Newspaper's 'Initial' Error Prompts Libel Suit

Image via WikipediaThe online edition of  The Erie (Pa.) Times-News, www.GoErie.com, reports today on a defamation suit filed against its owner, Times Publishing Co., by an individual whose name and photo were published, incorrectly identifying him as a robbery suspect.

The daily on April 15, 2009, wrongly published the name and photo of plaintiff Gary N. Wiley, instead of Gary C. Wiley, the actual robbery defendant. The newspaper subsequently published a correction explaining the mix-up, which occurred because the Crawford County Correctional Facility mistakenly forwarded Gary N. Wiley's photo to the Times-News.

The plaintiff claims in his lawsuit filed in Erie County Court that the erroneous publication of his name and photo amounted to libel per se and constituted negligence by the defendants. That the newspaper printed an unequivocal retraction doesn't absolve it of potential liability for defamation, though it likely would derail any claim for punitive damages.

"TUOL" can't help but wonder what it is about Pennsylvanians named "Gary Wiley"  that causes them to run afoul of the law. It's eerie, not Erie.

Newspaper Editorial Sparks Libel Suit

Image via WikipediaThe plaintiff's attorney and presiding judge involved in a successful defamation case brought by a teacher against a weekly newspaper over a published letter to the editor have each filed a libel action against the same newspaper in Chesterfield County (Va.) Circuit Court based on an editorial written by the newspaper's president about the case.

In Wayne Barry Montgomery v. Southside Voice, Inc. et al. (Case No. CL11000834) and Melvin R. Hughes, Jr. v. Southside Voice, Inc. et al. (Case No. CL1100835), attorney Montgomery and Richmond Circuit Judge Hughes each sued The Richmond Voice and its president, Jack Green, for $1 million compensatory damages and $350,000 punitive damages based on Green's editorial in March 2010.

As reported by the publication, Richmond Biz Sense, and the ABA Journal Law News Now blog, The Richmond Voice, whose readership is largely African-American, published a letter to the editor that criticized a Henrico County middle school teacher, who in turn, successfully sued the Voice for libel in 2009, receiving a jury award in March 2010, totaling $125,000. Montgomery represented the teacher and Judge Hughes presided over the trial.

A week after the adverse verdict, Green wrote an editorial about the case in the Voice that said in part: "We did not take into account the politics played in a courtroom--between judges and counsel--and the maneuverings of counsel who treat facts casually." That statement did not sit well with the plaintiffs in the current action, who allege that their professional reputations were sullied by the accusations of engaging in courtroom politics.

The plaintiffs face considerable hurdles in their libel suit, including quantifying their damages and overcoming an anticipated "fair comment" defense by the weekly, which is likely to argue that an editorial constitutes opinion, which by its very nature cannot be false and defamatory.

Canadians Turn A Cold Shoulder to Newspaper Paywalls

Image via WikipediaWith The New York Times and the Tulsa World among the most recent U.S. newspapers to begin charging visitors to view their online content, a survey by the University of British Columbia ("UBC") reveals that Canadians have little appetite for paywalls.

Roughly 1,700 Canadian adults were polled online, according to UBC Graduate School of Journalism emerita Prof. Donna Logan, lead author of  the study entitled Canadian Consumers Unwilling to Pay for News Online (catchy name, eh?). A whopping 81 percent of those surveyed said they would not pay to read news online, with 90 percent claiming they would seek free alternatives if their preferred online news site implemented a paywall. Factors, such as age, education level, and rural/urban residents, had little impact on the poll results.

Only 30 percent of those surveyed said they would consider paying for online content if no free alternative news sites were available.  Among those willing to part with their hard-earned Canadian dollars, flat-fee subscriptions were preferred over metered payment and pay-as-you-go models.

SF Press Survey: Bay Area Working Journos Decline by 45%

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeA San Francisco Bay Area Journalist Census of 700 current or former ink-stained wretches commissioned by the S.F. Peninsula Press Club revealed nearly 45 percent fewer working journalists in the Bay Area than a decade ago, according to an article in The San Francisco Business Times.

Respondents cited layoffs, voluntary buy-outs and career-switches in explaining the grim survey results.  Over the past decade, the San Francisco Chronicle, Oakland Tribune and San Jose Mercury News, among other local news media outlets, experienced cutbacks as the industry re-trenched in the face of declining ad revenues and circulation.

Among other survey findings: 70 percent of those queried described themselves as working journalists or journalism entrepreneurs, 15 percent said they were students or working in another field, 2 percent opted for retirement, and 3 percent said they were unemployed.

UPDATE: Former Fla. Gov. Crist 'Byrned' by Copyright Infringement Settlement

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeFormer Florida Gov. Charlie Crist returned to the scene of the crime, as it were, appearing in a YouTube video apologizing to former Talking Heads frontman David Byrne as part of a settlement of the latter's copyright infringement suit against Crist for his campaign's unauthorized use of  Talking Heads hit song Road to Nowhere in a YouTube video attacking Crist's 2010 U.S. Senate opponent and eventual victor Marco Rubio (see "TUOL" post 5/26/10).

Byrne sued  Crist for copyright infringement and violation of the Lanham Act in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:10-cv-1187-T26) in May 2010, seeking $1 million in damages for the unauthorized use of his band's song.  Beyond the recorded apology, the terms of the parties' settlement were not disclosed.

It appears the plaintiff was successful in his goal, to borrow another Talking Heads song title: Give Me My Name Back. 

Brewin' Is a Bitch--Beermaker in 1st Amendment War With Liquor Commission

Image by Bernt Rostad via FlickrIn Flying Dog Brewery, LLLP v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission et al (Case No. 1:2011-cv-00307) filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, a Colorado limited liability partnership based in Frederick, Md., has alleged violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 by a state liquor commission that has refused to allow the sale of RAGING BITCH, the beer-maker's Belgian-style India pale ale.

In its 10-page complaint, Flying Dog challenges the constitutional validity of the MLCC's Rule 436.1611(1)(d), under which the commission banned the sale of RAGING BITCH as "detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare."  Flying Dog CEO Jim Caruso, an economist, has 30 days to set forth the damages suffered by the Commission's ban on the controversially named beverage, according to a report by the Frederick News Post.

The beverage's label features an illustration of a dog and reads as follows: "Two inflammatory words...one wild drink. Let it out. It is cruel to keep a wild animal locked up. Uncap it. Release it...stand back! Wallow in its golden glow in a glass beneath a white foaming head. Remember, enjoying a RAGING BITCH, unleashed, untamed, unbridled--and in heat--is pure GONZO! It has taken 20 years to get from there to here. Enjoy!" "TUOL" suspects he already would be in the men's room from the effects of the brew before he finished reading the label.

RAGING BITCH ia available in 27 states, the District of Columbia and sold in Europe. The plaintiff filed its complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief because it believes the commission's denial of its sale in Michigan is a First Amendment freedom of speech violation.  The MLCC has yet to respond to the complaint.

Couric & Lauer 'Dream Team' to Reunite in Syndication?

Image via WikipediaThe Wall St. Journal today is reporting on the possible re-teaming of one-time Today Show co-hosts Katie Couric and Matt Lauer in a syndicated talk show next year.

Former NBCUniversal chief executive Jeff Zucker reportedly is among those fanning the flames about a possible Couric/Lauer partnership in 2012. Couric's contract as anchor of the CBS Evening News expires in June, and she is expected to depart (see "TUOL" post 6/4/11). Meanwhile, Lauer, who succeeded Bryant Gumbel as Today Show co-host in 1997, is only contractually bound to the morning show through the end of 2012. Rumors are also swirling that Lauer's present co-host, Meredith Vieira, is ready to sleep-in and not return to the Today Show grind when her commitment ends later this year. Ann Curry, the program's news anchor, has been pointed to as being Vieira's likely successor.

None of the Today players is speaking on the record about the morning machinations, nor has Katie been pinned on the Matt issue.  Not that anyone's asking, but the ever-helpful "TUOL" staff is delighted to offer the following titles for a Couric/Lauer syndicated yakker:  "The Perky/Jerky News Hour;" "The Himbo-Bimbo Morning Show;" and "Swimming in the Shallow End with Katy & Matt."

Alter Uninterested in What Brown Can Do for Him

Image by elycefeliz via FlickrLong-time national correspondent Jonathan Alter has departed Newsweek, where his byline has appeared since 1983, according to the Website Politico.

It must be a beast daily for Editor Tina Brown to keep marquee journalists at the newsweekly, which merged with The Daily Beast last November (see "TUOL" post 11/12/10).  Last year saw the departure of Newsweek mainstays Howard Fineman, Jon Meacham, Michael Isikoff, Evan Thomas and Fareed Zakaria (see "TUOL" posts 9/21/10 and 8/10/10).

Fans can still worship at the Alter by reading Bloomberg News, The Huffington Post and NBC News, where he continues to write columns, blog and offer analysis. His most recent book is The Promise.

Federal Judge Orders National Park Service to Produce Docs to Personal Injury Plaintiff

Image via WikipediaIn Tim Wild v. National Park Service("NPS") (Case No. 1:10-cv-00072-JAW), U.S. District Court for the District of Maine Judge John Woodcock has ordered the federal agency to produce records sought by a personal injury plaintiff in a Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. sec. 552 et seq.] request.

As reported by the Associated Press and Bangor Daily News, the plaintiff, who sustained facial injuries in a 2008 melee involving park rangers and about 40 young people who had gathered on Day Mountain at Acadia National Park, sought documents from the federal agency regarding the incident. Judge Woodcock ordered the NPS to pay Wild's $24,000 legal bill incurred in his pursuit of the records.

In his 41-page decision, Judge Woodcock ordered the NPS to produce its investigatory activity reports and transcripts of  lay witness testimony to Wild, but redacted to remove personal identifiers.  Previously, the NPS paid Wild $45,000 to resolve a separate lawsuit alleging park rangers had violated his civil rights.

West Virginia Joins Ledger of States with Shield Laws

Image via WikipediaActing Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin has signed a bill that will take effect on June 10, making West Virginia the 40th state (not including the District of Columbia) to enact a shield law protecting journalists from having to disclose confidential sources to authorities in civil, criminal and administrative proceedings.

The measure affords protection to paid online journalists and unpaid student journalists. The statute's language suggests that bloggers would not be protected.  Under West Virginia's shield law, a court may compel a journalist to divulge a confidential source only if "necessary to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury or unjust incarceration."

Movie Companies Sue Internet Movie Streamer

Image via CrunchBaseIn Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. et al. v. WTV Systems, Inc, WTV Systems, LLC d/b/a /Zediva & Venka Tesh Srinivasan (Case No. 11-cv-02817), recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is seeking damages for copyright infringement [17 U.S.C. secs. 106(4), 501] from a Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company allegedly streaming new Hollywood films over the Internet without license from the film studios.

As reported by the Media Law Prof Blog and Associated Press, the plaintiffs allege they are being deprived of  their right to publicly perform their works by the defendants' streaming movies to customers without paying a license fee to the studios that produced the films.  The defendants argue they are not required to pay license fees because their business is essentially a digital equivalent of a movie-rental store.  The plaintiffs dispute the characterization, arguing rather, that the defendants are a video-on-demand operation illegally streaming movies over the Internet.

Blimey! Scotland Yard Pinches Murdoch Journos for Hacking & Wiretapping

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeThe Guardian's online edition (guardian.co.uk) reports today that the naughty tabloid News of the World ("NoW") (www.newsoftheworld.co.uk), which is owned by News Group Newspapers, Ltd., a subsidiary of media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., has seen one of its principal reporters and a former news editor who NoW fired in January arrested by Scotland Yard for allegedly intercepting mobile phone voice messages.

Ian Edmondson, 50, and 42-year-old Neville Thurlbeck were arrested by Scotland Yard on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications (Sec. 1(1) of Criminal Law Act 1977) and unlawfully intercepting voicemail messages (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000). Both Edmondson and Thurlbeck have denied criminal wrongdoing.

Verizon Net Neutrality Suit Dismissed by Appeals Court

Image via WikipediaThe Jurist Website (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu) reports that the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has tossed Verizon's lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission challenging net neutrality rules.

In Verizon v. FCC (Case No. 11-1014), the appellate court, in a two-page per curiam opinion, allowed the FCC's motion to dismiss Verizon's complaint on the grounds that it was filed prematurely, thereby depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.  Verizon and MetroPCS filed suit in January contesting the net neutrality rules that empower the government to regulate the Internet's traffic and maintain the World Wide Web as a free communication platform.

The lawsuit was deemed premature because the document Verizon seeks to derail has yet to be published in the Federal Register pursuant to 47 C.F.R. sec. 1.4(b)(1), and, therefore, is not yet a "licensing decision."  Verizon (motto: "Can We Sue You Yet?") plans to re-file its complaint once the rule-making document appears in the Federal Register. Verizon is leery that the FCC's authority would be unduly broadened by the net neutrality measure.

Will SF Chronicle Erect Paywall or Golden Gate?

Image via WikipediaThe Hearst Corp-owned San Francisco Chronicle is moving closer to greeting visitors to its online edition with a paywall, according to the Bay Guardian and Medialifemagazine.com.

In contrast to the metered payment model recently introduced by The New York Times, the Chronicle is contemplating a "hard paywall" model that would charge online visitors for every article. Although the Chronicle has declined to confirm plans to charge online users, the Bay Guardian story said digital subscribers might be charged $9.99 a month. If the Hearst property follows the trend of other dailies, print edition subscribers would have free access to the online version.

Although no start-up date was mentioned by the Bay Guardian or Medialifemagazine.com, it is expected the Chronicle may introduce a paywall at the same time it debuts its iPad application, which could be as soon as the end of April.

CBS News Sends Greenfield to Greenpasture

Image via WikipediaMediabistro.com's TV Newser blog reports that CBS News has not renewed the contract of long-time political correspondent Jeff Greenfield.

Greenfield has been the network's senior political correspondent since re-joining CBS News in 2007. He was a political analyst with CNN from 1998-2007, a media analyst for ABC News from 1983-1997, and in an earlier stint with CBS, was a media correspondent from 1979-1983.

The 67-year-old New York native and Yale Law School grad told TV Newser that he plans to continue writing novels and may continue to turn up in other media platforms. He is the author of several books, including Then Everything Changed, The People's Choice and Oh Waiter, Another Order of Crow!: Inside the Strangest Presidential Election Finish in American History.

Greenfield being shown the door comes on the heels of reports that CBS News is allowing Katie Couric to walk away from the CBS Evening News anchor desk (see "TUOL" post 4/4/11).

Katie Bar the Door: Couric to Vacate CBS Anchor Chair, AP Reports

Image by FunnyBiz via FlickrAfter a near five-year stint in the anchor chair formerly occupied by Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, Katie Couric is leaving the CBS Evening News to ready herself for a syndicated talk show in 2012, according to an unconfirmed report by Associated Press.

The 54-year-old Couric, who left NBC's Today  in 2006 for a reported $15 million annual salary, has been unable to pull the Eye Network out of third place among the ever-shrinking audience of network news watchers who favor the broadcasts of NBC's Brian Williams and even ABC's Diane Sawyer. Couric's contract with CBS expires June 4.

UPDATE: Libeled Law Profs. See West Damages Go South

Image via WikipediaU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John P. Fullam has slashed the $2.5 million punitive damages awarded both to Leonard Sosnov and David Rudovsky to $110,000 apiece from their libel suit against West Publishing Corp., according to a story in today's Philadelphia Inquirer.

Last January, in Rudovsky & Sosnov v. West Pub. Corp. et al (Case No. 09-cv-00727-JF), Rudovsky, a civil rights lawyer and Senior Fellow at U. Penn law school, and Sosnov, who teaches at Widener law school, were each awarded $90,000 compensatory damages and $2.5 million punitive damages by a jury who found that West defamed the two men, who originally authored the legal publisher's Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure: Law, Commentary, and Forms (1991). [See "TUOL" post 1/20/11.]

Judge Fullam concluded the jury's punitive damages awarded far exceeded any damage to the plaintiffs' reputations and opined that the jury may have been overly influenced by the net worth of West, a legal publishing industry giant that produces law books, software, and legal forms books.

Google 'Berned' By Swiss Court

Image via WikipediaGoogle, Inc., the Mountain View, Calif.-based Internet search engine leviathan, must be doing something wrong, given that it has even managed to make the ever-neutral Swiss belligerent.

According to an Associated Press story, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court has ordered Google to guarantee anonymity regarding publication of license plates and faces before green-lighting Google's Street View project's generating of street-level photos. The ruling, which the Internet search engine company could appeal to the Swiss Supreme Federal Court, is the latest blow to Google since the company admitted "inadvertently" compiling personal data from unsecured wireless networks during the Street View mapping project (See "TUOL" post 3/22/11).

Google temporarily ceased uploading images of Swiss cities in 2009 because of complaints by Switzerland's agency charged with protecting data privacy. Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Great Britain and the Czech Republic are among nations that have taken up a cudgel against Google's Street View data gathering.

New Investigative Journalism Website Debuts This Month

Image via WikipediaiWatch News, an investigative journalism Website launched by the Center for Public Integrity ("CPI"), goes online April 12, according to a story in today's New York Times.

An editorial staff of 37, bolstered by freelancers and backed by the Investigative News Network and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, will update iWatch content daily with up to a dozen original investigative stories and aggregated content on topics ranging from health care and national security to politics and the environment.  The new site will sell advertising and continue to rely on contributions such as the $1.7 million grant from the Knight Foundation received last year and $250,000 Huffington Post Investigative Fund money doled out by The Huffington Post's investigative arm with whom the CPI merged last year.

CPI also will continue its collaborative efforts with the New York Times, NPR, ABC and other mainstream news outlets to produce and distribute stories.

SJC: Public Records Law Doesn't Override Judicial Protective Order

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeIn Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Fremont Investment & Loan et al. (Case No. 10749), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts this week ruled that courts' traditional power to enter protective orders sealing documents is not overridden by the Commonwealth's public records law (M.G.L. c. 66, sec. 10).

In October 2007, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley sued Fremont under the Commonwealth's consumer protection law, alleging the mortgage company engaged in predatory lending practices that were unfair and deceptive (Com. v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 452 Mass. 733 (2008)) Fremont paid a $10 million fine and costs, but during the litigation, the parties filed a joint protective order governing the exchange of purportedly confidential documents.

Samuel J. Lieberman  sought access to the more than 5.5 million pages of these sealed documents from the Attorney General's office via the public records law. Writing for the High Court, Justice Judith Cowin concluded that interpreting the public records law to negate a judicial order sealing documents "would raise serious constitutional doubts as to the validity of the statute." Issuing protective orders is an inherent judicial power essential to the function of the judicial department and the courts' ability to decide cases and cannot be trumped by the public records law, the SJC ruled.