Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts

Friday, December 6, 2013

Judge Denies Access to Jurors' Twitter Accounts in Arias Sentencing Phase

Seal of Maricopa County, Arizona
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Maricopa County (Ariz.) Superior Court Judge Sherry K. Stephens this week denied a request by attorneys for convicted killer Jody Arias to compel jurors to divulge their Twitter account information, Phoenix-based ABC15.com reported.

Arias was convicted last May for the 2008 murder of her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander, but the jury was unable to agree on sentencing, prompting a retrial on the sentencing phase in the case in which the state is seeking the death penalty.

Defense counsel asked Judge Stephens for the jurors' Twitter account information so that their tweets could be monitored to ensure no discussion of the case outside of the courtroom. The prosecution opposed the move as invasive of the jurors' right to privacy.

Judge Stephens ruled there was no basis to order the data revealed absent a credible allegation of juror misconduct.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Gitmo Hearings Behind Closed Doors

English: Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Aug. 13, 2004) ...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The inaugural Periodic Review Board ("PRB") hearing of Guantanamo Bay detainee Mahmud al Mujahid, 33, scheduled for today excludes the press and will be conducted beyond closed doors, the Jurist.org Web site reports.

President Barack Obama established the PRB via an executive order in 2011 whose aim is to review the status of certain detainees at Guantanamo Bay to gauge whether continued incarceration is warranted in the interest of national security. The Dept. of Defense has indicated 71 detainees are in line for a PRB hearing to determine whether transfer or release may be allowed.

The decision to bar the press and public from the proceedings is a tone-deaf one for an administration that could only benefit from the transparency to which it often pays lip service.  The framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized in the Sixth Amendment the importance of public trials. At the very least, it should be incumbent on government attorneys to meet the burden of proving that the Constitution does not apply to the PRB hearings.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Penn. Journos Gain More Access to Inmate Executions

The sign above the entrance to The Philadelphi...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Attorneys for the Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections and The Philadelphia Inquirer and The [Mechanicsburg]Patriot News have settled a First Amendment dispute that expands what reporters may observe during the execution of prisoners, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Web site reports (www.rcfp.org).

Under the agreement, reporters may witness capital punishment being carried out from the moment an inmate enters the execution chamber until he or she is declared dead. Authorities retain the right to cut the audio portion if the prisoner verbally threatens the witnesses to the execution.

Attorneys for the media outlets argued on First Amendment grounds for changes to the Commonwealth's Capital Case Procedure Manual, including opening the curtain so that the inmate may be seen being brought into the execution chamber and having catheters inserted into his or her arms.

The rcfp noted that 191 inmates are currently on Death Row in Pennsylvania, which has executed three prisoners since 1995.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

New Calif. Law Makes Stars' Kids Off-LImits

English: Halle Berry in Beverly Hills, Califor...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
California Gov. Jerry Brown last week signed into law Senate Bill 606, amending Chapter 348, Sec. 11414 of the Penal Code, that, in some cases, criminalizes photographing the offspring of celebrities.

The measure, which takes effect January 1, 2014, has drawn fire from news media organizations and free press advocates who argue SB 606 infringes on First Amendment rights through its vague wording and definition of terms such as harassment and reasonable child, and by restricting the photographing of individuals in the public arena where they lack a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Under the bill, which was introduced by Los Angeles Democratic Sen. Kevin de Leon, minors under age 16 who are children of celebrities are protected against individuals who intentionally harass a person's child "because of that person's employment." The law defines harassment as intentional conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the minor and "serves no legitimate purpose." Encompassed within the definition is "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the youth without parental permission.

First offenders face a maximum $10,000 fine and up to a year in jail. A second violation carries a five-day jail sentence and a maximum $20,000 fine, while a three-time loser under the act could receive a 30-day jail term and be socked with a $30,000 fine. Photographers prosecuted under the law also are exposed to civil liability from the parent or guardian of the minor, that could include punitive damages.

Famous Hollywood moms have backed the law, including Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry, the latter of whom testified before the Senate's Public Safety Committee.  California already boasts a strong anti-paparazzi law [Calif. Civ. Code Sec. 1708-1725] (see "TUOL" post 10/15/09).

Taking the image of the star child is a criminal offense under the new law, but distributing images of the celebrities' kids is not against the law.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, September 19, 2013

UPDATE: 4th Circ. Says Clicking Facebook 'Like' Icon 1st A. Protected Speech

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In an important free speech decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit this week in Bland v. Roberts (Case No. 12-1671) reversed the trial court and found that clicking the thumbs-up Like icon on Facebook constitutes First Amendment-protected speech.

The case involved Hampton (Va.) Sheriff B.J. Roberts who, following his re-election in a hotly contested struggle with challenger Jim Adams, fired Daniel Ray Carter among other deputies who had "Liked" Adams' Facebook page in 2009 (See "TUOL" post 5/1/12). The ousted lawmen sued on the grounds that their First Amendment rights had been trampled, but United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Judge Raymond Jackson found against them, ruling: "[L]iking a Facebook page...is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection."

But, according to accounts in The Wall St. Journal, The Volokh Conspiracy blog and elsewhere, the Fourth Circuit begged to differ in its 81-page decision, finding that the deputies' icon-clicking was both pure speech and symbolic speech worthy of First Amendment protection. Liking a candidate's Facebook page, the appellate panel said, "is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one's front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech."  Moreover, clicking the thumb icon is symbolic speech in that the actor, through his conduct, is intending to convey a message, and that intended message--Jim Adams would be a good sheriff-- is reasonably understood by the audience.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Pakistani Party Threatens New York Times With Libel Suit

English: A 4 Megapixel picture of Badshahi Mos...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Former New York Times Pakistan Bureau Chief Declan Walsh and the Gray Lady herself  face a $10 million defamation suit from Pakistan's Muttahida Qaumi Movement party for allegedly sullying the reputation of the faction's leader-in-exile Altaf Hussain, the India Times reported this week.

The party demanded the Times and Walsh apologize for "baseless reporting" about Hussain, who has lived in London since an unsuccessful attempt on his life in Pakistan in 1992. Walsh was expelled from Pakistan in May of this year after the interim government accused him of engaging in "undesirable activities," according to the India Times article.

The article did not include a reaction from Times officials to the defamation claim. The paper may take solace in the SPEECH Act (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) [Pub. L. 111-223), which President Obama signed into law in 2010 (See TUOL" post 8/11/10). The measure prevents the enforcement of foreign libel judgments in U.S. courts if they run counter to protections afforded by the First Amendment.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, September 9, 2013

Don't Mess With the Lessig

English: 3:4 Portrait crop featuring Lawrence ...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School Professor and champion of a less copyright-restricted Internet, last month joined forces with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against a Melbourne, Australia-based record company that accused the professor of infringing on a copyrighted song by using it in a lecture presented on YouTube.

In his 11-page complaint, Lessig v. Liberation Music Party Ltd. (Case No. 1:13-cv-12028), the professor is seeking injunctive relief, damages and declaratory judgment from the Court under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act [17 U.S.C. sec. 512] that his use of a 2009 tune, Lisztomania, by French songsters Phoenix in the YouTube lecture was protected by the Copyright Act's Fair Use provision [17 U.S.C. sec. 107].

Under the Fair Use defense against infringement claims, the Court weighs factors, including the purpose and character of the use of the copyrighted material, whether the use was for commercial or nonprofit educational purposes, the nature of the copyrighted work, and the amount and substanitality of the portion used.

According to an account of the case in The Boston Globe, Liberation Music claims to hold the copyright on Lisztomania and sent correspondence to Lessig accusing him of violating its license. In turn, Lessig claims in his complaint that the Down Under record company is abusing the Copyright Act and abridging his First Amendment rights.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Blog Journo Appealing Ill. Judge Order to Reveal Confidential Sources

Interstate 80 bridge over the Des Plaines Rive...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
AOL Patch reporter Joe Hosey has been ordered to appear at an Oct. 3 status conference by Illinois 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Gerald Kinney regarding the judge's ruling that Hosey reveal confidential sources who provided him gory details about a double murder in Joliet, according to articles by the Chicago Tribune and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Web site (www.rcfp.org).

Hosey is appealing Judge Kinney's ruling based on a motion for a gag order brought by attorneys for the four defendants in the gruesome killings covered by Hosey in the Joliet Patch beginning last January. Hosey's articles included grisly details attributed to police reports, including that two of the defendants allegedly had carnal relations on top of the victims' corpses and that one of the defendants purportedly wanted to keep the victims' teeth as a trophy.

More than 500 individuals involved in the case, including police officers and attorneys, were compelled to sign affidavits stating they had not provided Hosey with the confidential information. The court wants Hosey to testify to determine whether Grand Jury rules were violated by the leaking of the information. Attorneys for the veteran journalist argue Hosey should be protected from disclosing the confidential information by Illinois' shield law [75 Ill. Comp. Stat. secs. 5/8-901 to 8-909].
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 22, 2013

State Appeals Court Nixes Law Barring Sex Offenders from Social Networking Sites

North Carolina State Legislative Building
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In State of North Carolina v. Lester Gerard Packingham (Case No. 10CRS57148), the North Carolina Court of Appeals this week unanimously declared unconstitutional N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 14-202.5, which made it a Class I felony for a registered sex offender to access commercial social networking Web sites that permit minors to become members.

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 14-208.7, persons convicted of sexually violent offenses or offenses against minors after 1996 must register as sex offenders and maintain that registration for a minimum 30 years. The appellate court overturned the social networking ban on First Amendment grounds because it "arbitrarily burdens" registered sex offenders from engaging in modes of communication and expressive activity without actually shielding children from sexual predators.

According to the Jurist Web site, a federal court earlier this year overturned an Indiana statute barring sex offenders from social networking sites, ruling the law did not survive strict scrutiny review mandated in free speech cases.


Enhanced by Zemanta

HuffPo Next Month to Require Commenters to Use Real Names

English: Arianna Huffington attending the prem...
Photo credit: Wikipedia
Beginning in September, the Huffington Post will require commenters on their posts to use their full given names, founder Arianna Huffington said yesterday.

As reported in The Boston Globe and elsewhere, HuffPo, which claims to have generated more than 260 million comments on its posted stories (& sideboob images of celebs of the Miley Cyrus & Rhianna ilk, no doubt) since its inception in 2005, will no longer allow comments by pseudonymous posters. Presently, the mega-news aggregator employs 40 human monitors and an advanced screening algorithm, but Huffington says more is needed in our ever-coarsening culture.

The Globe story quoted Huffington as saying: "I feel that freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they say and not hiding behind anonymity."

The U.S. Supreme Court did not share those sentiments in McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 341-42 (1995). Anonymity, the High Court said, "exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular." In leaving it up to authors to decide whether to identify themselves, the Court wrote: "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

Keep that in mind, Arianna, when you ask followers to add monikers to their reactions to stories such as Jen Aniston Wows in white bikini.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, August 2, 2013

Acquitted Anthony Retains 'Her Story' in Settlement with Bankruptcy Trustee

English: Casey Anthony has been booked into th...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida Judge K. Rodney May has accepted an agreement between Trustee Stephen L. Meininger and Casey Anthony concerning the disposition of the rights of her life story involving her 2011 acquittal in the trial for the murder of two-year-old Caylee Anthony, whose remains were discovered in December 2008.

The Orlando Sentinel reported that the 27-year-old Anthony, who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy last January citing $792k in debt, will pay $25,000 to the bankruptcy estate and put to rest any struggle over whether her story constitutes an asset.  Last March, Meininger asked the Court for "exclusive worldwide rights" to Anthony's story as an asset to satisfy creditors, but withdrew his motion two months later. Anthony's attorneys, according to the Sentinel article, claimed compelling the sale of Anthony's story violated her First Amendment rights and would be invasive of her private thoughts.

Anthony has maintained a low profile since the around-the-clock cable tv coverage of her highly charged trial.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Federal Shield Law in Limbo Until the Fall

English: Charles Schumer, United States Senato...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Senate Judiciary Committee this week bolstered a proposed federal shield law, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (S. 987), but failed to muster a final voice vote on the measure before adjourning for Congress' summer recess.

Senators were unable to agree on criteria defining who would be a  journalist eligible for protection from having to reveal confidential sources and information to authorities. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) acknowledged that information-gathering has evolved and favored a broader interpretation of journalist, whereas Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) was wary of bloggers and WikiLeaks and said the shield law should only cover "real reporters."

The Committee did unanimously consent to a "manager's amendment" that requires a judge to rule on whether a notice of a subpoena to a journalist could be delayed and would require a judge to sign off on a 45-day extension of the original 45-day suspension of notice.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

No WAAY: TV Reporter Fired for Personal Blog Disclosures

WAAY-TV
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Shea Allen, until last Friday an investigative reporter for Huntsville, Alabama, ABC affiliate WAAY-TV, this week appeared on The Today Show, Inside Edition and gave interviews to more than a half-dozen radio stations. Not bad exposure for a young reporter who attended Georgia's Kennesaw State University.

The problem is that Allen garnered national attention, not for her journalistic prowess, but because she was fired by her employer concerning a personal blog item she posted a week ago entitled Confessions of a Red-Headed Reporter.  Initially, she took down the blog post at the station's behest, but then re-posted it with the explanation: "The post was taken down because I was momentarily misguided about who I am and what I stand for." Channeling freedom of the press icon John Peter Zenger, she went on to say: "To clarify, I make no apologies for the following re-post. It's funny, satirical and will likely offend some of the more conservative folks. But it isn't fake and it's a genuine look into my slightly twisted psyche."

What exactly were the reporter's "confessions" or insights that prompted WAAY, which has not commented officially on the "personnel matter," to part ways with Allen? The revelations include:


  • I've gone bra-less during a live broadcast and no one was the wiser.
  • My best sources are the ones who secretly have a crush on me.
  • I hate the right side of my face.
  • I'm frightened of old people and I refuse to do stories involving them or the places they reside.
  • I've taken naps in the news car.
  • I've stolen mail and then put it back (maybe).


Some members of the nation's ever-growing perpetual rage industry are in a dither that Allen's First Amendment rights were trampled  by WAAY-TV in its ham-fisted effort to silence her message.  It could be an over-reaction on the station's part, or maybe the station was embarrassed that it was parading this on-the-airhead on its newscast as a broadcast journalist, the same description that has been applied to the late Peter Jennings and Bill Moyers, for example.

Even though there was no social media in his heyday, somehow the anchor-groupie staff of  "TUOL" can't imagine Walter Cronkite posting: "I'm doing the newscast commando-style tonight without my tighty-whities."

Allen follows in the footsteps of the 1-day wonder news anchor who appeared on Today as part of his national rehabilitation tour after he was fired for dropping an F-bomb and other expletives during his cringe-inducing, flop-sweaty inaugural newscast.

It's becoming less of a mystery as to why public disdain for journalists is on the rise.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, July 8, 2013

Cook County Judge Tosses Ex-NBC Reporter's Libel Suit Against CBS

In a nine-page ruling last week in Jacobson v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (Case No. 2008-L-007331), Cook County Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Lawrence threw out a five-year-old defamation suit brought by a former Chicago NBC tv reporter against  her rival CBS affiliate.

Radio talk show host Amy Jacobson sued CBS for $1 million in 2008, roughly a year after the station aired footage of a bathing suit-clad Jacobson at a pool party hosted by Craig Stebic, whom police purportedly have identified as a "person of interest" in the April 2007, disappearance of his wife Lisa, though no charges have been brought against him, according to an article in The Chicago Tribune. The Tribune article reported that Judge Lawrence ruled against Jacobson for not proving the CBS story contained false statements about her. Judge Lawrence further held some of the alleged offensive content constituted First Amendment-protected statements of opinion. NBC fired Jacobson soon after the CBS story aired.

Jacobson plans to appeal the adverse decision, according to the Tribune article, contending she was not a public figure when the CBS footage was broadcast.

                                                                           

Friday, June 7, 2013

Saudi Prince Sues Forbes for Libel Over Low Placement on Rich List

The Savoy Hotel, London.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
England's recent defamation law reforms (see "TUOL" post 4/29/13) will be put to the test by billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, whom The Guardian Web site (www.guardian.co.uk) reports has sued Forbes Magazine for allegedly under-reporting the extent of his wealth.

The 58-year-old Alwaleed, whose Kingdom Holding investments include swanky hotels the Savoy in London and New York City's Plaza, filed a libel suit in London's High Court against Forbes Editor Randall Lane, along with the business magazine's publisher and two of its reporters. Apparently, Forbes' annual Rich List assessed the Prince's worth at $20 billion, whereas Alwaleed pegs his fortune at closer to $30 billion, and claims Forbes is "demonstrably biased" against Saudi Arabian businesses.

Forbes, according to The Guardian article, said members of the Prince's inner circle lobbied the magazine for higher placement on the Rich List for Alwaleed, who, apparently finds little solace in the fact that his private Boeing 747 jet is equipped with a solid gold throne that no doubt affords him ample leg room. The magazine reported that it calculated Kingdom Holding's worth based on the value of its investments, rather than its stock price on Saudi Arabia's Tadawul stock exchange.

The Prince faces an uphill challenge as England, once decried as the principal destination for libel tourism, will require him to prove that he suffered, or is likely to suffer, serious financial harm as a result of the allegedly libelous lower placement on the Rich List. If he somehow manages to do that, Forbes will look to the SPEECH (Securing the Protection of our Enduring & Established Constitutional Heritage) Act signed into law by President Obama in 2010 that shields U.S. citizens and businesses against foreign libel judgments that run afoul of First Amendment tenets.

That Alwaleed would get his royal knickers in a twist and incur the costs of a quixotic libel suit alleging his reputation was harmed because a media defendant underestimated his wealth may not warrant higher placement on Forbes' Rich List, but certainly is evidence to the staff of "TUOL" that he has too much money for his own good.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, June 3, 2013

Marijuana Mags Ask Fed Court in Colo. to Bale Them Out in 1st Amendment Suit


Cameron Makes The Cover Of High Times Magazine
(Photo credit: ex_magician)

A trio of magazines promoting marijuana use last week filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to stop enactment of a state law that would restrict access of the journals to persons under age 21.

Colorado voters last November passed Amendment 64 legalizing recreational use of marijuana by adults.  Gov. John Hickenlooper last Tuesday signed into law H.B. 13-1317, scheduled to take effect in July, that mandates non-marijuana stores to keep cannabis-related magazines "behind the counter in establishments where persons under twenty-one years of age are present," traditionally the vaunted location where Hustler and other adult magazines dwell in clear plastic wrapping.

Arguing the measure illegally restricts content and violates their First Amendment rights, High Times magazine, joined by The Hemp Connoisseur and The Daily Doobie (no, really...) rolled into federal court seeking an injunction, according to a report by the Associated  Press. Other pot regs approved by Gov. Hickenlooper would ban cartoon characters and like images from being used in advertising that might influence children to ensure marijuana isn't marketed to minors.

Counsel for the magazines correctly noted that Amendment 64 elevated marijuana to the same level of legality as alcohol and that access to magazines such as Food & Wine is not restricted. Colorado has 20 days in which to respond to the suit.

Never one to cast stoners, "TUOL" generally approves of First-Amendment boosting suits, but is better-versed in grass roots movements than in movements rooted in grass.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, May 20, 2013

WaPo: DOJ Tracked Fox News Reporter in North Korea Leak Probe

Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The furor over the U.S. Department of Justice subpoena of the phone records of Associated Press reporters and bureaus (see "TUOL" post 5/14/13) has yet to abate, but in a story yesterday that is sure raise the concern of journalists and free press advocates, the Washington Post reported that the DOJ zeroed in on a Fox News correspondent in its probe and subsequent charges against government adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim in 2010 for allegedly disclosing national defense information concerning North Korea.

Kim's trial arising from the alleged leak of classified information in 2009, regarding possible nuclear tests by North Korea in response to U.N. sanctions may go forward in 2014, but in its review of  affidavits and other court documents and an interview with Kim's attorney, the Sunday Washington Post story disclosed DOJ's purported actions against James Rosen, a Fox Washington correspondent, who did a story in June 2009, about U.S. intelligence officers warning about reprisals from North Korea.

The Post story claims DOJ employed security badge access records to monitor Rosen's visits to and from the State Department and obtained a search warrant to review Rosen's emails as part of its investigation of Kim.

Although at present, there is no federal shield law and the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment does not create a reporter's privilege regarding confidential sources, government has generally subpoenaed reporters as a last resort when unable to obtain vital information through other means, and traditionally has negotiated with the news media over the release of confidential information.

This blog has railed about the threat to the First Amendment and the "chilling effect" on the marketplace of ideas that would result from sources not speaking to reporters out of fear of being exposed by the government. The staff of "TUOL" is resisting its glib instinct to respond to the WaPo story by noting that because Fox News is involved, no journalist is being threatened.

Rather, "TUOL" will join the chorus lamenting a DOJ that is running amok in its pursuit of "leakers" at the expense of freedom of speech and of the press, the cornerstone of American society, and advises President (and former Constitutional Law Professor) Barack Obama to bone-up on his First Amendment lecture notes.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

DOJ Broad Subpoena of AP Journos Phone Logs an Assault on Press Freedom

Image representing Associated Press as depicte...
Image via CrunchBase
The great jurist, Judge Learned Hand,  recognized that "[t]he hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen and the far-spread magazine rules the country." "A free press is not a privilege," journalist Walter Lippman wrote, "but an organic necessity in a great society."

Unfortunately, the Administration of President Barack Obama, which has initiated a record six cases under the Espionage Act against individuals alleged to have leaked classified information, has embraced Judge Hand's caveat but apparently turned its back on Lippmann's plea for press freedom, the cornerstone of our society.

The U.S. Department of Justice subpoenaed the telephone records of 20 phone lines of Associated Press reporters and editors from April and May 2012, which included journalists' cellphone and home numbers, and those of AP bureaus in New York, Hartford and Washington, D.C., as well as the AP press phone in the U.S. House of Representatives, the DOJ revealed to the AP last Friday.  Reportedly, the subpoenas sought the telephone numbers of those with whom the AP staffers had contact and the length of each call. Purportedly, the DOJ was reacting to a May 2012, AP story about a thwarted terrorist plan in Yemen and was gathering data for its probe into how AP learned about a conspiracy involving an underwear bomber on an airline destined for the U.S.

AP condemned the government seizure of phone logs as a "massive and unprecedented intrusion by the Department of Justice into the news-gathering activities (of AP)." The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the DOJ's actions as "an unacceptable abuse of power." AP CEO Gary Pruitt has demanded the return of the phone records and that all copies be destroyed.

Media organizations and free press advocates expressed shock at the breadth of the phone logs sought by the DOJ under the mantle of national security and fretted about the chilling effect the move would have on reporters' interactions with their sources.  Joining in the chorus of those criticizing the DOJ actions were prominent GOP legislators and members of past Republican White House administrations, many of whom wouldn't have shed a tear if the New York Times building had burned down when the Times reported during the Bush Administration on NSA wiretaps of Americans' overseas phone calls and the overseas locations where enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists occurred.

Because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), authorities need only show relevance to a criminal investigation to secure subpoenas of telephone carriers for data, including incoming calls and the phone numbers of outgoing calls and when such calls were made. In contrast, electronic eavesdropping on the phone calls of American citizens is illegal unless law enforcement obtains a warrant from a judge.

Apparently, the DOJ did not inform the AP about seizing the phone records for more than two months after it secured the records, which appears to violate government regulations set forth in 28 C.F.R. sec. 50.10. Under the regulations, the news media must be told of the receipt of any data within 45 days. Moreover, the Attorney General must give approval to the Justice Dept. before it subpoenas the press, which is usually a last resort. Protocol usually involves authorities making an attempt to negotiate with the targeted media outlet for release of information before resorting to subpoenas.

The political blowback against elected officials perceived to be anything but vigilant and steel-jawed in their pursuit of those who would do harm to the U.S. has too often in recent years caused those in power, along with the news media and the public, to be lax in their support of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional provisions.  But as Thomas Jefferson once noted: " A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither."






Enhanced by Zemanta

Massachusetts Racetrack 'SLAPPed' with Legal Costs for Lame Libel Suit

Harness racing
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Plainridge Racecourse, d/b/a Ourway Realty, has dropped its appeal of a Norfolk County Superior Court judge's dismissal of its defamation suit against a Plainville (Mass.) opponent of slot machine gambling at the harness racing track and will pay the defendant's attorneys fees of almost $25,000 pursuant to the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute [M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 59H], the Attleboro Sun Chronicle reported.

The libel case, Ourway Realty, LLC v. Thomas Keen (Case No. 12-cv-00963), was brought by the track against the Plainville resident, who maintained a Web site and Facebook page advocating against adding slot machines at the track, based on a poster's comment on the Web site regarding a home-security photo of an intruder that police should search the race track to find the burglar. The ACLU of Massachusetts, through private counsel, successfully argued a motion to dismiss the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, which states in relevant part: "In any case in which a party asserts that the civil claims, counterclaims or cross claims against said party are based on said party's exercise of its right of petition under the constitution of the United States or of the commonwealth, said party may bring a special motion to dismiss."

The Sun Chronicle article reported that the plaintiff would pay the defendant's legal costs, but that no damages were assessed against the race track.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, May 10, 2013

Calif. Judge Refuses to Bar Daily from Deposition in Open Government Suit

An old picture of the Los Angeles Memorial Col...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Luis A. Lavin yesterday denied respondent's request for a protective order that would have prevented the Los Angeles Times from attending the deposition of Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Interim G.M. John Sandbrook in an open-government lawsuit, the Times reported.

In his written order denying the request in Los Angeles Times Communications et al. v. Los Angeles Coliseum Commission (Case No. BS138331), Judge Lavin chided the respondent for seeking a "gag order" in a case involving "a public matter." Counsel for Sandbrook, who walked out of his deposition in March because of the presence of Times reporters, argued unsuccessfully that press coverage of his testimony was an abuse of discovery. But Judge Lavin wrote that just because Sandbrook "may not like an article the Los Angeles Times writes about him" is an inadequate basis for barring the press from the deposition.

The Times and free press advocacy group Californians Aware sued the Coliseum Commission, alleging it violated  the California Public Records Act [Gov. Code sec. 6250 et seq.] by withholding documents from public view and accused the respondent of engaging in secret deliberations with USC concerning a stadium lease. The Commission denies the allegations.

Citing the two occasions that the arena hosted the Summer Olympics, Judge Lavin said the government transparency suit was a matter of public interest because the Coliseum is "an important landmark with cultural and historic significance." Judge Lavin refused the respondent's request to stay his ruling for 30 days, but also denied the petitioner's motion for attorneys' fees.


Enhanced by Zemanta