In Media law on September 4, 2015 at 7:58 am
There was a fascinating and also sort of terrifying bit of courtroom drama this week in New Iberia, La., and it involved a Wick newspaper. The important thing is that the good guys won in the end.
The story is a bit convoluted, and I hope someone will let me know if I get any of the particulars wrong. But the short version is that an anonymous commenter on the Daily Iberian website wrote to impugn the integrity of a local attorney named David Groner. Here’s the comment:
I read the paper where David Groner is representing Deputy Sanders Butler in the sexual harassment. The only thing you need to know is that Butler helped Groner in his failed bid for State Senator against Fred Mills and Simone Champagne. That’s when the truth came out about Groner having a reputation for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.
Now, that might strike you as unfair (and it did to me as well, at first). But the commenter linked to a 2008 Louisiana Supreme Court opinion that noted those very allegations. Groner was suspended from practicing law for six months, though that suspension was deferred upon completion of a supervised probation…. Read the rest of this entry »
In journalism on May 29, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Generally, I think of shields as being necessary for riot cops and Marvel superheroes. Not so much for journalists. But I may be wrong about that.
Last fall, there was momentum for passage of a federal shield law that would protect journalists from prosecution for failing to give up confidential sources. That momentum grew from the case of New York Times reporter James Risen, who faced jail time for failing to reveal sources in his reporting of the case of former CIA analyst Jeffrey Sterling who was being prosecuted for allegedly violating the Espionage Act. (Sterling, who was involved in sensitive weapons deals with Iranians, is accused of releasing national defense secrets after filing an discrimination action against the CIA. Juicy stuff!)
As USA Today’s Rem Rieder reports, the effort to shield journalists from prosecution has slowed to a crawl. Democrats say Republicans are holding up legislation even though more than 50 senators support a shield; Republicans say nanny, nanny boo-boo, I think.
I’ve always been on the fence about shield laws. Here’s why: As a general rule, I don’t think journalists should be afforded any special privileges. Keep in mind, a government that gives special shields or access or whatever, can also take it away. That is why I have always resisted official “press passes” from police agencies and the like. My press pass is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I shouldn’t have to wear a sheriff-issued press pass to attend the press conference or talk to a deputy at the scene of a crime. And don’t get me started on defining just who is a journalist. Read the rest of this entry »
In Ethics on April 11, 2014 at 9:04 am
Under what circumstances would you identify underage sex crime perpetrators or victims? What if it were perfectly legal to do so? What if other media outlets had already done so? Would you grant anonymity to the mother of a victim? Where would you run such a story in your newspaper?
These aren’t hypothetical questions. They are real-world quandaries that Wick journalists face all the time. For instance, this week alone:
- In Roanoke Rapids, a 16-year-old boy was charged in sex crimes against younger boys. By state law, those over the age of 16 are considered adults so authorities released the name of the accused. Managing Editor Matt Lindberg had to decide whether it was fair to print the name of a teenager accused of such heinous crimes.
These are not easy questions. We want to be consistent and make defensible decisions. But we also want to take extra consideration whenever juveniles are caught on either side of these questions. … Read the rest of this entry »
In Media law on July 25, 2013 at 11:44 am
A Serbian guy by the name of Djordje Padesjski is about to rock your world.
Padesjski is the founder of something called The FOIA Machine, which seeks to aid journalists and others in their attempts to get public documents from public agencies that sometimes have a vested interest in making that as difficult as possible.
If you’ve ever filed for Freedom of information Act request you know that there is very little that is more frustrating. Some agencies have appointed someone to help with the process. Others act like they have never heard of the concept of public documents. There are exceptions and roadblocks at every turn. Multiply that by hundreds of government agencies in 50 states and dozens of foreign countries that have open records laws and you can imagine the heartache attendant to getting government to give you what is rightly yours.
But imagine you could just fill out an online form that would automatically factor in differing agency rules and track your request. Developers have referred to it as “a TurboTax for government records.”
Padesjski pitched the idea while a Knight Fellow at Stanford University and he made some powerful friends. He won funding through the Knight Foundation and now he’s got investigative journalists, coders and data experts working on a prototype as well as thousands to invest in developing the site and a vision that could literally upend the way we all deal with government. This is a really, really big idea. … Read the rest of this entry »
In Books on April 19, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Half Moon Bay Review reporter Lily Bixler is leaving us next week to take a position with the Seattle Times. Which is terrific news for her, if not so much for us. As a result, she is cleaning out her desk. That is why she gave me her copy of “The Right to Know: A Guide to Public Access and Media Law.” It was a revelation on several fronts.
First, I had no idea that the California Newspaper Publishers Association published anything like that. Co-produced by the California First Amendment Coalition, it is written by First Amendment lawyers. It covers everything from the Brown Act, California’s public meetings law, and federal rights under the First Amendment. It is detailed and I find I learn something on every page. (For instance, I’ve never been entirely sure whether we were allowed on school grounds without the principal’s permission. We are not, as a result of the First Amendment, the book says, but California law specifically allows reporters on campus unless they are asked to leave.)
It is a phenomenal resource and can be ordered online for $30. While it may be useful to reporters out of state, I think it is sufficiently targeted to California law that it might just confuse the issue for those in the other 49 states.
I wonder if state press associations in other places produce something similar? It’s certainly worth asking. I know that many have attorneys on call who can be tremendous resources to reporters. It wouldn’t surprise me if they had publications like “Know your Rights.”
In Online media on December 2, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Hey, what do we think of this guy? (Is it just me, or does Julian Assange look like the villain from a Batman sequel?) Is he a terrorist, as some with secrets suggest, or is he a journalist of a sort as he would have you believe? This AP story suggests that he may fall in the middle somewhere.
Unless you have been living under a rock, you know that Assange is the maverick leader of WikiLeaks. That is the Internet-only outfit that has “dumped” hundreds of thousands of sometimes classified documents on the Web for all to see. Some are damning. Some are just damn boring. In my opinion, most of them, while undoubtedly embarrassing to the authors and subjects, simply amplify things we already know. I tend to agree with Michael Tigar, the former Duke law professor quoted at the end of the AP story.
Anyway, an interesting debate has arisen as the United States and other aggrieved governments ponder how to respond to WikiLeaks. Some are suggesting Assange be charged with violating the Espionage Act and that could send a chill down the necks of honest-to-goodness journalists… Read the rest of this entry »
In Media law on August 27, 2010 at 8:22 am
Continuing our weeks’ long tour around the virtual courthouse, we come to the strange outpost known as foreign libel court.
It seems that some international readers have been taking offense at the writings of American authors and then taking their case to court … foreign court. The term “libel tourism” has been around since at least 2005, when a Saudi billionaire sued New York-based author Rachel Ehrenfeld in a British court over her book Funding Evil. Ehrenfeld ultimately lost the case and was ordered to pay £10,000 and legal costs.
The reason writers are being sued elsewhere is because other countries don’t have the same reverence for free speech we enjoy. There is no First Amendment – and none of the so-called Section 230 protections afforded Internet Service Providers here either.
Well, earlier this month the good guys scored a victory. President Barack Obama signed the Speech Act, which forbids federal courts from recognizing foreign libel judgments that don’t jibe with our own First Amendment protections.
This is one of those things that isn’t likely to hit home in Wasilla or Ontario. Nevertheless, it’s a good idea to keep abreast of any change in libel law, for obvious reasons.
In Photography on July 30, 2010 at 8:48 am
Is it against the law to photograph federal buildings? Not generally, no. But don’t expect the cop on the beat to know that.
Law enforcement officials – especially federal law enforcement authorities – are jumpy and have been for nine years. And with good reason. The events of Sept. 11 changed the way Americans look at their security. They caused many if not all of us to rethink what security means in a free society. Many well-meaning men and women with badges are of a mind to tip the balance too far toward the safe side and there are ever-more stories of ordinary Americans finding themselves in a legal hassle over inoccuous photos.
That is a problem for us professional journalists. We’ve been told we can shoot most anything as long as we do so on public property. But the explosion of digital photography – now almost everyone has a camera in the form of a cell phone with them at all times – has made the Secret Service and the ordinary beat cop nervous.
Annys Shin’s story in the Washington Post last week detailed many instances of police hassling photographers with some vague notion of personal or national security in mind… Read the rest of this entry »
In Media law on July 30, 2010 at 8:42 am
Hey, did you see that story the other day about the Wall Street Journal reporter who was arrested while covering the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich?
It probably didn’t make more than a blip on your radar – just another in an endless series of minor skirmishes over access that have long pit reporters against law enforcement agents.
Well, I’d like to talk about it for a moment. I should start by saying, I’m more than a bit biased; I know Doug Belkin, the reporter who was arrested, and can tell you there are few reporters anywhere any better than he. We worked together before his Journal gig. Here’s something else you should know about him: He wouldn’t hurt a fly.
So when I read this in the Boston Globe, my jaw hit the floor:
U.S. Marshals spokeswoman Belkis Cantor said Belkin stepped out of the “media bin” after being told not to and “made gestures as to try to almost hit” a deputy U.S. marshal.
Excuse me, but did she say, “Media bin?” I can think of very, very few occasions that call for cordoning the press in a “bin,” and those occasions do not include the trials of disgraced politicians. At the very least, reporters should have the same access as the general public, and there isn’t a big enough bin in Chicago to house the general public… Read the rest of this entry »
In Media law on March 5, 2010 at 9:07 am
There was a First Amendment victory the other day that didn’t get much press. The case was brought by Anniston, Ala., City Councilman Ben Little against The Anniston Star, which has been a very good little newspaper for a long while.
Last year the newspaper wrote that Little pushed for the city to hire a consultant with whom he had a personal relationship. It went on to refer to “Little’s sweetheart HR audit deal.” The consultant was paid $2,500 by taxpayers.
Suffice to say, Little wasn’t amused. He sued the newspaper, it’s parent company, the writer and others responsible for subsequent editorials. This week a district court threw out that lawsuit.
In explaining the summary judgment, Judge Charles Steele wrote that Little was a public figure. As a result, “there is no genuine issue of material fact if the evidence presented in the opposing affidavits is of insufficient caliber or quantity to allow a rational finder of fact to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.” The key phrase being, of course, “actual malice.” … Read the rest of this entry »