro#eedings (#t pro#eedings& #it* #o!n#il meeting& legis hearing, 9 Medico mag p!3lishes s!mmar* of #onfidential <+I report )hi#h said that P )as in the mo3 >t holds that media has right to '!ote a #onfidential report it got its hands on 3# fair priv e%tends to the reporting of info #ontained in la) enfor#ement do#s #omplied )hen a!th are a#ting in their offi#ial #apa#ities - theories !sed to rationali=e fair and a##!rate report priv. (1, media is the e*es of the p!3li# )ho are allo)ed in p!3li# pro#eedings (2, media helps p!3li# see )hat$s going on (:, prote#ts p!3li#s interest of learning matters of p!3li# #on#ern # ,etraction statutes if p!3li#ation prints a retra#tion of the rig defamator* statement )ith the same p!3li#it* as the orig stor*& it ma* 3e !sed ti mitigate damages r get them off the hoo9 Burnett En'!irer (D, p!3lished defamator* stor* a3o!t +!rnett (P, D p!3lishes a retra#tion 3!t P )asn$t happ* )ith the retra#tion and s!ed D tried to !se the retra#tion as a defense 3!t the #t held that D )asn$t a ne)spaper4p!3li#ation )ithin the meaning of the retra#tion stat!te
Diana Sanders
d e
8ibel9proof !laintiffs Ps rep!tation is so 3ad that he$s not entitled to damages 0ot ver* fla) in #hara#ter is serio!s eno!gh to ma-e him li3el-proof .ingle publication rule all p!3li#ations of the same )or- are treated as a single p!3li#ation o##!rring on the date of 1st p!3li#ation 2his e#onomi=es the amnt of /!ris on a #ase 9 &eeton . )ustler P )as allo)ed to 3ring A!stler to #t in 0A even tho!gh #ir#!lation in 0A onl* #onstit!ted 1I of total #ir#!lation (the SL had r!n o!t in all other states,
B. Constitutional Categories 1. !ublic (fficials and !ublic *igures a /: Times . .ulli an #it* #ommissioner f%ning as poli#e #hief #laims to 3e defamed 3* 01 2imes 2rial /!dge instr!#ts the /!r* it )as li3el per se /!r* had to de#ide )hether statement )as Fof and #on#erning the P F if so then general damages )ere pres!med Damages. (1, general Pres!med - don$t have to 3e proved A#t!al - prove that a#t!al in/!r* o##!rred (2, spe#ial !s!all* tied to spe#ifi# prova3le finan#ial harm (:, p!nitive a#t as p!nishment Paid dire#tl* to P Rule of Sullivan J proof of Fa#t!al mali#eG is re'!ired for p!3li# offi#ial to re#over for defamation Mali#e is an element of defamation if theres no mali#e then P #ant re#over !nder defamation >t holds that here there )as no a#t!al mali#e - 3* K70s S!llivan had e%panded to #over p!3li# fig!res& #andidates& non-offi#ial d!tes of p!3li# offi#ials 2. !ri ate !laintiff but Matter of !ublic Concern a ;ert< arti#le s!ggested that attorne* in #ase of p!3li# #on#ern )as a #omm!nist 2he statement )as false >riti#al '!estion )as )hether attorne* )as p!3li# fig!re so as to 3e s!3/e#t to S!llivan$s a#t!al mali#e re'!irement >t held that he )as not a p!3li# fig!re even tho!ght the matter )as one of p!3li# #on#ern >t held that he #o!ld #olle#t spe#ial and a#t!al damages )itho!t sho)ing a#t!al mali#e all he$d have to do is prove negl In order to re#over pres!med or p!nitive damages& ho)ever& he )o!ld have to prove mali#e - rationale for not appl*ing S!llivan test to matters of p!3li# #on#ern o p!3li# offi#ials have a##ess to media and therefore have a #han#e of self-help the* #an go to media and re3!t o p!3li# offi#ials e/e#t themselves into the p!3li# e*e 2he* e%posed themselves to p!3li# s#r!tin* )hereas the private Plaintiff has not 3 Chapadeau 01 has a higher 3aseline then Lert= (instead of negl& P has to prove gross-negl, !ri ate !laintiff and /ot a Mater of !ublic Concern a "un = Bradstreet . ;reenmoss - involves an erroneo!s #redit report (said that #orp had filed for 3an-r!pt#*, that )asn$t )idel* distri3!ted Ma/ re/e#ts distin#tion 3t)n media and no media (S!llivan and Lert= involved media & )hile this #ase doesn$t, >t holds that #orp is not a p!3li# fig!re for S!llivan p!rposes (#orp )anted to 3e seen as p!3li# fig!re ho)ever, 0ot a mater of p!3li# #on#ern 3# onl* 8 people s!3s#ri3e to ne)sletter >t holds that deminim!s re'!irement is negl (a#ross the 3oard for al damages #ategories,
'.
"amages ()hat a P m!st prove to re#over B, Spe#ial A#t!al general Pres!med general P!nitive
;ert< private Ps& matters of p!3li# #on#ern M J negligen#e M J negligen#e mali#e mali#e
" = B private P& not a matter of p!3li# #on#ern M J negligen#e M J negligen#e M J negligen#e M J negligen#e
Diana Sanders
C. "istinguishing >!ri ate? and >!ublic? !laintiffs 1. 3ho is a >!ublic (fficial?5 - Polit #andidates o ,osenblatt designation applies to those )ho appear to p!3li# as having s!3st #ontrol4resp over govt affairs o &assell : fa#tor test ?e#ognition that dis#!ssion of iss!es of p!3li# importan#e m!st 3e !ninhi3ited & ro3!st Ps a##ess to media to #o!ntera#t impa#t of false4in/!rio!s statements (gert=, 2he degree to )hi#h P has ass!med the ris- of e%pos!re (gert=, As per this test& Poli#e offi#ers& prin#ipals and <ormer p!3li# offi#ials (in respe#t to #ommentar* a3o!t )hat the* did )hile in offi#e, are p!3li# offi#ials 2. 3ho is a >!ublic *igure?5 - *irestone maga=ine in#orre#tl* reported that a mem3er of a high profile famil* divor#ed his )ife 3# he )as having an affair Even tho!gh she )as a mem3er of a prominent so#ial #ategor* she )as #onsidered a private& not a p!3li# fig!re 2r*ing to 3e prominent does not ma-e *o! p!3li# - 3olston - P )as said to have 3een #onvi#ted of espionage )hen he )as reall* #onvi#ted of #ontempt >t held that the fa#t that *o! have 3een a #onvi#ted #rim doesn$t ma-e *o! a p!3li# fig!re - )utchinson senator said that giving grants to #ertain s#ientists )as a )aste of govt f!nds P )as one of those s#ientists Ae )as #onsidered to 3e private 3# his )or- onl* rea#hed a small n!m3er of people 2he fa#t that he applies for fed f!nds does not ma-e one a p!3li# fig!re a general purpose public figure a )ell -no)n #ele3& his name a ho!sehold )ord& the p!3li# re#ogni=es him - to determine a general p!rp p!3li# fig!re #t m!st #onsider o Ps name re#ognition o Previo!s press #overage o ;ol!ntariness of Ps prominen#e 3 limited purpose public figure one )ho is attempting to have or realisti#all* #an 3e e%pe#ted to have a ma/or impa#t on a p!3li# disp!te Limited p!rpose p!3 fig!res are s!3/e#t to the S!llivan r!le (th!s moving #ertain H of #ases o!t of Lert=, - Mc8emore9 )hether a reporter )ho s!es a 2; station has the stat!ts of a limited pr!p p!3 fig!re : part test o >ontrovers* at iss!e m!st 3e p!3li# 3oth in the sense that people are dis#!ssing it and people other then the immediate parti#ipants are li-el* to feel the impa#t of its resol!tion o P m!st have more then a trivial role in the #ontrovers* o Alleged defamation m!st 3e germane to the Ps parti#ipation in the #ontrovers* # in oluntary public figures if *o! have a #ertain relationship to people (e g & #hildren of high profile people& vi#tims of notorio!s #rimes& people )ho marr* spo!ses 3efore the* are famo!s, d. right of reasonable rebuttal of defamatory remar+s $@out ma+ing oneself a public figure. - <oreti#h grandparents a##!sed of #hild molestation Let= pro3a3l* )o!ld govern this #ase 3# it had 3e#ome a matter of p!3li# #on#ern& 3!t parents !sed the media to re3!t the #harges th!s the* )ere vol!ntaril* stepping into the limelight(th!s possi3l* raising their stat!s from Lert= to S!llivan Ps, 2he #t re#ogni=ed& ho)ever& a limited right of re3!ttal to defamator* remar-s )itho!t moving *o!rself into a limited p!rp p!3 fig!re #ategor* ( S!llivan, ". !roof of Malice and *alsity: .ubstanti e and !rocedural Aspects 1. The actual malice standard there m!st 3e -no)ledge of falsit* or re#-less disregard (greater then negl, of the tr!th 2he 3!rden of proving mali#e is pla#ed on P 3* #lear and #onvin#ing eviden#e a. no duty to in estigate - .t. Amant D repeated false #harges agst P )itho!t #he#-ing the #harges or investigating the so!r#es vera#it* for tr!th >t said that general r!le is that ignoran#e is 3liss theres no d!t* to investigate - )arte9)an+s ne)spaper (D, a##!ses #andidate of !sing dirt* tri#-s to smear his opponents name D )as given a tape that )o!ld reveal the tr!th 3!t he ref!sed to pla* it >t held that 3# eviden#e of the tr!th is right in front of D& ref!sal to pla* it reinfor#es that there$s mali#e
Diana Sanders
Altho!gh fail!re to investigate alone )ill not s!pport a finding of a#t!al mali#e& the p!rp avoidan#e of the tr!th )ill - Masson #t hols that a deli3erate alteration of )ords !ttered 3* P doesn$t J -no)ledge of falsit* !nless the alteration res!lts in a material #hange in the meaning #onve*ed 3* the statement b. ,ight to en4uire into editorial process - )erbert . 8ando Aer3ert s!ed prod!#er and reporter of 2; program for remar-s a3o!t his #ond!#t in vietnam D!ring deposition the prod!#er ref!sed to ans)er some '!estions a3o!t )h* he made #ertain investigations and not others #laiming that the tho!ght pro#esses and internal editorial dis#!sion )ere prote#ted 3* the 1st A the s!p #t disagreed& 2his #ase seems to deter p!tting an*thing into )riting 3# an*thing *o! p!t in )riting or dis#!ss internall* )o!ld 3e s!3/ to dis#los!re c. proof of malice $ith con incing clarity m!st sho) )ith #lear and #onvin#ing eviden#e that the D -ne) that their info )as in#orre#t or had a high degree of a)areness of its pro3a3le falsit* e independent appellate re ie$ appellate #ts m!st e%er#ise independent revie) to ass!re that the re'!ired proof has 3een presented )ith re'!ired #larit* 9 Bose #t held that app #t m!st #ond!#t de novo revie) 2his is not the normal r!le 3# these /!dges didn$t have the opport!nit* to )itness live testimon* at trial f. .ummary Audgment standard - Anderson . 8iberty 8obby #t held that the standard for #onsidering S/ motions m!st ta-e into a##t the 3!rden that P )ill have to meet at trial So standard is #lear and #onvin#ing #larit* 2. !roof of *alsity: Burden of !roof on ! - )epps ne)spaper p!3lished arti#les sa*ing that a #hain of stores and its o)ners )as #onne#ted )ith the mo3 State stat!te gave D 3!rden of proving tr!th 3!t S >t held that private Ps sho!ld 3ear the 3!rden of proving falsit* E. *alsity and (pinion: The !ress as Commentator - Mil+o ich 3ra)l at AS )restling mat#h >oa#h testified on 3ehalf of his s#hool ?eporter )ho )as at AS 3!t not at hearing )rote arti#le sa*ing that #oa#h lied on stand >oa#h s!ed for defamation State #t holds that this spee#h )as #onst prote#ted 3!t the s #t reversed sa*ing that some e%pressions of opinion impl* assertion of fa#t - (llman " fa#tors to determine )hether something is falsit* or opinion o 2he #ommon !sage4meaning of the spe#ifi# lang!age of the #hallenged statement o 2he statement verifia3ilit* it the statement #apa3le of 3eing o3/e#tivel* #hara#teri=ed as tr!e or false o 2he f!ll #onte%t of the statement o 2he 3roader #onte%t4setting in )hi#h statement appears *. ,epublication: The !ress as ,epeater 9 ?ep!3li#ation is treated li-e p!3li#ation ?epetition of defamator* material is #onsidered to 3e a ne) p!3li#ation and the repeater is a p!3lisher )ho is /!st as lia3le as if he originated the defamator* statement 2he rationale for this is that other)ise the media )o!ld defame at )ill merel* 3* finding someone to )hom the* #an attri3!te the defamator* statements 1.!ublishers and "istributors Beran message posted on Aol advertising gross 2-shirts )ith Ps n!m3er P tried to get A@L to remove ad and the* didn$t respond a##!ratel* Aol said it )asn$t lia3le 3# stat!te prote#ted them P #laimed that stat!te prote#ted p!3lishers not distri3!tors and that A@L )as a distri3!tor >t disagreed& holding that A@L )as a p!3lisher (th!s it )asn$t lia3le, Blumenthal . "rudge #o!rt prote#ted A@L even tho!gh it paid the a!thor to )rite the Dr!dge ?eport& and it retained rights to edit the material Altho!gh A@L had a#tive role in ma-ing the #ontent availa3le >DA )as intended to prote#t ISPs so #o!rt rel!#tantl* dismissed #ase 2. /eutral ,eportage allo)s media to report #ertain things& even if defamator*& 3# the* are /!st repeating the ne)s 9Ed$ards #t held that )hen prominent organi=ation ma-es allegations& it$s the d!t* of the media to report in a ne!tral fashion and there sho!ld 3e a #onst priv prote#ting the right of the reporter and paper to report allegations )4o 3eing held lia3le for defamation
Diana Sanders
;. !rior ,estraints on "efamation 9 /ear . Minnesota 9 Tory . Chochran 2 tor* defamed >o#hran to get him to pa* him mone* >o!rt ordered permanent in/!n#tion pre#l!ding 2or* from displa*ing signs or spea-ing a3o!t >ho#hran 2or* arg!ed it )as a P? >o#hran died d!ring #ase& so #o!rt held in light of death& in/!n#tion )as over3road >ase didn$t address Near tho!gh 3hile it ma+es it sound li+e inAunctions are almost impossible in "ef casesC they may be upheld if there is a plausible Austification. ). 1urisdiction and 8ibel Tourism &eeton . )ustler Mag allo)s state /!r even if < has minimal #ir#!lation in a state Internet Content 2 to limit /!r& some #o!rts find )here internet !sers )gi a#tivel* do 3!siness )ith #!stomers in the for!m state 8ibel Tourism 2 P$s attempt to for!m shop for a /!r )ith the most favora3le li3el la)s .ecuring the !rotection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional )eritage Act domesti# #o!rts shall not re#ogni=e or enfor#e a foreign /!dgment for defamation !nless the part* see-ing enfor#ement esta3lishes either (1, the foreign la) provided as m!#h prote#tion as 1A and state def la)O or (2, D )o!ld have 3een fo!nd lia3le 3* a domesti# #o!rt appl*ing 1A and state la) I. ,eform and !roposed ,eform - li3el ins!ran#e - proposal to #!t 3a#- on s#ope of prote#tion offered 3* Lert= and S!llivan - proposed de#larator* /!dgment a#tion that permits de#iding if statement )as tr!e or false )itho!t addressing fa!lt - proposed retra#tion and repl* as )a* to red!#e harm done
Diana Sanders
III. !rotecting !ri acy !ri acy rightsC li+e "efamation is personC so it doesnDt ha e sur i orship A. !ublic "isclosure of !ri ate *acts no >@A !nless dis#los!re )o!ld 3e highl* offensive to a person of res sensi3ilities and is of no legit p!3li# #on#ern 1. /ature of the Tort statements are tr!e 3!t em3arrassing Changing ie$ of $hat is public concern: - )aynes D p!3lished 3oo- a3o!t 3la#-s and slaver* in )hi#h he ma-es a referen#e to a )oman )hose h!s3and )as an al#oholi# and )ho 3eat her A!s3and s!ed for li3el and invasion of priva#* >t held that he had no #laim 3# )hat )as said )as s!3st tr!e Intimate details )eren$t dis#losed (this is the 3iggest #laim to priva#*, Aa*nes$s 3ehavior )as important to stor*& #onne#ted themes of povert*& govt& ghetto o !roposition that people $ho donDt desire limelight ha e no legal right to e0tinguish it if their e0periences are ne$s$orthy. 2 !ublic interest trumps pri ate 1A right. "o !ublic *igures ha e this right5 - 1es 2here is no formal distin#tion 34) private and p!3li# fig!res in priva#* la) !nli-e in defamation +92 the s#ope of legit p!3li# #!riosit* is )ider )hen the s!3/e#t is a p!3li# fig!re - .ipple 3oo- dis#losed that P )as ga* >t granted SD for D 3# fa#ts )ere not private and the* )ere ne)s)orth* sho)ed ho) president felt to)ards ga* people ,eAecting the !ri acy ,ight - ,oberton = /: .tatute 01 re/e#ts #ommon la) remedies for invasion of priva#* In 01& onl* remed* for an* of the " t*pes of tort!o!s invasions of priva#* is a stat!te that permits a#tions for damages and in/!n#tions for !na!thori=ed !se of person$s name or li-eness 3!t onl* if the !se is Ffor advertising p!rposes or for the p!rposes of trade G 2. 1A "efense E.till no ans$er as to $hether truthful publications may e er be subAected to ci il or criminal liability - Co0 Broadcasting . Cohn LA #rim stat!te made it a misdemeanor to identif* an* female )ho had 3een raped ?eporter !sed it& vi#tims father 3ro!ght a#tion >o!rt held that on#e tr!e info is dis#losed in p!3li# #o!rt do#s open to p!3li# inspe#tion& press #an$t 3e san#tioned for p!3lishing it o Emphasi<es important role of press in Audicial proceedings by subAecting it to public scrutiny to ensure its fairness - *8 .tar . B1* ne)spaper released name of rape vi#tim after the* got info from press room of the poli#e dept Disting!ished from Cox 3e#a!se this )asn$t a trial *et& no s!spe#t and name not o3tained from p!3li# #o!rt re#ords - govt #ant p!nish the tr!thf!l p!3li#ation of info on a matter of p!3li# interest if it )as o3tained la)f!ll*, It )as the PDs fa!lt for allo)ing the press a##ess to +D<s name - #t applies high tier Dail* Meal test. if paper o3tains info that is o (1, tr!thf!l o (2,la)f!ll* o3tained 3* the press and Barnic+i 1A doesn$t ne#essaril* prote#t info la)f!ll* o3tained * p!3lisher from so!r#es that p!3lisher -no)s o3tained it !nla)f!ll* .ee also /e$sgathering TortsC infra o (:, matter of p!3li# #on#ern o a3sent a need to f!rther a state interest of the highest order - A@LDI0L. )here a ne)spaper p!3lishes tr!thf!l info )hi#h it has la)f!ll* o3tained& p!nishment ma* la)f!ll* 3e imposed& if at all& onl* )hen narro)l* tailored to a state interest of the highest order& and that no s!#h interest is satisfa#toril* served 3* imposing lia3ilit* here - Sims says problem here is that court considers name of victim as a matter of public concern. Is it - EnAoyining !ri acy In asions o Altho!gh an a)ard for damages #annot re#apt!re lost priva#*& and litigation is li-el* to #a!se f!rther loss of priva#*& #o!rts are rel!#tant to iss!e in/!n#tions ?ather& a damages a#tion for defamation or priva#* is so!ght
Diana Sanders
10
B. *alse 8ight !ri acy #ases involving false #harges that pla#e P in a false light 3!t do not harm his rep!tation so as to permit an a#tion for defamation ItDs li+e a hybrid defamation P tr!e fa#ts revelation "oes .ulli anDs Malice applyQ :E. on matters of public concern - Time . )ill (16N7, famil* held hostage Press falsel* reports that their #aptors )ere violent >t treats #ase as #lassi# defamation pro3lem and imposes mali#e re'!irement >t holds that there #o!ld 3e no lia3ilit* !nless the falsit* )as either deli3erate or re#-less sin#e the press has #onst privilege to #omment on matters of p!3li# #on#ern o >ase is more similar to Lert= then to S!llivan& ho)ever& 3# the famil* is a private P )ho )as involved in a p!3li# matter (3!t Lert= not o!t till 167", - Cantrell . *orest City (167", >antrell famil* feat!red in a maga=ine stor* after h!s3and dies in 3ridge #ollapse ?eporter )rote a3o!t povert* and 3ad #ondition famil* lives in no) (in effort to do#!ment lives of families after #ollapse, 3!t she lied a3o!t some st!ff (e% Mother )asn$t home, <amil* 3ro!ght #ase #laiming the* s!ffered o!trage& h!miliation and shame o >o!rt appeared to appl* a >L mali#e (not 012 mali#e, standard& finding that paper -ne) a3o!t the falsehoods and p!3lished an*)a* so therefore lia3le It sho)s that it )as ine%pli#itl*4I0DI?E>2L1 appl*ing a Lert= t*pe of standard >o!rt has not dire#tl* addressed )ither private Ps in matters of p!3li# #on#ern that are depi#ted in false light sho!ld re#over )4o proof of a#t!al mali#e Silen#e 3* >o!rt on S!llivan4Lert= (private P, distin#tion has left lo)er #o!rts #onf!sed ,estatement of Torts FG62E lia3ilit* for invasion of priva#* for pla#ing the P in a false light ma* e%ist if the D a#ted )ith R of falsit* of statement or in ? disregard as to the tr!th or falsit* this leaves open the S of )hether there ma* 3e lia3ilit* 3ased on a sho)ing of 0 as to tr!th4falsit* C. Appropriation #,ights of !ublicity% #laims that involve attempts to #ontrol #ele3$s names& li-eness and fame and an* T val!e res!lting therefrom 2he remed* is #onfined almost e%#l!sivel* to #ommer#ial e%ploitation (!na!thori=ed !se of #ele3$s pi#t!re in an ad or endorsement, So it$s !s!all* relevant to media in their advertising depts 6 states prote#t a #ele3s right of p!3li#it* after his death 16 states have p!3li#it* stat!tes or adopt it thro!gh >L 01 re#ogni=ed 3* stat!te o Stefano #ase Common 8a$ ,ecognition Haelan v. Topps Chewing Gum 3ase3all pla*er li#ensed his name to g!m to promote& then a #ompeting g!m man!f ind!#ed him to sign a deal >o!rt re#ogni=ed pla*er$s right to #ontrol #ommer#ial !se of his name "ifference b@$ the other pri acy rights this is li-e a priva#* A0D propert* right 2herefore& sin#e it$s li-e a propert* right& it is inherita3le Aeirs of the famo!s person #an prevent !na!thori=ed e%ploitation of a famo!s person 3ased on rights of p!3li#it* Priva#* rights& ho)ever& are personal and individ!al so don s!rvive death 2he interest prote#ted is different here it is an e%#l!sive !se& rather than invasion of something se#ret o Toffolini v. LFP Publishing (h!stler !n#overs and p!3lishes n!de pi#t!res of famo!s )restler$s )ife after she died 0o ne)s)orth* e%#eption here 34# death )as in#idental to pi#s it )as all a3o!t the n!de pi#s& 0@2 the a##o!nt of her death , F 9nli-e intr!sion& dis#los!re or false light& appropriation doesn$t re'!ire the invasion of something se#ret& se#l!ded or priate pertaining to P& not does it involve falsit* 2he interest prote#ted is not so m!#h a mental as a proprietar* one& in the e%l!sive !se of P$s name and li-eness as an aspe#t of his identit* E0ception to consent re4uirement ne$s$orthiness 2o report matters of p!3li# #on#ern& one$s name and li-eness #an 3e !sed .tate .tatutes E0pand the Tort Cali ,ight of !ublicity .tatute o >an s!e if name and li-eness is !sed for p!rposes of advertising In#idental !se gets re3!tta3le
Diana Sanders
11
pres!mption against need for #onsent 0e)s& p!3li# affairs don$t need #onsent .ound ali+es Count too o !ette "idler v. #ord "otor Company (6th >ir 1688, ad #o as-ed +ette to !se her voi#e for their #ar ad 3!t she ref!sed 2he* then )ent to her 3a#-!p singer and told her to sing /!st li-e +ette She s!ed Midler )on the #ase even tho!gh ad #o se#!red a li#ense from the U o)ner of the song and o)ned all the rights to the ne) re#oring FWhen a distin#tive voi#e of a professional singer is )idel* -no)n and is deli3eratel* imitated in order to sell a prod!#t& the sellers have appropriated )hat is not theirs and have #ommitted a tort in >alifornia V -irtual@digital actors that soundC mo e = loo+ li+e fam person count too o Vana White v. Samsung (6th #ir 1662, Sams!ng had ;>? add !sing virt!al ;ana and )heel of fort!ne She s!ed for right of p!3li#it* and #o!rt fo!nd S of fa#t to overt!rn SD
1A Affirmati e "efense. Transformati e Hse. Even if the spee#h is #ommer#ial& #an sho) it has signifi#ant transformative elements or that the val!e of the )or- doesn$t derive primaril* from the #i#3rit*$s fame Comed !!! P"odu#tions And* Warhol$s images !sing #ele3rities #onve*ed a message 3e*ond the e%ploitation It )as an form or ironi# so#ial #omment on the deh!mani=ation of #ele3rit* itself Hi#$s v. Casablan#a heirs of Agatha >hristie )anted to stop the 3oo- and movie a3o!t her >o!rt finds that the right of p!3li#it* does not atta#h here& )here a fi#tionali=ed a##o!nt of an event in the life of a p!3li# fig!re is depi#ted in a novel or a movie& and in s!#h novel or movie it is evident to the p!3li# that the events so depi#ted are fi#titio!s Hnauthori<ed Co erage of Entertainment Acts %a##hini ne)s aired entire #annon3all performan#e >o!rt ass!med ?@P )o!ld tr!mp 1A and held for 5a#hinni sa*ing it )as li-e getting #onsent for !sing U )or- It )asn$t a3o!t h!rting the rep for #ommer#ial prod!#t as m!#h as it )as a3o!t appropriation of the ver* a#tivit* 3* )hi#h the entertainer a#'!ired that rep in the first pla#e .elf !romotion by Media A p!3li#ations !se of an earlier stor* to advertise its o)n prod!#t doesn$t #ome )ithin Fadvertising p!rposesG &ooth Aolida* mag p!3lished an attra#tive pi# of Shirle* +ooth in a stor* a3o!t a resort Months later& Aolida* too- o!t add in 0e) 1or-er and reprinted the +ooth photo as a sample of its #ontent >o!rt held that the photo )as in#idental& nothing in ad s!ggested P endorsed the mag *alse or Misleading !romotional Material @verlap )ith <alse Light Depi#tionQ o >her >ase share gave intervie) to mag reserving right to de#line p!3li#ation and she did 3!t mag sold stor* to 2 other mags )ho ran it She re#overed onl* from one that made 3elieve the* )ere intervie)ing her& )hi#h )as patentl* false !nder 2ime v Aill 2he other one tho!gh )as /!st an e%#erpt of the intervie)& )hi#h )as oData Prote#tion Stat!tes
Diana Sanders
12
I; 8iability *or EmotionalC Economic and !hysical )arm A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional "istress ?efers to #ond!#t )4 no other p!rpose 3!t to infli#t ED& or goes 3e*ond tolera3le #ond!#t 1. By Means of .atire of !ublic *igures /( C(A - )ustler . *al$ell 1688 ad /o-ing that the 1st time <al)ell had se% it )as )ith his mom in an o!tho!se 0ot a defamation #ase 3# there )as no serio!s assertion of fa#t that an*one )o!ld$ve ta-en serio!sl* Aolds that p!3li# fig!res are fair game for parodies and satires 2he onl* )a* for a p!3li# fig!re to re#over !nder IIED is for the p!3li#ation to 3e false and made )ith a#t!al mali#e (S!llivan, #an$t end-r!n defamation 2. By Means of "efamation of !ublic *igures /( "E*C /( IIE" - Aatfill v 01 2008 012 p!3lished arti#le falsel* a##!sing Aatfil of sending anthra% that -illed E people after 611 Ae s!ed #ol!mnist& 3!t #t fo!nd #ol!mnist )as a limited p!rpose p!3li# fig!re and there )as no a#t!al mali#e& so also no eviden#e pro3a3l* of sho)ing IIED '. By !ic+eting !ri ate E ents to "irect !ublic Attention to !olitical Causes >of public concern? !,(TECTE" 9 .nyder . !helps 2771 +aptist #h!r#h had a '!iet and pea#ef!l protest a3o!t Lod p!nishes Ameri#a for tolerating homose%!alit* d!ring a Leneral$s f!neral <ather #laimed IIED for distress and ina3ilit* to separate tho!ghts of son from pi#-eting >o!rt said it )asn$t an iss!e of fa#ts& 3!t )hether it )as a matter of p!3li# #on#ern& )hi#h it )as M!st ma-e an independent e%amination of the #ontent form and #onte%t of spee#h Sin#e it )as a matter of P>& the* )ere on p!3li# propert* and )ere pea#f!#& it$s prote#ted spee#h I. By !ublicly Insulting a !ri ate !erson ,egarding Matter /(T of !ublic Concern CA/ ,EC(-E, a Esposito9)ilder 2 radio station #alled 3ride the F!gliest 3rideG and pro#eeded )ith h!miliating #ommentar* 0o Def 3e#a!se it$s opinion >t allo)ed #ase sa*ing it$s. 1 She$s not a p!3li# fig!reO 2 0ot a matter of P>O 2 D$s #ond!#t sho)d intentional intent to infli#t in/!r on her 6. By !ublishing the name of a $itness to a iolent crime $hen the perpetrator is still at large and unidentified CA/ ,EC(-E, a Times Mirror #not scotus% 2 ne)spaper p!3lished name of girl that dis#overed dead 3od* and sa) the perpetrator >t denied SD to D (then then parties settled, finding name of )itness not to ne#essaril* 3e p!3li# information and m!st 3alan#e state interest in prote#ting )itnesses& sin#e then the*$d 3e rel!#tant to provide info G. By ad ocating iolence against a group a Citi<ens publishing . Miller #not scotus% P s!ed on 3ehalf of all m!slims for arti#le sa*ing )e sho!ld e%e#!te m!slims >o!rt denied a#tion& finding tort lia3ilit* onl* for fighting )ords& in#itement& or tr!e threat 2here )as no imminen#e here B. /egligent Infliction of Emotional "istress - lia3ilit* still limited and !n#ertain - some #o!rts /!st allo) re#over* for famil* mem3ers )itnessing in/!r* or death - )o$ell . /: !ost photographer trespassed ps*#h )ard and got pi# of 0!ss3a!m (#harged )ith -illing his -id, )ith another !n-no)n patient >o!rt fo!nd that photog$s #ond!#t )asn$t 2AA2 o!trageo!s not Fatro#io!s& inde#ent& and !tterl* despi#a3le as to meet the rigoro!s re'!irements of IIED C. Economic )arm most #ases agst the media for e#on harm involve loss s!ffered 3* a reader or vie)er )ho relied on the #ontent of a report to his4her detriment (3!t see >ohen harm to part*, 1. Breach of !romise - Leneral appli#a3le la)s don$t offend 1A simpl* 3e#a!se their enfor#ement against press has in#idental effe#ts on its a3ilit* to gather and report ne)s o Press gets no spe#ial imm!nit* from general app la)s (not la)s that single o!t press, - Cohen P? #ons!ltant to rep!3 part* offered reporters (on #ondition that the so!r#e not 3e dis#losed, do#!ments sho)ing that the demo#rati# #andidate had a prior shoplifting #onvi#tion 9pon f!rther investigation& it )as fo!nd that the info )as e%aggerated and the reporters
Diana Sanders
1:
dis#losed >ohen$s name )hi#h res!lted in him losing his /o3 >t held that media didn$t have right to 3rea- -4promise of anon*mit* (so promissor* estoppel )or-s here, >t relies on <L Star (high tier anal*sis of govt a#tion if info la)f!ll* o3tained and of p!3li# #on#ern, In this #ase the info )as of p!3li# #on#ern 3!t )as it la)f!ll* o3tainedQ o Also 2 this $as a self imposed restriction so they shouldnDt pretend to get info then be protected: if you ma+e promisesC you got to +eep them. 2. /egligence Leneral tort r!le. one )ho 0 s!pplies false infor !sed 3* others in 3!siness is onl* lia3le to those )ho he intends to infl!en#e ;utter . "o$ 1ones )all st /o!rnal made a mista-e in its listing of #orp 3onds L!tter #laimed that he relied on this in#orre#t info and th!s lost mone* S!it is 3ro!ght on theor* of negl misrepresentation >t finds that /o!rnal sho!ld not 3e held lia3le 3# the prote#tions of the 1st A do not allo) for lia3ilit* for negl misstatements of fa#ts
'. "isparagement harm to the #ommer#ial val!e of a prod!#t or other propert* (rather than a person, C(A is for pecuniary loss caused by falsehood that def: #1% should recogni<e is li+ely to harm the alue of the propertyJ and #2% ma+es $ith , disregard #or &% of falsity. Media action must be >of and concerning? the ! - Blatty . /:T P$s 3oo- )as omitted from 012 3est seller list >t said sing P )asn$t named at all& it )asn$t Fof and #on#erningG him At most it #o!ld 3e 0& 3!t that$s not eno!gh Au il . CB. N0 min!tes had segment on the dangers of Washington State apples 2he rea#tion )as so great that man* #rop gro)ers #o!ldn$t sell their apples 2he* s!ed >+S >t held for >+S ()ho #laimed ne!tral reportage prin#iple the* )ere rel*ing on govt do#!ments, In response to this #ase man* states passed disparagement stat!tes that info m!st 3e 3ased on relia3le s#ientifi# fa#ts
-eggie 8ibel 8a$s - State spe#ifi#& 3!t generall* allo)s a #oa for prod!#ers of perisha3le goods to s!e an*one )ho damages the prod!#er 3* )illf!ll* or mali#io!sl* disseminating false information that a food prod!#t is not safe for h!man #ons!mption - Te0as Beef ;roup . (prah 3infrey she had sho) a3o!t mad #o) diseaseO someone said it$s 3ad in 9S and she said she$ll never eat another ham3!rger >attle prod!#ers s!ed Eth >ir Aeld for her sa*ing the sho)$s pepople didn$t -no) of the falsit* of the statements made a3o!t mad #o) disease So no R or ? as to falsit* ". !hysical )arm 1. "angerous and@or Erroneous Instructions - )erceg . )ustler as )ell as an o3s#enit* #ase& this #ase #an 3e #lassified as an e%ample of dangero!s or !nla)f!l instr!#tion It gives #lear instr!#tions 3!t )arns agst follo)ing them - 3inters . Authors m!shroom #ase )here the* ma-e a mista-e on )hi#h m!shrooms are poisono!s and people rel* on this and eat the dangero!s m!shrooms >t holds that p!3lishers are generall* not lia3le 3# it )o!ld go 3e*ond negl and 3e stri#t lia3ilit*4prod!#ts lia3ilit* 2he onl* p!3li#ations that are treated li-e prod!#ts lia3ilit*4stri#t lia3ilit* )here p!3lishers are lia3le are for maps 2. >Inspiration?: Imitation and Mood .hifts - Imitation @livia v 0+> )oman raped 3* #o-e 3ottle and the perp sa*s that he got the idea from a movie ;i#tim s!ed ma-er of movie >t held that prod!#ers not lia3le if !na3le to prove in#itement - "ood Shift - )here people vie) movies a3o!t gang violen#e and then the* go #ommit a#ts of violen#e on the )a* home - $ttracted violence if *o! are sho)ing a movie )ith violen#e it #an 3e forseen that it ma* attra#t a #ertain t*pe of person into the neigh3orhood to vie) it a. "istinguish E0hortation and Incitement
Diana Sanders
1"
9 3eirum e%hortation #ase @n the air a DD anno!n#ed )here a pri=e van )as and that the fist listener to get to it )o!ld )in a pri=e A listener for#ed someone off the road& -illing him& on his )a* to the van 2his #ase falls !nder +randen3!rg 3# DD in#ited !nla)f!l driving 3* !rging listeners to ra#e to the pri=e van (impli#it not e%press, 2he #o!nter arg!ment is that he didn$t e%pli#itl* sa* to drive !nla)f!ll* '. *acilitation of Criminal and@or Tortious Acts a. Aiding and Abetting: Criminal Instructions 9 ,ice . !aladin : people -illed 3* hitman Iss!e J )hether p!3lisher of the 3oo- Fho) to 3e a hit manG is lia3le P!3lisher #on#eded that he intended 3oo- to 3e instr!#tion man!al >ase sho!ld go !nder +randen3!rg 3!t it #ant 3# it la#-s the imminen#e prong b. /egligence a Endangering ,e elations in these : #ases& #t fo!nd for P - )yde rape vi#tims name )as inadvertentl* released 3* the press and her assailant is at large - TimesMirror )oman #omes home to find her roommate m!rdered and the assailant r!ns o!t Aer name is p!3lished and she #laims to 3e harassed after that& - .anche<9"uran man tr*ing to ass!me ne) identit* 3# dr!g lords after him Ais name& )here he )as& and that he )as 3eing p!rs!ed )as p!3lished D #laimed that it )as matter of p!3li# #on#ern to his neigh3ors that he might 3e -illed 3 Criminal Ad ertisements pro3lem )ith the follo)ing #ases is that the* are #ommer#ial spee#h Ma*3e )e sho!ld fo#!s more on the fa#t that its loo-ing for illegal servi#es rather then the fa#t that its #ommer#ial spee#h - Braun . .oldier of *ortune D fo!nd lia3le Savage ran arti#le in maga=ine offering his servi#es as a g!n for hire& sa*ing that all /o3s )o!ld 3e #onsidered >t held that if an ad on its fa#e )o!ld alert a reasona3l* pr!dent p!3lisher that the goal 3ehind this as is a serio!s #rime then there$s no 1st A prote#tion - Eimann similar to a3ove& 3!t ad )as ne!tral on its fa#e >t held that p!3lishers do not o)e a d!t* to refrain from printing #lassified advertisements that are fa#iall* inno#!o!s
Diana Sanders
1E
-. Copyright doesn$t prote#t the idea& 3!t the a!thor$s e%pression of the idea Po)er of the o)ner is to prevent reprod!#tion and distri3!tion of their )or-s of e%pression !o$er granted in Article IC .ection K of the constitution. !rotection: a!thor$s ForiginalG e%pression of an idea that is fi%ed in an* tangi3le medi!m of e%pression - E0pression: *or literary $or+s 2he total #on#ept and feel& theme& #hara#ters& plot& se'!en#e& pa#e and setting E0clusi e rights: reprod!#e& adapt& distri3!te& p!3li#all* perform& p!3li#all* displa* the )or- doesn$t need to 3e p!3lished - no prote#tion for an idea or fa#ts - see generall* *eist - )eoling 9 person )rote h% of Ainden3!rg& and P #laimed that a!thor stole his a##o!nt of the disaster +ooevent!all* 3e#ame movie and P s!ed a!thor and prod!#er >t held that there #o!ld 3e no theft for Ps idea idea is in the p!3li# domain P #o!ld$ve #laimed that his e%pression )as stolen 3!t he didn$t do so - Amistad ,egistration: not re'!ired 3!t re#ommended for litigation strateg* ?egister )4 Li3rar* of >ongress to p!t U offi#e on noti#e >an get stat!tor* damages "uration: Life of a!thor P 70 *ears If organi=ation. 120 *ears from #reation or 6E *ears after p!3li#ation )hi#hever e%pires first !enalties for infringement - in/!n#tions - impo!ndment and destr!#tion of infringing #opies - a#t!al damages and lost profits - stat damages !p to T100R per infringement - >riminal penalties for )illf!l infringement and for #ommer#ial advantage or private gain
Diana Sanders
1N
C(!:,I;)T 8A3 A/" MA.. ME"IA A. ($nership o)nership initiall* invests in the #reator of the )or- (e%#ept )hen a )or- is made for hire then the emplo*er is the o)ner, Media organi=ations are normall* the o)ner of #op*right in p!3li#ations43road#asts #reated 3* its emplo*ees a W<A either 3* emplo*ee )4I s#ope of emplo*ement& or spe#ifi#all* #ommissioned See 3elo) b. Employee relationship is determined by the C8 of agency i CC/- . ,eid a s#!lptor )ho #reated a s#!lpt!re for >>0; )as not an emplo*ee even tho!gh he )as engaged spe#ifi#all* to #reate the )or- and did so in #onforman#e )ith >>0;$s #on#ept and general design ideas c. !ublishing or bcasting org o$nes L if it meets re4s of 172 i It )as spe#ifi#all* ordered or #ommissioned ii It )as #reated as a #ontri3!tion to one of the -inds of )or- des#ri3ed in the stat!te iii 2he parties agree in )riting that it has to 3e #onsidered a W<A d If p!3lisher doesn$t meet this& then the onl* have rights from R )ith freelan#er !s!all* right of first p!3li#ation onl* e. ,ight of creator@author to recapture licensed or assigned $or+s after '6 years not$ithstanding contrary terms in the contracts 1M H...C 27' i If #ontri3!tion is neither W<A or emplo*ee )or-& a!thor of #olle#tive )or- retains o)nership P!3lisher #an onl* !se it in the #olle#tive )or-& and even so& the #reator #an re#laim after :E *ears ii 2his also applies to <reelan#e )or- made availa3le in ele#troni# data3ases 1 /:T . Tassini p!3lisher #laimed the E-p!3li#ation to 3e revision )ithin 201& 3!t #o!rt said no 3e#a!se the data3ase permitted retrieval on an arti#le-3*-arti#le 3asis It )asn$t /!st a #onversion of a periodi#al so it )o!ld override the a!thor$s e%#l!sive right to individ!al reprod!#tion and distri3!tion a 0ote that 3* 2assini& p!3lishers R-ed to a#'!ired e-data3ase rights B. *air Hse one #an legall* reprod!#e #op*righted )or-s for the p!rpose of #riti#ism& #omment& ne)s reporting& tea#hing& s#holarship or resear#h 1. Codification #F17M% 2 stat!te applies to )or-s p!3lished after 141478 2he #op*right s!rvives 70 *rs after a!thor dies or 6E *ears after p!3li#ation 2. *actors to 3e #onsidered )hen determining )hether the !se of a #op*righter )or- #onstit!tes fair !se. a. p!rpose and #hara#ter of the !se& in#l!ding )hether s!#h !se is of a #ommer#ial nat!re or is for nonprofit ed!#ation p!rposes b. nat!re of the #op*righted )orc. the amo!nt and s!3stantialit* of the portion !sed in relation to the )or- as a )hole d. 2he potential effe#t on the mar-et val!e (or potential mar-et val!e, of the #op*righted )or- (W this is the most important fa#tor, '. ,ight of *irst !ublication - a 3road theme in the follo)ing #ases is )hat the relationship is 3t)n the 1st A and #op*right la) !sing U la) to s!ppress information a E%tent of !se of '!otations as <9 #an$t !se Fheart X so!l of 3oo-G a )arper and ,o$ #*ord Memoirs% !np!3lished man!s#ript of <ord$s a!to3iograph* Aarper is the p!3lisher and it made a R )ith 2ime mag that the* #o!ld previe) the 3oo- 0ation mag got a hold of the man!s#ript and p!3lished e%#erpts of the man!s#ript )4o permission 2ime #an#els R )ith Aarper Aarper s!es 0ation for infringement of U Lo)er #t loo-ed to fa#tor #& and held that 3# s!#h a lo) I of the 3oo- )as !sed& it sho!ld 3e prote#ted !nder the <air !se do#trine S >t disagreed and said that *o! #ant /!st loo- at the n!m3ers m!st loo- and see if the Fheart and so!lG of the 3oo- )as stolen 2he* held that it )as and th!s 0ation is lia3le 0ation arg!es that 1st A re'!ires greater prote#tion then is offered in Y107 >t re/e#ts this arg!ment sa*ing that 1st A iss!es )ere alread* ta-en into #onsideration 3* the drafters of Y107 i (<9 prote#tion !nder Y107 MJ1A prote#tion, W#reated 3road pres!mption agst finding fair !se for !np!3lished )or3 Paraphrasing !np!3lished letters is 0@2 o- It prevents a!thor from de#iding to p!3lisher in the f!t!re a .alinger Salinger (P, )rote letters )hi#h )ere later donated to a li3rar* D !sed the letters in an !na!th 3iograph* P see-s in/!n#tion to stop p!3li#ation P o)ns the U in the e%pression of
Diana Sanders
17
the letters 3# he is the a!thor 3!t the re#ipient of the letters has ph*si#al possession and th!s #an do )hat the* please )ith them Aigher #t granted in/!n#t 3# of fa#tor H" even to!gh P did not intend to p!3lish the letters he #o!ld #hange his mind or his heirs ma* )ant to do so # /e$ Era #8. ,on )ubbard% !nflattering !na!th 3iograph* that relied on !np!3lished diaries and letters )ritten 3* A!33ard (s#ientolog*, *ears ago A!33ard so!ght in/!n#tion to prevent p!3li#ation Same lo)er #t as in Salinger #t denied in/!n#tion here too In/!n#tion denied 3# #t holds that it )as <9 and 3# of la#hes (A!33ard )aited too long to see- in/!n#tion, Also 3e#a!se of serio!s 1A impli#ation p!3li# interest in #riti#al 3ios 2nd #ir /!dges affirmed the denial of the in/!n#t 3ased on la#hes 3!t disagreed that it )as <9 a. "istinguishing b@$ published and unpublished $or+s i 0e) Era 1660 another 3io that onl* !sed A!33ard$s p!3lished )ritings 2d >ir denied in/!n#tion and fo!nd all passage to 3e prote#ted 3* <9 3e#a!se the* )ere more fa#t!al than #reative and '!oted te%t )asn$t the FheartG of the pie#e A!thor$s p!rpose )asn$t to appropriate his )or-& 3!t to sho) the #h!r#h )as a dangero!s #!lt, W real pro3lem )ith Salinger and 0e) Era is that the Ps are p!3li# fig!res and the mali#e standard gives media the li3ert* to defame the private lives of p!3li# fig!res (espe#iall* A!33ard )ho stepped into limelight 3* #reating o)n religion, d DN2 Amendment fa#t that )or- is !np!3lished )ill not 3ar a #laim of fair !se C. *irst Amendment Implications of Copyright Enforcement: 1. Tension b@$ long L protection = 1A - Eldred . Ashcroft 277' #t re/e#ts that U e%tension to 70*rsPdeath )as violation sa*ing that U la) #ontains 3!ilt in 1A a##ommodations onl* prote#ts e%pression (not ideas, and allo)s do <9 o Breyer dissents sa*ing the stat!te sho!ldn$t ne#essaril* get intermediate s#r!tin* and )hile it ma* 3enefit finan#ial interests of heirs& it )on$t 3enefit p!3li# 2. 3hen 1A Interests Trump L - 0ote that it !s!all* doesn$t& as an a!thor$s e%pression of an idea is not #onsidered s!3/e#t to the p!3li#$s Fright to -no) G - Time . Bernard ;eis P ref!sed to grant li#ense to D for !se of pi#s from film on assassination of Pres Renned* for his st!d*& so D prepared s-et#hes of it and admitted to #op*ing from the film >t fo!nd <9 3e#a!se the 3oo- )o!ldn$t li-el* h!rt P$s sales of f!t!re 3oo-s or films Ct considered the importance of copying the e0pression b@c of difficulty of paraphrasing and the central importance of the film. '. EnAoining Infringement: $hy inAunctions not disfa ored here5 a Salin%er ma-es #lear that in/!n#tions are not disfavored in U la) >o!rt does in fa#t en/oin (see Napster& Tassini, altho!gh it does admit that it isn$t al)a*s proper (Cambell, 2his poses a signifi#ant pro3lem b. 8emley = -olo+h article there are no pers!asive distin#tions 34) preliminar* in/!n#tions in U infringement and other prior restraints - #an go either )a*. either in/!n#tions sho!ld 3e more )idel* permitted din other #onte%ts& or prior restraints sho!ld 3e applied to U in/!n#tions - some of the fa#tors the arti#le loo-s at are. o propert* rights #an have prop right in rep!tation X prop right in U o private enfor#ement li3el la) and U la) are 3oth !s!all* enfor#ed 3* private litigation o s!3/e#t matter of /eopardi=ed spee#h o #ontent ne!tralit* U la) isn$t #ontent ne!tral 34# it t!rns on #ontent of )hat$s p!3lished o U f!rthers free spee#h val!es #an limit spee#h 3efore it$s fo!nd to 3e a#t!all* infringing& th!s fr!strating free spee#h o U #la!se m!st 3e read s!3/e#t to 1A #onstraints o Importan#e of govt interest providing in#entive is #ompelling interest& 3!t so is prote#ting rep& et# o Irrepara3le Aarm U harm #an 3e repaired thr! damages& 3!t harm to rep #an$t o E%pression o3s#enit* is also e%pression 0@2E.
Diana Sanders
18
>op*right infrginment a#tion is !s!all* against the media When it$s on the internet ISPs are imm!ne per @>ILLA See end of o!tline& -I. /e$sgathering Torts level of prote#tion media re#eives diminishes sharpl* )hen tort o##!rs in the pro#ess of gathering information (rather then at p!3li#ation, A I/T,H.I(/ harm #a!sed 3* #ond!#t& not 3* the p!3li#ation of information WWnote that this is a priva#* #oa pre p!3li#ation Shulman v. G"oup W P"od 2; #amera taped a patient getting into a heli#opter& getting medi#al #are from flight n!rse d!ring e%tri#ation and transport to hospital >t denied SD for D& finding that there$s S of fa#t o Establishes the 2 elements: Intrusion into a pri ate placem con ersationC or matter Intentional penetration into the <one of pri acy Consider $hether person had a reasonable e0pectation of pri acy In manner highly offensi e to a reasonable person Galella v. 'nassis- @nassis see-s in/!n#tion to -eep Lallela (papara==i, a)a* 3# he$s harassing her >t granted in/!n#tion /!st 3# one is a p!3li# fig!re doesn$t mean that the* ma* 3e harassed (altho!gh normal a#ts )ithin the 3o!nds of ne)sgathering ma* not 3e restrained, o >rimes and torts #ommitted in ne)sgathering are 0@2 prote#ted Sande"s v. (&C reporter got /o3 at ps*#hi# hotline and re#orded #onvos or )or-ers o Even tho!gh it$s a )or-pla#e and others #an overhear #onvo& there is still a minim!m e%pe#tation of priva#* (not total, 3e#a!se p!3li# does not have !nfettered a##ess o Damages a)ard for intr!sion #an 3e in#reased if it is 3road#ast 3e#a!se the damages of the intr!sion are in#reased 3* the fa#t that it is 3road#ast Disting!ish from <L star )here info is la)f!ll* o3tained B. T,E..!A.. (ccurs $hen person enters property of another $@o authori<ation or consent Implied Consent 9 Flet#he" poli#e forget their #amera and as- press to ta-e pi#t!re of girl -illed in fire on private premises Pi#t!re is p!3lished and that$s ho) mom finds o!t her da!ghter dies Mom s!es for trespass& invasion of priva#* and IIED >t held that there is implied #onsent if poli#e #ome on *o!r prop media #an #ome along (th!s no trespass, o The media didnDt illegally enterJ not $idely follo$ed. 8e Minstral 01 resta!rant violated 01 health #odes Press films resta!rant )hile people are eating >t a)ards resta!rant #ompensator* damages o Even th!gh it$s a p!3li# a##ommodation& D didn$t avail themselves of this (no intent to 3!* food4drin-, o Leads !s to 3elieve if the* did p!r#hase& it )o!ld 3e o- this is no longer the #ase per #ood Lion C. EA-E.",(!!I/; A/" 3I,E TA!!I/; If you are $iretapping@ea esdropping 2 liable if reas e0pectation of pri acy o Sanders see a3ove If youDre publishing info you +no$ has been obtained by others tortuouslyC not only the tortfeaser but :(H as distributor are also liable: o Interceptor and distributor is liable: Boehner . Mcdermott the Martins (D1,& !sing a poli#e s#anner& overheard +oehner$s #ell phone #onversation Some of the info )o!ld 3e em3arrassing to Lingri#h& so the* get a hold of M#Dermott (D2, )ho gives #opies of the tape to the press >t holds that sin#e M#D got the tape from people )ho #ommitted an !nla)f!l a#t (the Martins, and he -ne) the* did so& he didnt o3tain the tape la)f!ll* and th!s sho!ld 3e held lia3le (disting!ish this from the la)f!ll* o3tained info in <L Star, >t !ses the intermediate tier @$+rien test (govts p!rpose m!st 3e something 3esides s!ppressing spee#h 3# the )iretapping stat!te is not in pla#e to s!ppress spee#h (it there to prote#t priva#*, the #t holds that the stat!te is #onst4passes the test, o Media is /(T liable so long as they played no role in illegal conduct and it is a matter of public concen: Bartnic+i . -(pper #71% illegal )ire inter#eption pla*ed on radio re !nion leader threats Priva#* #on#erns give )a* )hen 3alan#ed against the interest in p!3lishing legall* o3tained matters of p!3li# importan#e (Media got it legall,
Diana Sanders
16
ItDs a distinction b@$ pri ate and public concern 1, p!3li# iss!e (la3or disp!te, 2, defendant had no role in illegal inter#eption of #omm!ni#ation ". IA -iolations $hen Media !articipates in ;o t .er ice of .earch 3arrants Berger . )anlon 2 poli#e enter R )ith >00 to tape a sear#h )arrant in progress Poli#e had '!alified imm!nit* 3e#a!se #onst right against 3ringing media in )asn$t *et firml* esta3lished +!t Media #o!ldn$t lat#h on to govt imm!nit* >t loo-s at )hether there )as a R to #onspire 34) govt and private part* It )as done to 3enefit parties and govt a#ted to enhan#e entertainment rather than la) enfor#ement val!e So media lia3le for the trespass and IIED E. *raud and Breach of *iduciary "uty Taus . 8oftus *ood 8ion A+> reporters lie on appli#ation in order to get a /o3 at s!permar-et for p!rpose of filming an e%pose 2he* then 3road#ast program sho)ing mishandling of meat o !ress is liable for iolating la$s of general applicability #Cohen% 2resspass - It$s entr* into 3!siness& not home altho!gh the* )ere let in& the* e%#eeded their a!thorit* (3* e% Silming in non p!3li# areas averse to <L, >onsent is vitiated 3* an a#t that e%#eeds and a3!ses privilege of entr* +rea#h of lo*alt* fo!nd their interests )ere adverse to <L o *raud claim cannot stand 2he* #laimed the* hired 3ased on res!me misrep (not dis#losing the* )or- for A+>, 3!t #t sa*s it )as at )ill emplo*ement and the* )ere pa*ing them for the )or- the* )ere doing& 3ot 3e#a!se of statements on appli#ation o CanDt reco er !ublication damages the* tr* to get aro!nd proving a#t!al mali#e (the*$re p!3li# fig!res, for rep!tational damage 1A pre#l!des this re#over* !nless li3el re'!irements are met *. /E;8I;E/CE 0ormall* don$t permit lia3ilit* for p!3li#ation or 3road#ast !nless something more than ordinar* negligen#e o >o!rts are more re#eptive )ith ne)sgathering torts >o!rts )ill allo) lia3ilit* for F!n#ontrolla3le imp!lseG if 0 of D #a!ses him to #ommit s!i#ide Media #o!ld 3e lia3le for deaths and in/!ries of fed agents if the medial 0 alerted P to an impending raid on a se#t$s #ompo!nd +!t none of these #ases )ent an*)here& even tho the #laims )ere allo)ed ;. "AMA;E. >an re#over for ne)sgathering torts even if info is never p!3lished or 3road#ast ?e#over* depends on. o Does the tort la) allo) it 2 different vie)s on trespass damages. P!3li#ation damages not availa3le in a trespass #ase Damages are limited to o#onse'!n#es flo)ing from interferen#e )ith possession not for sepera3le a#ts more properl* allo#ated !nder other #ategories of lia3ilit* So damages are nominal and p!nitive onl* P!3li#ation damages are availa3le it in#l!des nonph*si#al harm s!3se'!ent to trespass @ther)ise trespasser en/o*s 3enefits of tort )4o f!ll* #ompensating P for loss o Does 1A permit it 1A does not prote#t tort!o!s ne)sgathering >ts are split tho a3o!t )hether 1A permits damages to 3e in#reased to ta-e into a##o!nt harm #a!sed 3* p!3li#ation Dietman& Sanders nothing in 1A is adversel* affe#ted 3* permitting damages for intr!sion to 3e enhan#ed 3* later p!3li#ation P entitled to re#over* of real harm Pierson v Dodd in/!r* from intr!sion and p!3li#ation sho!ld 3e separate P!3li#ation sho!ld loo- at )hether something is of p!3li# or private #on#ern If p!3li#& then the p!3li#ation has not invaded priva#* interests even tho!gh the #ond!#t !sed to o3tain info ma* have o <ood Lion. allo)ing p!3li#ation damages for tort!o!s ne)gathering )ill ena3le Ps to #ir#!mvent 1A o3sta#les the*$d fa#e if the* s!ed for p!3li#ation >an$t
Diana Sanders
20
re#over defamation t*pe damages !nder non rep!tational tort #laims )itho!t satisf*ing the stri#ter standard A Inducing Breach of & thin- a3o!t D W*gand and the movie the Insider (press pers!aded W*gand to 3rea- his R of #onfidentialit* and dis#lose that heads of to3a##o #o$s per/!red themselves, R terms that prevent emplo*ees from revealing per/!r* sho!ld 3e void agst p!3li# poli#* Loo- at other o!tlines
Diana Sanders
21
-II .ubpoenas and .earches A. ,eporterDs !ri ilege does the media en/o* the spe#ial priv of not having to div!lge its so!r#esQ 1. Is there a 1A Constitutional pri ilege5 /( 2 /( .C(TH. !,I-I8E;E Bran<burg #onsolidation of : #ases )here press ref!sed to reveal their so!r#es to fed and grand /!ries even tho!gh the* )ere s!3poenaed >t held that 1st A doesn$t prote#t press$s so!r#es from grand /!r* in'!iries (th!s press m!st dis#lose names of so!r#es, (doesn$t 3!* into #hilling effe#t arg!ment, o White )riting opinion sa*s media no diff than others (eg >ohen v Rahls, States #an ena#t their shield la)s if the* )ish o Po)ell$s #on#!rren#e& ho)ever& s!ggests that some sort of '!alifies priv remains (him P"dissenters, So he gives his vote to " /!sti#e ma/orit*& 3!t sa*s there$s privilege )hi#h means E /!sti#es are agreeing to privilege 2his is the opinion most shield la)s are 3ased !pon (li3erals, Sa*s that if the s!3poenad info is onl* remotel* related to the investigation& reporter #an move to '!ash o disting!ish from >ohen 3# this #ase is a3o!t govt enfor#ement of the la) In >ohen& a#tion is 3ro!ght 3* the so!r#e and the press vol!ntaril* revealed the so!r#es name to the p!3li# 2. Is there a common la$ pri ilege 3* 2002& all 3!t one federal #ir#!it #o!rt re#ogni=ed some '!alified #onstit!tional or federal #ommon la) privilege 2he* mostl* read !ran&bur%'s #on#!rren#es and dissent to esta3lish some privilege '. .tatutory !ri ileges State Shield La)s !ran&bur% had no effe#t on the 17 state shield la) stat!tes alread* in e%isten#e +* 2011& 22 more states ena#ted them <ederal Shield La)s over 100 3ills to ena#t have 3een filed in #ongress& 3!t none have 3een passed mostl* 3e#a!se of the media$s ina3ilit* to agree to terms 2he* )ere #lose to it re#entl*& 3!t Wi-ilea-s r!ined it I. The .cope of the !ri ilege: "efeating the Oualified !ri ilege o If it$s stat!tor*& stat!te )ill sa* )hat ho) to defeat it o Lon=ale= v 0+> dis#los!re ma* 3e ordered if there$s a #lear and spe#ifi# sho)ing that information is. Aighl* material and relevant& ne#essar* or #riti#al to the maintinan#e of the #laimO A0D 0ot o3taina3le from other availa3le so!r#es Alternative so!r#es. varies 3* state& 3!t m!st sho) more than an in#onvenien#e to the investigator 3efore reporter #an 3e #ompetlled to dis#lose so!r#es Note that this is pretty much (hat reporters (anted in &"an)bu"g "efeating the !ri ilege in 8ibel Casses o Easier to defeat here )here reporter is D in a li3el #ase 3e#a!se P$s need is o3vio!s if the* prove D is l*ing& the* )in 2here$s a ris- tho 3e#a!se if privilege #an 3e easil* over#ome 3* filing li3el s!it& it does little good to !phold it in other #onte%t In effort to ens!re people don$t /!st file this s!it to !n#over a so!r#e& there are a fe) tests Witho!t so!r#es& Ps )o!ld have hard time proving Fa#t!al mali#eG in def s!it o 2est 1. P provides anon*mo!s spea-er )ith noti#e of li3el s!it and opport!nit* to file a motion to '!ash in order to prote#t his identit* E% Posting noti#e )here don /oe posted his alleged defamator* statement P m!st sho) that li3el s!it is vial3le 3efore #o!rt )ill order dis#los!re of D$s identit* E% Sho)ing of good faith 3asis (some #o!rts also need, e%pli#it ad ho# 3alan#ing of P$s rep!tational interests against D$s right to spea- anon*mo!sl* o States differ on their prote#tion in li3el #ases 2he* ma* have stri#t r!les for #riminal ones and #ontempt& Constitutional ,ights of Criminal " $ill "efeat e en an Absolute !ri ilege o Even if there is an a3sol!te privilege& a D$s #onstit!tionl right right to #ompel testimon* and prod!#tion of do#!ments in his #riminal #ase prevailed over the shield la) Matter of *arber reporter )rote stor* that referred to a dr m!rdering his patients After stor* )ritten& #harges )ere 3ro!ght agst dr 2he dr and his la)*ers s!3poenaed do#s from the paper 3# the* )anted to -no) the so!r#es of the info 2he paper ref!sed and reporter fined and sent to /ail
Diana Sanders
22
(#ivil and #rim #ontempt, 0D S!p #t affirms the #ontempt #onvi#tion 3# +ran=3!rg held that media had no priv While #t re#ogni=es that 0D has a state shield la) the #t held that there )as tension 3t)n the state shield la) and the #onst right of the D to #onfront )itnesses and the #onst rights m!st prevail over state shield la) o A1P@. What if <ar3er didn$t )ant to go to /ail& so he named names& #an the n!rses s!e for 3rea#h of promise !nder Coehn v. Cahls "ediaQ 0@ - here there is a #o!rt order& so the original promise is there3* invalidated 3* the >o!rt and the >onstit!tion Aere <ar3er had no #hoi#e In Cohen& the* )eren$t for#ed to name names in 3rea#h of the promise& 3!t made an editorial de#ision to do so on their o)n 6. 3ho is a >,eporter? 2hose that not onl* release print media& 3!t radio and 2;& as )ell as digital media o @$Lrad* v S!perior >o!rt >ali 200N P operates online ne)s maga=ine a3o!t Apple #omp!ters and soft)are It p!3lished info a3o!t a ne) apple prod!#t and the mar-eting and man!f plans Apple filed s!it for misappropriation of their trade se#ret and )anted to learn identit* of )ho lea-ed the info >t fo!nd p!3lisher to 3e a reporter and didn$t #ompel 34# apple didn$t sho) the* e%ha!sted other aven!es of investigation Court sees these types of online reportin% ma%a&ines should have the protection of both the shield la( in the statute) and the similar lan%ua%e in the California constitution. *+eep in mind) California is a liberal state) not many others (ould a%ree , but then a%ain) liberality can come in different (ays,, you could say liberals (ould (ant to protect individuals a%ainst intrusive media -e.%. Schulman , helicopter rescue case) and Sanders , telepsychic. !oth in California.. So liberalism cuts both (ays/. G. Applying the !ri ilege in 8ea+s Cases Li-e @grad* #ase Lea-s #an 3e illegal& so reporter has eviden#e of a #rime S!alified rep privilege is often ineffe#tive in lea-s #ases 3e#a!se the reporter is li-el* to 3e the onl* person )hose testimon* #an 3ring the lea-er to /!sti#e o -alerie !lane Case 2 D!dith Miller spent 8E da*s in/!l for ref!sing to dis#lose so!r#e of lea-s from WA that revealed identit* of >IA agent ;alerie Plane >t said no >ont priv per +ran=3!rg& no fed >L privilege Even if '!alified privilege tho!gh& it )as over#ome 3* s!3stantial need In some #lases lea-$s val!e ma* far e%#eed its harm In lea-s #ases& in addition to 2 elements& also m!st )itgh p!3li# interest in #ompelling dis#los!re meas!red 3* the harm the lea- #a!sed against the p!3li# interest in ne)sgathering meas!red 3* the lea- information$s val!e M. Applying !ri ilege to /on Confidential Materials: When media insists on not dis#losing material not o3tained in #onfiden#e o @!tta-es #ases !np!3lished pi#t!res or video& reporter$s notes& et# +e#a!se there$s no promise of #onfidentialit*& there$s less of a rationale for prote#ting the info (no fear that #ompelled dis#los!re )ill #a!se so!r#es to stop tal-ing to reporters, Gon)ale) v. *&C (2nd #ir, private #ivil a#tion not grand /!r* (diff from +ran=3!rg and ;alerie, re o!tta-es not #onfidential (!nli-e ;alerie, Media here lost and had to t!rn over matierals o (Li3eral, #o!rt held that '!alified privileges applies to non#onfidential as )ell as #onfidential info +92 )here prote#tion is for non#ondifential info& there is a less demanding sho)ing M!st sho). materials at iss!e are of li-el* relevan#e to a signifi#ant iss!e in the #aseO A0D materials are not reasona3l* o3taina3le from other availa3le so!r#es So (hen loo+in% at this) as+0 1. is there a privile%e available to the person -is he a reporter. 2. 3as there been a sho(in% to overcome this privile%e -hi%hly relevant and material information4 and other sources exhausted. M. .earch 3arrants going dire#tl* to the media$s offi#es and sear#hing there instead of sending a s!3poena and telling them to 3ring the info Sear#h )arrants are more invasive "A onl* prote#ts against !nreasona3le SXS 0othing in "A %u"#he" v. Stanfo"d +ail investigators sear#hed ne)spaper offi#e in sear#h of photos to aid in the sear#h of :rd parties (people )ho atta#-ed #ops in a violent demonstration, S>@29S re/e#ts #laim that sear#h )arrant #o!ldn$t 3e dire#ted at :rd parties and 1A for3ids sear#hes dire#ted at media premises o 1A doesn$t prevent sear#hes of ne)spaper offi#es
Diana Sanders
2:
*ederal and .tate .tatutes: o "2 9S> 2000aa- ena#ted in response to 5!r#her <or3ids sear#h and sei=!re of do#s or an* )or- prod!#t of ne)spaper offi#es (an* disseminator of p!3li# #omm!ni#ation, does 0@2 appl* )here possessor of materials is a s!spe#t
Diana Sanders
2"
-II. Media Access to 1udicial !roceedings@ !rotecting the Criminal "Ds ,ight to a *air Trial this is to ens!re that the D has a fair trial I2 also #onsiders the interests of vi#tims and /!rors to have priva#* as )ell as integrit* of the legal s*stem A. Control of the Courtroom = !roceedings .hepard . Ma0$ell m!rder #ase )here the #onvi#ted D #laimed that press #reated #ir#!s-li-e atmosphere and denied him DP (3# /!r* tainted, S #t granted ne) trial holding that )hile press had a right to report on the trial it doesn$t have a right to interfere )ith the Ds right to a fair and impartial trial 2r #t sho!ld have ins!lated )itnesses& #ontrolled lea-s S #t s!ggests gag orders (prior restraints that #o!ld$ve 3een iss!ed agst parti#ipants & W$s& /!rors& #o!nsel, B. Access to Courtrooms Criminal !roceedings 2 generallyC crim trials are open to media o Constitutional ri%ht of access to crim trials may only be overcome in rare cases4 not only must the party see+in% closure demonstrate and 5overridin% interest)6 but closure order must contain detailed findin%s that (ill allo( an appellate court to conclude that it (as narro(ly tailored to conclude that interest. o Trials ;annet (1676, 1st #o!rtroom #ase to rea#h s #t A /!dge in 01 3arred the press and the p!3li# from a pre-trial hearing to determine )hether #onfessions in a m!rder #ase sho!ld 3e s!ppressed on gro!nds that the* )ere invol!ntar* 2he p!3lisher of a lo#al paper #hallenged the #los!re on Nth and 1st A gro!nds NA g!arantees a p!3li# trial to the D& not to the p!3li# >t didn$t de#ide )hether 1A #reated right of a##ess to the pro#eedings& 3!t held that even if it did& the tr /!dge #o!ld properl* determine that the right )as o!t)eighed in the #ir# of the #ase 3* the Ds right to a fair trial Note that althou%h this is still %ood la() it's been eroded OHA8I*IE" 1A ,I;)T T( ATTE/" C,IM T,IA8. ,ichmond /e$spapers (1680, m!rder #harge lad to a string of trials D )ants #t #losed Ps don$t o3/e#t so tr #t #loses #o!rtroom /e$spaper challenges 2here is a pres!mption of openness !nder o!r s*stem 1A guarantees right to attend criminal trials. A #rim trial #an onl* 3e #losed to the p!3li# )here eviden#e s!pporting the ne#essit* of the #los!re is prod!#ed and the tr /!dge is satisfied that no less restri#tive alternatives )o!ld s!ffi#ientl* safeg!ard the right of the D to a fair trial +# tr /!dge didn$t ma-e s!#h a finding& the #losing order )as reversed o This is high tiered analysis: .. o Ct. relies on "nis test #learned hand% must determine $hether the gra ity of the e il discounted by its improbability Austifies such in asion of *. and is necessary to a oif the danger >t 3ases this on traditional approa#h. ppl assem3le in p!3li# pla#es to spea-& listen& o3serve& learn 78annet (as distin%uished bc it decided only that there (as no const ri%ht for the public to attend a pre,trial suppression hearin%. $lso) 8annet (as decided on 9th $ %rounds : and this case is on 1st $ %rounds. o !re9trial !roceedings See Lannet& s!pra ,ichmond open access rule e0tends to !retrisl hearings !ress9Enterprise (168N, n!rse a##!sed of m!rdering patients Ae opted for #losed hearing and trans#ript of hearing )as sealed Aearing m!st 3e open to the p!3li# !nless #los!re is essential to a fair trial 1A applies if (1,the pro#ess has histori#all* 3een open to the p!3li# and (2,a##ess pla*s a signif role in proper f%ning of the pro#ess& f!rthermore& #t felt that Fs!3stantial pro3a3ilit*G& not Kreasona3le li-elihood$ (that pre/ )o!ld o##!r, sho!ld 3e the standard o WLannet has not 3een reversed& Press Enterprises deals )ith a diff -ind of pretrial hearing Pre-trial hearing !nder >A is diff from that in Lannet 3# in >A its a adversarial hearing that s!3stit!tes for a grand /!r* hearing (so its more li-e ?i#hmond, o Terrorism Cases
Diana Sanders
2E
Ci il Trial o S> onl* r!led right to a##ess to #rim trial in ?i#hmond 2he* haven$t r!led on #ivil *et Lo)er #ts have ass!med tho that 1A right to attend #ivil trials is at least as strong as the right to attend #rim ones so there$s a pres!mption that #ivil trials too sho!ld 3e open o Imigration Aearings. these are heard in spe#ial #o!rts 0o 1A right 3e#a!se no histor* of these trials 3eing open It$s a li3eral position 1u enile !roceedings o Delin'!en#* pro#eedings are !s!all* #losed 3* stat!tor* mandate or dis#retion of /!dge 2he* prote#t the selin'!ent from stigma of #ond!#t o >hild #!stod* pro#eedings are also !s!all* #losed Standard is F3est interest of the #hild G o Globe *ewspape" v. Supe"io" Ct. invalidated a#t re'!iring #los!re of /!3enile hearings >t said #ategori#al e%#l!sion too 3road 2his isn$t a3o!t histori#al openeness 3!t state interests So to den* a##ess& it$s still #ase 3* #ase SS anal*sis& 3!t state interests here are o3v higher than in ad!lt #ases o Conditional (##ess, D!dges sometimes allo) reporters #onditional a##ess on #ondition that the* don$t report on #ertain matters Courtroom photography and BDcasting o Photographing and4or 3road#asting #o!rtroom pro#eedings is vie)ed ver* differentl* than a##ess It$s a3o!t adverse effe#ts on D& )itnesses& /!rors& et# o Chandle" v. FL #1NK1% 2 #t !nanimo!sl* re/e#ted the vie) that televising #rim trial over o3/e#tions of D a!tomati#all* rendered trial !nfair D$s didnZt sho) adverse impa#t from the 2; -stes v. T. previo!sl* held that !se of 2; pres!mes pres!di#e and denial of DP +!t >handler said this onl* applies to #ases of )idespread interest It$s not a 3arring of media in all #ases and !nder all #ir#!mstan#es o .tate Courts 2 permit some photograph* to some e%tent E% Limiting television of /!r* sele#tion& 3en#h #onferen#e& et# o *ederal Courts: s!3stantial resistan#e to televising trials >ameras in #rim pro#eedings is prohi3ited Ele#troni# so!nds re#ordings are sometimes oo .+etching: !sed in states )here #ameras are 3anned S)eeping 3ans have 3een re/e#ted It$s li-el* 3e#a!se the danger (of pple /!rors 3eing identified, is not signifi#ant or immanent eno!gh to /!stif* #ensorship4
Moussaoui case: onl* person #harged in 01 for parti#ipation in 6411 >ts -ept #ase se#ret for 20 months >o!rt event!all* allo)ed some a##ess Media tried to get trans#ripts of 3en#e #onferen#es and same da* a##ess to do# e%hi3its 3!t "th #ir Denied a##ess to e%hi3its not *et p!3lished to /!r* or #on#ealed from p!3li# for reasons of national se#!rit* >t fo!nd no 1A or >L right to #ontemporaneo!s a##ess to these things 3efore end of trial >t also ref!sed to release a!dio tape of #o#-pit voi#e re#order (even tho the* released trans#ript, finding that priva#* interests of vi#tims and famil* o!t)eighted an* right of p!#li# to a##ess it Most L!antanamo 3at #ases of 200" )ere open to press on #onditions that the* don$t p!3lish an*thing the presiding offi#er )anted to -eep se#ret Se#ret Do#-ets held !n#onstit!tional 3!t still e%ist
C. Access to 1urors and 3itnesses 2W@ '!estions. o Does media have the right of a##ess to /!rors and )itnesses o Do /!rors and )itnesses have the right to spea- to mediaQ &utte"wo"th v. Smith onl* s# #ase addressing this iss!e ?eporter )as s!3poenad 3efore grand /!r* investigation #orr!ption in lo#al states A@ >t held reporter #alled as (itness 3efore grand /!r* has 1A right to dis#lose )hat he -ne) a3o!t the matter !nder investigation S!ggests that non /o!rnalist )itnesses have the same right o Ais right to dis#lose tr!thf!l& la)f!ll* o3tained info o!t)eighed interest sin preventing s!spe#ts from learning a3!t grand /!r* pro#eedings and in prote#ting those )ho might 3e a##!sed 3* not indi#ted D!rors names are !s!all* p!3li# information D!dges sometimes -eep names #onfidential in possi3l* endangering trials (e% Mafia trials, 3!t press has good arg!ment here the*$re den*ing a##ess to info histori#all* availa3le Intervie)ing /!rors. narro) restri#tions are allo)ed #an limit them from tal-ing a3o!t deli3erations @ther)ise it ma* affe#t #andor of f!t!re /!rors 9n#lear )hether rights of )itnesses to ma-e e%tra /!disi#al statements sho!ld 3e governed 3* the rights of /!rors& rights of attorne*s (Lentile, or rights of media (0e3ras-a, ". !rior ,estraints on the Media ;ag (rders against the media must meet a high tier test:
Diana Sanders
2N
1ustified uppn a sho$ing of substantial ris+ of material preAudice by pre9trial publicityC and no iable alternati es. o Note0 this is the conservative model. Liberals (anted no %a% orders /ebras+a !ress Assoc . .tuart famil* m!rdered in small to)n Simants arrested >t determined that there )as a #lear and present danger that pre-trial p!3li#it* #o!ld impinge on Simant$s right to a fair trial and iss!ed a gag order that prohi3ited all p!3li#it* Ct held that the rights of an accused must be balanced agst the publics right to +no$ but before a ct issues a protecti e order they must consider: (1, the nat!re and e%tent of the ne)s #overage (2, )hether other reas alternatives )o!ld 3e li-el* to mitigate the effe#ts of !nrestrained pretrial p!3li#it* (:, ho) effe#tive a restraining order )o!ld 3e in preventing the anti#ipated pre/ Aere& there )as onl* the possi3ilit* of pre/ no #onsideration )as given to other possi3le remedies (e% >hange of ven!e& se'!estering /!r*& trial postponement, 2h!s& S #t reversed the gag order /oriega Tapes 9>00 o3tained tapes 3t)n 0oreiga and his attorne* >00 ref!ses to t!rn over the tapes and /!dge iss!es restraining order >00 violates the order and 3road#asts the tapes >00 arg!ed that !nder 0e3ras-a Press& no prior restraint #o!ld 3e iss!ed in the a3sen#e of a finding that the info )o!ld threaten 0oreiga$s right to a fair trial >t of app held that >00 #o!ldn$t insist that s!#h findings 3e made and at the same time den* the tr #t a##ess to the tapes 2he* )ere held in #ontempt for violating the ?@ o
E. ;ag orders and ,estraints on Trial !articipants An alternati e to restricting media publication is to target its source 2 restrict attys and others in proceeding from ma+ing statements to media that may preAudice the trial. Most states ha e rules regulating $hat attys can say Lentile v State +ar (1661, 0; state 3ar r!le 3ars e%tra/!di#al statements that have a s!3st li-elihood of pre/!di#ing pro#eedings Lentile )as la)*er representing #rim D after #lient indi#ted att* held a ne)s #onferen#e in )hi#h he maintained that #lient )as inno#ent and that poli#e dete#tive )as g!ilt* State 3ar reprimanded att* for violating 0; stat!te S> reverses holding that r!le )as !n#onst vag!e 3!t held that la)*ers spee#h #o!ld 3e reg!lated !nder a less demanding standard than that esta3 in 0e3ras-a Press for reg!lation of the press o @nl* need legit govt interest to reg!late att* li-e rational 3asis& not SS +ea!fort >o!ntr* +@E v +ea!fort >o!nt* of >ommisionser (0> 2007, +@E alleged #ommissioners deli3eratel* !nderf!nded p!3li# s#hool s*stem 2> on its o)n motion orall* for3ade parties and their att*s from #omm!ni#ating )ith mermers of ne)s media regarding the litigation >t applied 0E3ra-sa rather tan Lentile sa*ing to maintina gag order& need to meet SS part* esta3lisheing order m!st sho). 1 >lear threat to fairness of triaO 2 2hreat is posed 3* the a#t!al p!3li#it* to 3e restrainedO : 0o less restri#tive alternatives >t va#ated order 34# 2> didn$t sho) eviden#e of detrimental effe#t on trial Lag @rders on. o o o o Media not !nless SS met- it$s a P? (0e3ras-a, 2rial Parti#iapnts not !nless SS met it$s a P? (+e!fort appl*ing 0e3ras-a, >!rrent att* o- if meet ?+ (Lentile, <ormer att* not s!3/e#t to gag order
Diana Sanders
27
IP. ,egulation of Broadcast 1ournalism A. Introduction: the nature of the broadcast spectrum and the )istory of *ed licensing. need li#ensing 3# onl* so man* fre'!en#ies (ele#tromagneti# spe#tr!m is a limited reso!r#e and )e need to prevent #haos Li#ensee might have gotten li#ense that 10 others )anted Li#ensee held li#ense for 3enefit of the p!3li# 1N2M Act onl* persons li#ensed 3* fed govt #o!ld 3road#ast& and onl* then on the fre'!en#ies and d!ring the times assigned to them +road#ast li#enses )ere iss!ed for a limited time rather then in perpet!it* *ed Communications Act of 1N'I repla#ed the $27 A#t o >overs ?adio and 2; o Still the 3asi# frame)or- for over the air #omm!ni#ation in 9S o >entrali=ed all fed #ontrol& in#l!ding li#ensing o Set !p the <>> B. *airness "octrine never part of the stat!tor* frame)or- of $:" A#t& instead it )as #reated 3* <>> +e#a!se at the time there )ere onl* : ma/or net)or-s& li#enses gave a lot of po)er So this re'!ired 3$#asters to (1, #over topi#s of p!3li# interest (#ontroversial iss!es, A0D (2, #over them fairl* Pro3lem is that this is #ompelled spee#h& against 1A >orrolar* ?!les. ?ILA2 @< ?EPL1 o 1. !ersonal Attac+ ,ule )hen d!ring the presentation of vie)s on a #ontroversial iss!e of p!3li# importan#e& an atta#- is made !pon the honest*& integrit*& #hara#ter of an identified person or gro!p& a tape of the atta#- m!st 3e sent to that person4gro!p and m!st offer them a reas opport!nit* to respond to the atta#- on the air o 2. !olitical Editorial ,ule )hen a li#ensee endorses a #andidate for offi#e& )ithin 2" hrs the li#ensee shall transmit to the opponent (a, noti#e of the date and time of the editorial (3,s#ript or tape (#,a free and reas offer to respond )0 and (pinion of the doctrine led to more spe#ifi# #orollar* r!les o #BCA.T% ,ed 8ion (9PA@LDS LAW, Program 3road#asted 3* ?ed Lion #ontained a personal atta#on >oo- >oo- as-ed for e'!al time to respond to the atta#- and ?ed Lion ref!sed ?L #laims PA? violates 1A 3!t #o!rt !pholds it sa*ing right of p!3li# is !ninhi3ited mar-etpla#e od ideas Lovt ma* treat li#ense as pro%* for #omm!nit* as )hole >+? 3!t it$s a non p!3li# for!m media doesn$t a!to get heightened prote#tion o #!,I/T% Miami )erald . Tornillo (S2?IRES D@W0 LAW, <L paper )rites arti#le endorsing 1 #andidate <L has a similar r!le to the <airness Do# 2he paper didn$t )ant to p!3lish a response 3* the #andidate the* didn$t endorse >t held that the paper did not have to p!3lish the response Print is traditional media so f!ll 1A rights - s#ared right of repl* )o!ld #hill spee#h
C. "emise of the *airness "octrine and $hat sur i es <airness Do#trine is repealed in 1680s 3* the <>> Said to th)art dis#!ssion of p!3li# iss!es 3$#asters )ere #ensoring themselves 34) the* feared <>> #omplaintsO impeded e%pression of !npol!lar opinionsO not reall* ne#essar* an*more 3e#a!se of e%plosive gro)th of other media >orollar* r!les are still good la) ?ed Lion has never 3een overr!led 3e#a!se (a, the idea that li#ensee holds li#ense to 3enefit the p!3li# 3egan to erode and (3, li#ensees de#ided not to 3road#ast #ontroversial vie)s ?9LES APPL1 @0L1 2@ +>AS2. 0ote that print media is traditional media and therefore gets f!ll 1A prote#tion 2raditional media are not li#ensed spea-ers 2he* sho!ldn$t 3e for#ed to set aside stories /!st to ma-e room for repl* It intr!des on the f!n#tion of the editor +#ast media gets different treatment 3e#a!se of s#ar#it* and pervasiveness +e#a!se of s#ar#it* of li#ense& there$s nothing in 1A that prevents it from re'!iring it to share its fre'!en#* (pro3a3l* not the #ase no) 34# of so m!#h ne) media, A Pacifica and Lea%ue of ;omen sho)s& 3e#a!se of foregoing reasons& +$#ast gets intermediate scrutiny. Cts ac+nolege that media is different no$C but are bound by scotus precedent. #*o0 . *CC% ". !(8ITICA8 BCA.T. Campaigns for Elected (ffice E4ual (pportunity .tatute #F'16 of communications act%2 if an* li#ensee shall permit an* #andidate (or their friends4s!pporters, to !se a 3road#asting station he shall afford his opponents the same e'!al opport!nit* Li#ensee
Diana Sanders
28
has no po)er of #ensorship over )hat the #andidates sa* in the 3road#ast 0o li#ensee has an o3ligation to let #andidates !se its station for this p!rpose o Bappel "octrine friends and s!pporters of #andidates are deemed F#andidatesG )ithin meaning of :1E 2his is a3o!t politi#al ads that don$t in#l!de fa#e of #andidate& 3!t rather info or his voting re#ord or positions on iss!es o exceptions to o3ligations triggered 3* Y:1E . appearan#es in ne)s#asts& ne)s intervie)s& ne)s do#!mentaries& on the spot #overage of a ne)s events& de3ates among ma<or #andidates (#an e%#l!de :rd part* #andidates, sponsored 3* 3road#asters ,easonable Access for *ed. Candidates #F'12% >ommission ma* revo-e a li#ense for )illf!l and repeated fail!re to allo) #andidate reasona3le time on air (p!rpose )as to give #andidates greater a##ess to media so the* #o!ld e%plain their stand and more f!ll* inform voters, o CB. . *CC - +#asters are free to en* sale of air time prior to #ommen#ement of #ampaign 3!t on#e it has 3eg!n& the* m!st give reasona3le and good faith attention a##ess re'!ests from legall* '!alified #andidates for fed ele#tive offi#e >t grants a limited right of reasona3le a##ess and ma* 3e invo-ed 3* #andidate onl* for the p!rpose of advan#ing their #andida#ies on#e a #ampaign has #ommen#ed FitZs the right of the vie)ers and listeners& not the right of the p!3lishers )hi#h is paramo!nt G !olitical Ads and Indecency #belo$% o Bec+er 2 +e#-er$s ad of a3orted fet!ses #a!sed #omplaints so station as-ed <>> if the* #o!ld air it at late night ho!rs >t said this violated no-#ensorship provision of :1E It inhi3ited manner in )hi#h he )as a3le to dis#!ss p!3li# iss!es and deprived him of a3ilit* to #onve* his message +* giving opponent prime time and not him& it )as not e'!al opport!nit*
E. (bscenity and Indecency (bscenity 2 se%!all* e%pli#it e%pressions o Lovt interest J preventing minors from 3eing !sed in films and prote#ting #aptive ad!lts (invol!ntar* a!dien#e, o Miller test (1, )hether average person appl*ing #ontemporar* #omm!nit* standards )o!ld find that the )oras a )hole appeals to the pr!rient interestO (2,)hether the )or- depi#ts or des#ri3es& in a patentl* offensive )a*& se%!al #ond!#tO A0D (:, )hether the )or- ta-en as a )hole la#-s serio!s literar*& artisti#& polit or s#ientifi# val!e (national standard Pape Li3erals adopted vie) that this sho!ld 3e vie)ed on rational 3asis, o Sale and distribution of obscene material that meet miller test are a violation. o Private possession of porn -obscene materials. is o+ because ct reco%ni&es the &one of privacy in home (ith consentin% adults-Stanley.. This doesn't extend to possession of childhood porn thou%h) as mere possession is a violation -=sborne.. =utside the &one of privacy of home) cts can punish possession by ma+in% a morally neutral <ud%ment of the tendency the material has to in<ury community) endan%er the public safety to maintain decent society -Paris Theater.. .tanley #ops raided mans ho!se and arrested him for having porn >ant p!nish the -no)ing possession of o3s#ene materials )ithin the priva#* of ones home (de#ided same time as Lris)old 3irth #ontrol #ase4#o!ples right to priva#*, (sborne& minors na-ed pi#t!res in home- -no)ing possession of #hild porn is an e%#eption to the Stanle* r!le !aris Adult Theatre Stanle* didn$t e%tend o!tside of the home state did have an interest in ad!lt theatres Indecency 0ot #onstit!tionall* defined li-e o3s#enit* is in "iller that )hi#h doesn$t #onform to the a##epted standards of moralit* Pr!rient interest element is not ne#essar* It$s s!3/e#t to 2PM restri#tions 3!t not s!3stantivel* o >ohen v >A (< the draft, Do!glas sa*s *o! #an$t #ompletel* prevent 3ad )ords o ,enton and :oung cases 9nder the @$+rien standard (intermediate tier, #t held the movie theatres sho)ing inde#ent movies #o!ld 3e p!shed aro!nd (in lo#ation for =ooming p!rposes, in a )a* that reg!lar theatres #o!ld not o !acifica 01 radio station 3road#ast >arlin$s 7 dirt* )ords monolog!e at 2pm Involves spee#h that is inde#ent& not o3s#ene and it has an element of 1A prote#tion >t holds that this #an 3e reg!lated it gets 2PM reg!lation (didn$t !se a high tier test (#ompelling govt interest, instead !sed s!3stantial govt interest, .
Diana Sanders
26
+$#aster is not a p!re 1A spea-er >aptive a!dien#e pro3lem4 eas* a##ess of #hildren WWthis is important Pervasiveness of media into the home& This speech has limited 1A protection 2 gets I. CA/ 8IMIT B: T!M TheyDre analy<ed under (brien #but note that itDs not really content neutral% Note that it's harder to re%ulate this on Cable and Internet because it's easier to personally blo% pro%rams *o0 . *CC #fleeting e0pleti e% 2 <>> fines !tteran#es of inde#ent and o3s#ene lang!age 3* radio or 2; 2hese are #ases from a)ards sho)s )here +ono& >her and 0i#ole ?i#hie drop the < 3om3 or some other profane )ord <>> had #on#l!ded that Ff!#-G and FshitG )ere pres!mptivel* inde#ent >t stri-es do)n <>> poli#* 9nder D>> poli#*& fleeting e%platives )ere allo)ed onl* if. +ona fide ne)s Demonstrae essential to the nat!re of an artisti# or ed!#ational )or- or essential to informing vie)ers on the matter of p!3li# importan#e Dela*ed transmission is often !sed >t entertains arg!ment that media is so different no) and theres so m!#h of iti and it #an 3e reg!lated 3* parents thr! te#hnolog* +!t the* are 3o!nd 3* s#ot!s pre#edent (IS in Pa#ifi#a, 0evertheless the* sa* <>>$s poli#* is !n#onstit!tional 3e#a!se it$s vag!e I< <>> #an$t anti#ipate )hat )ill 3e #onsidered inde#ent !nder its poli#*& it #an$t e%pe#t 3#aster to do it It ris-s dis#riminator* enfor#ement and #hills spee#h 3#asters )ont air #ontroversial programs o!t of fear of fines !olitical Ads = Indecency 2 see abo e
*. /on9commercial Broadcasting 1. 8eague of 3omenDs -oters P+S stations re#eive fed f!nds 3!t are also privatel* f!nded Provision in 16N7 a#t said that that an* non-#ommer#ial ed!#ational 3road#asting station that re#eives fed f!nding #ant editoriali=e (vie)point ne!tral, 2his )as #hallenged 3* the leag!e of )omen voters and )as fo!nd to 3e !n#onst >t held that restri#tions of this sort #o!ld onl* 3e !pheld )hen #t is satisfied that the restri#tion is narro)l* tailored to f!rther a s!3st govt interest (Pa#ifi#a and ?ed Lion are pre#edent, s!#h as ens!ring ade'!ate and 3alan#ed #overage of p!3li# iss!es 2. Ar+anssas Educ. -. *orbes non#ommer#ial govt station sponsored #andidate de3ate 3!t e%#l!ded little -no)n :rd part #andidate (remem3er this is o- !nder Y:1EC, 2he added element here is that this is a govt o)ned station :rd part* #andidate lost 3# #t l!mped him into non-p!3li# for!m #ategor* Moreover& 3road#asters de#ision to e%#l!de him )as a vie)point ne!tral e%er#ise of /o!rnalisti# dis#retion (didn$t in#l!de him 3# no #han#e of )inning,
Diana Sanders
:0
P. Cable T- and /e$ Technologies A. "e elopment of Cable T- and Early ,egulation fed reg!lation of over the air media (radio and 2;, is not designed to 3e preempted 3* state legis >a3le tv& ho)ever& #an 3e preempted 3* 3oth state and lo#al legis B. *ranchising Cable .ystems Earl* #a3le fran#ises )ere monopolies - lo#al reg!lators give fran#hise to one #a3le #o 3ased on (1, pri#e (2, #ontent of programming (:, the te#hnolog* the*$re !sing is it e%panda3le (", disr!ption #a!sed 3* la*ing the )ires o Also 3e#a!se 3ig start!p #osts if no g!arantee of monopol*& too dangero!s4ris-* >3annabes? 9 2hose that didn$t get a monopol* fran#hise got mad and s!ed lo#al reg!lators arg!ing the*$re 1A spea-ers o Are Cable .er ice (perators #C.(% .pea+ers under 1A5 :E.. !referred Communication #1NKG%- >S@ s!ed LA for violating 141"thA rights 3* its reg!lations4monopol* fran#hise& sin#e there )as s!ff (1, ph*s #apa#it* and (2, e#on demand for a 2nd #a3le fran#hise <ran#hise here arg!ed that >S@ )as #ommon #arrier Ct held they are spea+ers bc they originate a certain amount of orig programming and also editorial control Lo)er #o!rt m!st then esta3lished standard Sin#e 1A applies& #an$t 3e ?+ They use I. 2 (brien and sa* monopolies are not o- (it$s >0 3ea!se de#ision is as to )hat >S@ to gie fran#ase to is 3ased on TT& not it$s #ontent, In response& monopol* fran#hises are no longer allo)ed >ongress ena#ts >P>A that #ontains m!st #arr* r!les C. Must9Carry ,ules #a3le >o s m!st #arr* #ertain 3$#ast stations @ther)!se lo#al stations )o!ld go o!t of 3!siness 1. Turner I >S@ arg!es against m!st #arr* r!les 3ased on 1A S@? is @3rien (IS, sho!ld 3e !sed )hen tal-ing a3o!t #ontent reg!lation 3!t high tier test sho!ld 3e !sed )hen tal-ing a3o!t #ontent ne!tralit* Ma/ thin-s that this is a3o!t #ontent reg and th!s sho!ld appl* intermediate s#r!tin* 2. Turner II loo-s at the lo)er #ts eval!ation of )hether or not fed govt satisfied @$+rien test >t held that it did >t holds that 3road#ast #hannels )o!ld 3e harmed if m!st #arr* )as dropped It$s not a >+ iss!e& it$s an a##ess iss!e So m!st #arr* !pheld 3* @3rien @##oner in dissent sa*s it$s F#ontenti restri#tion favoritism to)ards lo#alismG '. ' problems that cable Co.s face - must carry - P>8 (p!3li# ed!#ational got #hannels, #hannels that lo#al govt re'!ires #a3le >o4s to #arr* - Leased access fed govt mandates that #a3le >o$s pi#- !p a #ertain n!m3er of #ommer#ial stations that don$t have the 3enefit of m!st #arr* (#a3le >o s have no sa* a3o!t )hat is on the sho)s, =brien -protestor burns draft card. It (as symbolic speech protected by 1$. Statute prohibitin% it (as CN -couldn't ruin card for other purpose. so la(s of %enerally applicability -not C!. can have incidental effects on speech and limit 1$ so lon% as they have a sufficiently important fovt interest in re%ulatin% the non speech elements -impt %ovt interest unrelated to suppression of speech.. ". Content ,egulationJ Indecency on Cable inde#en#* reg loo-s to Pa#ifi#a ()here the <>> imposed san#tions, Ma/or #onservative arg!ment is that #a3le >o s #annot -eep !p )ith the gro)ing n!m3er of #hannels 2he li3eral arg!ment is that there are parental #ontrols )here parents #an 3lo#- o!t #ertain #hannels Inde#ent spee#h is lo) val!e spee#h <# v <>> fleeting e%platives Sho!ld SS appl*Q ?ed Lion X Pa#ifi#a >+ #ontrol is o- per IS Leag!e of Women IS for 2; reg!lations Li3erals #on#ede SS isn$t the standard 2!rner not vie)ed as >+ .. is re4uired for indecency because regulation is CB. o H. . !layboy (2000, - YE0E of 2ele#om A#t of 166N added to prevent #hildren from seeing images from signal 3leed ?e'!ired f!ll s#ram3ling or 3lo#-ing of inde#ent programming& or restri#tion of transmission 3* time -ids )ill )at#h SS is re'!ired for this >+ reg!lation >t stri-es do)n sa*ing E0E is !n#onstit!tional 3lo#-ing me#hanisms are s!ffi#ient to prote#t #hildren Pro3lem )ith signal 3leed is not seir!s eno!gh for govt to ena#t stat!tor* s#heme to prevent a##ess !ntil 10pm 2here )ere less restri#tive means #an 3lo#- #hannel )ith s!3s#ri3ers re'!est so there )as less govt interest and narro) tailoring sin#e te#hnolog* )as there to 3lo#a##ess to #hildren
Diana Sanders
:1
Denver Area v <>> :stat!te re'!ired #a3le operators to segregate inde#ent programming and 3lo#- it from all e%#ept thos )ho spe#ifi#all* ordered it S SS is re'!ired for >+ reg!lation it )as overl* restri#tive and not narro)l* tailtored to restri#t #hildren$s a##ess S> str!#- this do)n S> !phold part of stat!te allo)ing >S@s to ref!se inde#ent programs on #hannels it leased >S@ #a!sed net)or-s to s#ram3le #hannels to 3e !nlo#-ed )ith a fee to the >S@ 9pheld provision that prohi3its >S@s to prohi3it inde#ent and o3s#ene programming transmitted over the leased a##ess (#ommer#ial, #hannels (sin#e >S@s #annot pi#- )hi#h #ommer#ial stations to #arr* (:, 10(#, #onst voided >S@s #o!ld prohi3it inde#en#* on PEL #hannels +!t #t voided 3# there$s a diff 3t)n leased a##ess and PEL #hannels (PEL #hannels s!3/ to other reg!lations that )o!ld pro3a3l* s#reen o!t inde#en#*& and it )o!ld end !p preventing programming that$s not reall* o3s#ene e g& reprod!#tive s*stem shit
2a-ea)a*. P?I02 SS 2his is traditional media& gets f!ll 1A prote#tion +>AS2 IS 0on traditional media& gets less prote#tion 34# of s#ar#it* and pervasiveness >A+LE. if the reg!lation is >0 (e% M!st #arr* r!le applies to all #hannels irrespe#tive of the programming,& then the test is @$+rien 2PM I S in#idental effe#ts on spee#h If the reg!lation is >+ (e% Inde#en#*,& then the test is SS
Diana Sanders
:2
PI. Computers and the Internet A. ,egulation of Indecency on the Internet !rior ,estraints and the Internet o >ase sho)s )h* Lovt #o!ld not p!rs!e a prior restraint in the age of the Internet. F)e live in 0ear v M0 )orldG 3!t prof 3elieves even here& )e #an p!nish releasing >IA agents names o Ban+ 1ulies . 3i+ilea+s #/.". Cal 277K%2 )i-ilea-s releases #onfidential govt do#s on its site #laiming& among other things& >a*man Islands 3an- #ommitted fra!d and t% evasion +an- s!es )i-ilea-s D!dge orders 2?@ then dissolves WR has Fmirror sitesG in other #o!ntries registered )ith other domains so it #o!ld evade the in/!n#tion so the in/!n#tion doesn$t reall* do an*thing 2he* p!3li#i=ed on internet that info still availa3le on other sites (2his is li-e Pro%ressive (A +om3, #ase, (2o go against p!3li#ation of this& !randenbur% )o!ldn$t )or- 34# no immanen#* so need Dennis, !roblems $ith this case: 1urisdiction 2 P +an- is an alien (s)iss and >an*an Island, and D )e3site is alien (A!stralia and Ren*a, so >t li-el* #an$t get SMD !ublic Interest 2 infringement of 1A right to re#eive info and ideas ?estri#ting spee#h pending final resol!tion (in/!n#tion, is impermissi3le Efficacy of InAunction: p!rpose defeated 3e#a!se of mirror sites in diff #o!ntries F#at is o!t of the 3ag G In/!n#tion also m!st 3e narro)l* tailored (e% @nl* reda#ting of ident*fing info on do#s, *CC ,egulation of the Internet and I.!. o Cable .ystems are Info Carriers not Common CarriersC so >Must Carry? rules do no Apply to I.!.. Brand P 2 S> !pholds right of <>> to determine that +road3and providers did not have to let rival ISPs pigg*3a#- on their servi#es If #a3le operators )ere deemed #ommon #arriers& then the* #o!ldn$t e%#l!de #ompeting ISPs a##ess to their net)or- (e% ;eri=on phone #o m!st 3ring in rival ISPs, +!t 3e#a!se it$s deemed an information #arrier& it does not have to share its lines Importan#e of this is that it #o!ld determine ho) high speed internet servi#es #omes online& )hat frat!res it has& and ho) m!#h it$ll #ost o Comcast . *CC #"C 2717% 2 >om#ast )as interfering )ith !sers$ !se of P2P net)or-ing apps 9sers filed #omplaint )ith <>> <>> iss!ed order finding that >om#ast impeded #ons!mers a3ilit* to a##ess #ontent and apps of their #hoi#e <>> #an reg!late #ommon #arriers #an the* reg!late Info >arriers as an#illar* a!thorit*Q 0@ <>> la#-s an#illar* /!risdi#tion (no a!thorit* !nder :" A#t, to prevent ISPs from slo)ing or 3lo#-ing a##ess to )e3sites in p!rs!it of its poli#* of Fnet)or- ne!tralit* G ISPs arg!ed for traditional model the* !se po)er to slo) some !sers& and #harge s!r#harges on faster a##ess treat internet as >a3le 2; <>> )anted ever*thing given on a non dis#riminator* 3asis no fees for Fpo)er !sers G 2he* )ant net)or- ne!tralit*& )hi#h treats ISPs as #ommon #arriers (li-e phone, rather than info #arriers (li-e #a3le, o After >om#ast& <>> proposed ne) net)or- ne!tralit* r!les Child !orn ,egulation on the Internet o ,EA8 &I". *erber 2 se%!al depi#tions of a#t!al minors re#eive no #onstit!tional prote#tion 0ote that these depi#tions don$t have to meet the Miller test o /(T ,EA8 &I". H. . 3illiams 2 irtual child porn 2 upholds stat!te that p!nished -no)ingl* advertising& presenting& promo& distri3!ting or soli#iting material Fin a manner that refle#ts the 3elief or is intended to #a!se another to 3elieve that the material in#l!des a vis!al depi#tion of an a#t!al minor engaging in #ond!#t G Aeld. offers to provide or re'!ests to o3tain #hild porn are #ategori#all* e%#l!ded from 1A (even if there are not real -ids, >onsisten#* )ith <S> *o! #an$t p!nish possession of the material (<S>, 3!t *o! #an p!nish mar-eting and selling it So if <er3er doesn$t appl* (not real -ids, and Miller doesn$t appl* (not o3s#ene, then )hat is the /!stifi#ationQ 2he val!e and harm are 3oth reall* lo) o >hild porn prote#tion a#t #riminali=ed the distri3!tion of an* image that is or appears to 3e of a minor engaging in se%!all* e%pli#it #ond!#t Indecency ,egulation on the Internet: !orn and &ids
Diana Sanders
::
Communications "ecency Act #C"A% of 1NNG #F672#e%%9 >riminali=ed -no)ing transmission of inde#ent message to an "e#ipient !nder 18& and the -no)ing sending or displa*ing of patentl* offensive messages in a manner available to person !nder 18 ,eno #t held the >DA !n#onst vag!e and over3road >2 noted that this is not li-e Pa#ifi#a or Lins3erg 3# !sers seldom en#o!nter se% material a##identall* (3# have to sear#h& are fa#ed )ith )arnings also 3e#a!se theres no s#ar#it* on internet, and th!s this is diff than radio and 2; Also there are devi#es and )arnings that parents #an !se Aere& the #t pi#-s !p on the fa#t that there$s no real definition of inde#ent spee#h Also& it #hills ad!lt #omm!ni#ation . *ails .. #since itDs CB% 2 not narro$ly tailored so as to not interfere $ith legitimate speech b@$ adults o Child (nline !rotection Act #ongress responded to the de#ision in ?eno 3* ena#ting a more limited inde#en#* provision 2his a#t is limited to persons engaged in the 3!siness of #omm!ni#ating material that is harmf!l to minors& affirmative defense J if D in good faith has restri#ted a##ess to minors (3* re'!iring !se of >>& ad!lt ID #ode4a##ess #ode& 3* a##epting a digital #ertifi#ate that verifies age& or 3* other reas meas!res, Enfor#ement )as en/oined immediatel* finding it )o!ld 3e li-el* !n#onstit!tional for same reasons as Reno and Playboy. Ashcroft . AC8H II - stri-es do)n >@PA >o!rt e%amined )hether #omm!nit* standard provision as per miller sho!ld 3e applied or national standard this is still not respolved stat!te re'!ired *o! to opt in if *o! )ere an ad!lt and ID *o!rself >o!rt stri-es it do)n& finding this re'!irement too intr!sive So altho!gh the govt interest )as #ompelling& this )asn$t the least restri#tive )a* (fails SS, 2he* esta3lish filtering as a less restri#tive alternative M!st find a less restri#tive alternative that is more effe#tive means of restri#ting a##ess +issent. <iltering is not an alternative It$s the stat!s '!o re'!ires nothing (1, some porno )ill pass thr! s*stemO (2, filtering #osts TTO (:, depends on parents to de#ide )here their #hildren )ill serf net to enfor#e itO (",the 3lo#- la#-s pre#ision *ote that /ust as in Pla bo 0 the fa#t that some paents would not avail themselves of the oppo"tuni"t (li$e filte"ing1 did not ne#essa"il ma$e filte"ing an ineffe#tive alte"native >t !pholds in/!n#tion in ?eno& remands to Distri#t #o!rt D> again r!les >@P !n#onstit!tional as over3road and va!ge :rd >ir affirms in A>L9 v Ma-ase* S>@29S denies #ert Ta+ea(ay0 ;illiams is to "iller as #SC is to Stanley 8ovt can punish the creation and distribution of it -#erber. and display of it -=sborn.. It cannot punish possession of (hat is passed off as it but isn't -#SC. but can %o after the sellin% of same -;illiams.. o
B. "efamation on the Internet- Y2:0 imm!ni=es #omp!ter servi#e providers li-e A@L from lia3ilit* for info that originates )ith :rd parties Lenerall* o Beran A@L not lia3le for defamation per Y2:0 p!3lisher even tho!gh it )as dela*ed in ta-ing do)n offending ad o The "rudge ,eport A@L not lia3le for Dr!dge ?eport even tho!gh it finan#ed it >o!rt reads Y2:0 3roadl* to imm!ni=e ISP from defamation >ompelled Dis#los!re of ISP of anon*mo!s defamers identitiesQ
8iability Abroad: >8ibel Tourism: o Plaintiff$s attempt to for!m sho) for a /!r )ith the most favora3le li3el la)s o (ur *ed 8ibel 8a$ of 2717. domesti# #o!rts shall not re#ogni=e or enfor#e foreign /!dgment for defamation !nless the part* see-ing enfor#ement esta3lishes either (1, foreign la) has as m!#h prote#tion as o!r 1AO or (2, part* opposing enfor#ement of foreign /!dgment )o!ld 3e fo!nd lia3le for defamation if tried here !nder o!r 1A and state la) We also )on$t enfor#e /!dgments in#onsistent )ith Y2:0 o .ufficiency of 1urisdictional Contacts .ingle publication rule all p!3li#ations of the same )or- are treated as a single p!3li#ation o##!rring on the date of 1st p!3li#ation 2his e#onomi=es the amnt of /!ris on a #ase
Diana Sanders
:"
!,I/T &eeton . )ustler P )as allo)ed to 3ring A!stler to #t in 0A even tho!gh #ir#!lation in 0A onl* #onstit!ted 1I of total #ir#!lation (the SL had r!n o!t in all other states, I/TE,/ET "o$ 1ones L!tni#- A!stralian high #o!rt held that 01 p!3lisher of +aron$s mag #o!ld 3e s!ed in A!stralia !nder its la) for statements made on +arron$s )e3site a3o!t A!stralian 3!sinessman& even tho!gh the p!3lisher had no ph*si#al presen#e there and onl* small H of s!3s#ri3ers there Iss!e )ith internet is that material posted on internet is 3asi#all* p!3lished ever*)here and th!s s!3/e#t to /!risdi#tion an*)here "isparity of Media !rotection ?ameel v. ;S? (9R 0N, #o!rt anal*=ed )hether the arti#le as a )hole )as on a s!3/e#t of p!3li# interest and def statement )as s!ffi#ientl* related to itO and )hether steps ta-en to gather and p!3lish info )ere responsi3le and fair 2his )as a 3ig step for them and ma/or advan#e in freeing press from oppressive li3el la)s S!llivan& Lert=& Aepps #learl* more prote#tive of press and free spee#h
@>ILLA Safe Aar3or limitations of lia3ilit* providers of 2itle II of DM>A Safe har3or stat!te ISPs #an #laim a3sol!te imm!nit* from #ontri3 lia3ilit* of U infringement Alleged U violations 3* an ISP the ans)er doesn$t lie in Y2:0 or the 5eran #ase (this #overs tort lia3ilit* defamation, +asis of this ne) and evolving stat!te iss!e of <9 and Elron A!33ard More #onservative 2nd #ir#!it at the time disagreed )ith him and said no <9 +!t in an* #ases& it$s lat#hes 2eligious Te#h Cente" v. *et#om (0 D >al 166E, #riti#ism of L ?on A!33ard over the internet 9lri#h #riti#i=es s#ientolog* and !ses A!33ard$s )or-s 9lri#h posts this to +!lletin +oard r!n 3* >elemnsr!d& +!lletin +oard !ses 0et#om as ISP Sho!ld ISP 3e lia3le for U #ommitted 3* s!3s#ri3er of ++Q 0et#om raises 1A and <9 defense >t sa*s ?2>$s #laims fail 3!t ref!ses to grant SD for 0et#om sa*ing there$s S of <a#t - the* #an$t 3e lia3le for )hat is posted& 3!t #an 3e lia3le if the* don$t ta-e material do)n '!i#-l* eno!gh <inall* the #t held that adopting a r!le that held 0et#om lia3le #o!ld lead to lia3ilit* of #o!ntless parties )hose role in the infringement is nothing more than setting !p and operating a s*stem that )as ne#essar* for the f!n#tioning of the internet Dire#t infringement. 9lri#h pres!ma3l* has <9 do#trine >ontri3!tor*. 0et#om for ena3ling infringement ;i#ario!s. >lemmens!rd generall* re'!ires agen#* relationship (arg!ment !sed in dr!dge report,
E[AM 1 re#ogni=e possi3le #ontri3 U #laim against ISP 2 remem3er that it$s not !nder the tort imm!nit* 2:0 stat!te /!st remem3er that it$s @>ILLA