Helfand 3776 Tumblr @helfand3776 - Tumblr Blog

Posts

A decision Tuesday to not require reporter Jana Winter to testify against her sources has “bolstered,” New York’s shield law, the New York Times reported. Winter, a reporter for Fox News, is based out of New York, but was sent to Colorado in 2012 to report on the July mass shooting at the movie theater in Aurora.

According to the Times, Winter reported about a notebook that James Holmes, the defendant, allegedly sent that was “full of details of how he was going to kill people.” The article reported that Holmes’s lawyers said the government “had violated their client’s rights by leaking the information while a gag order was in place,” a claim which law enforcement officials denied.

Winter appealed a decision from the Manhattan Supreme Court all the way up to the state supreme court. In the article, Derigan Silver, an assistant professor in media law at the University of Denver said this decision “enhanced New York’s position as a safe haven for journalists.”

This is an interesting case. Even though the reporting was done in Colorado, it was argued in New York because that is where Fox News is headquartered. If I was going to start up a news company, it seems like New York would be a good place to do so because of the shield law.

However, I feel like 50 states having 50 different shield laws can be dangerous. For example, in states with weak shield laws, people will be less willing to talk to reporters about sensitive issues out of fear. There’s also the chance that reporters will be too timid to dig deep into stories because a) sources are putting up roadblocks or b) they don’t want to be put in a situation where they might have to go to court like Winter was.

At the same time, one unified, federal shield law could also be detrimental. If a reporter has information about a sensitive case that law enforcement officials need to protect people and he/she isn’t required to reveal sources, it could potentially pose a dilemma.

I know there are people that are firmly on one side of this argument, but I just don’t see how that’s possible; this is too big of an issue to ever be considered black and white.

Wednesday's release of audio recordings of the 911 calls from the Sandy Hook shootings will force news organizations to make difficult decisions.

On Nov. 26, a Connecticut judge ordered that the 911 calls from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting must be released. According to CNN, the ruling “upholds a decision by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.” (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/us/connecticut-newtown-911-calls-ruling/index.html)

As a result, the calls were released on Dec. 4. This brings up an interesting situation. Personally, I will never listen to those calls. The shootings were horrific, and the calls would be too heart wrenching for me to listen to. I don’t think it would serve me any good to listen to them.

I don’t totally understand why anyone would need to listen to these calls, but if there is a possibility for the public to gain some insight into the tragedy, it is useful. However, with such a sensitive case, it is especially important that the media uses these recordings responsibly.

A different CNN article that I read said the station aired parts of the calls with a warning. Fox News also aired parts of the tapes. According to the article, CBS seemed to play it more cautious when it decided to “not present all of the material or anything including gunshot sounds.” Further than that, NBC and ABC did not broadcast any of the tapes on TV and did post any of the content online.

It is interesting to see how the different stations approached the judgment call. As we learned in class, broadcast and cable stations have different standards in many situations. CBS, NBC and ABC are all broadcast stations. They are not invited into your home like CNN and Fox News; they’re just there. Anybody can flip on the TV and be exposed to their content, whether they want to be or not. Fewer people have CNN and Fox News on their TVs. I think that this is why the broadcast stations were more cautious with the content. It would be interesting to see if stations have taken the same approach in similar cases.

A company that makes toys to encourage girls to become engineers has backed down from using a Beastie Boys song in its ad.

Toy company GoldieBlox has removed the parody of the Beastie Boys’ song “Girls,” from their advertisement. Previously, the company filed a lawsuit claiming they had “fair use,” and could use the song. However, now the company’s leaders have backed down.

If GoldieBlox had wanted to go through with the lawsuit, there is a chance they might have won. However, Adam Yauch, a member of the band, had written in his will that he never wanted his songs to be used in advertisements. Although it was a parody, backing away from the song seems to be the right thing for GoldieBlox to do.

As we have learned in class, the four parts to the fair use test are the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the work used and the effect of the use on the potential market.

If the company has educational purposes, it is more likely to have a chance at winning this part of the test. However, even though it was meant to empower girls and “get girls building,” the song was used as part of an advertisement, and thus, it was used for commercial reasons.

Certain members of the band are alive, and so the copyright is still in place. The song is readily available on iTunes and other music streaming websites.

Parodies usually use quite a bit of the song’s tune. However, I don’t think that GoldieBlox used any more of the work than they had to to make their parody.

I don’t think that there would be a large effect on the potential market. If anything, it could help the Beastie Boys because this song hasn’t been popular in awhile and now people are thinking about it again. The parody is aimed at young girls, which is a vastly different audience than the original song.

Although the company might have had a case, it seems easier to remove the song. Also, considering Yauch’s wishes, it seems like GoldieBlox went the sensitive route. Plus, now people have heard of the company and are talking about it.

Actor Tom Cruise is currently engaging in an ongoing lawsuit against a German media company citing defamation and invasion of privacy. According to the Reuters article linked above, there was a report that Cruise abandoned his daughter, Suri, which he called “patently false.”

Knowing what we do now, it seems to me like it will be very hard for Cruise to win his case. How will his lawyers be able to prove that the claim was made with actual malice? It seems especially hard because the article cites court transcripts that “showed that Cruise had only seen Suri for 10 days in the immediate five months after Holmes filed for divorce.”

Obviously the word “abandoned,” was used to attract eyeballs. That’s a very bold statement, but this type of thing seems to be commonplace in certain magazines. Understandably, this claim bothered him. He has every right to be upset by it. But when so many claims are being made about your personality every single day, I wonder how Cruise decided that this was the case that he should take up. Being a celebrity, people make claims about his personality all the time that he could probably construe as defamatory. However, he must have have better things to do than go after every person that says something negative about him because that would expound too much time and energy. So, what was it about this case that made Cruise decide to pursue it?

The other big question I have is how did he come up with $50 million in damages? How is Cruise to quantify the damage that the station had to his reputation? Is it completely arbitrary? Does it even matter? If he is able to prove defamation and intrusion of privacy, could he still win punitive damages but at a much smaller scale? For someone with a very public personality, how does the court determine how much damage Cruise actually suffered to his reputation?

This article seemed particularly relevant to what we were talking about in class. According to the article, Michael Robertson, an Andover, Mass., resident is arguing “women in skirts are taking a chance when they ride the T because there’s no guarantee of privacy.”

When we were talking about privacy, two important factors came up. First, did the person reasonably believe they had a right to expect privacy? Second, is society willing to recognize that belief as reasonable?

I would say that somebody riding the T is not “fair game,” just because he/she is in public. If you are a woman and you are wearing a skirt in public, you have a right to expect that someone will not take a picture under your skirt against your will. This is highly intrusive, no matter what the situation is. I believe that society would also be willing to recognize that belief as reasonable. Therefore, I don’t think Robertson’s case holds up.

In the article, Jake Wark, the spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said citizens have a right to privacy in their clothes whether at home or on the T. He also said using a camera to expose “parts of another person’s both under their clothes and against their will is,” a crime. I agree wholeheartedly with him.

Based on this article, it appears that Robertson’s lawyer will take the approach that the law was outdated. This claim brings up an interesting aspect that must be examined in many cases. With the new technology and social media channels available to people, there are likely thousands of laws around the country that don’t reflect the times. It will be interesting to see how this case is approached and how the court deals with laws that are not specifically tailored for the current times.

An online defamation lawsuit is dismissed because the defendant hyperlinked to sources

Given the case brief we just completed, I thought this article was extremely pertinent. The field of First Amendment Internet law is something that we are living through; the laws are not as well defined as print laws because the Internet is a relatively newer medium. I think it’s interesting to be living through it because the precedence that is set now could be standing for the rest of our lives and probably longer.

Mr. Smith/Ms. Jones is different than all the precedential cases we looked at in part because of the emergence of the new (yes, I realize the Internet is not new, but it is newer) medium. The Internet is helping define who is/is not a public figure because the average person is able to reach a much broader audience than ever before. This means that they are more likely to have the capability to defend his/herself.

I think it is important that Internet users read articles like this one and know how they can protect themselves. Often times people throw the first thought that comes to their mind on Facebook or Twitter. People are not immune to posting when they’re upset, and many times they write things online that they shouldn’t. More likely than not, throwaway comments will slide under the radar and no one will press a defamation charge. However, why not take an extra minute to protect yourself by adding a hyperlink when possible?

In the article it says that “if you support your negative factual assertions with hyperlinked citation, you can reduce the risk of a successful defamation claim.” If you are somebody that consistently puts negative claims up on the Internet, it becomes especially important to make sure that there is factual basis behind them. If taking the extra 30 seconds to add a hyperlink can greatly reduce the risk of a successful defamation suit, it’s worth it.

German game developer Crytek caused a stir in the gaming press when the lead producer on its forthcoming multiplayer shooter "Warface"...

Last week, we listened to part of the oral argument presented in Brown v. EMA during class. The Supreme Court ruled against Brown in the case. The decision was partially because violence has not been regulated historically.

We also spent time talking about the stimulation theory, which encompasses the idea that “exposure to violence makes you more violent.” I remember reading an article once that talked about violence toward women in video games. The main theory the article talked about was that men who play these video games have a more lax attitude toward violence against women. It reported that these men had looser attitude when it came to rape.

This got me wondering: How do violent video games impact the way females are perceived? Can it in any way be connected back to the stimulation theory?

I found a different article, which appeared in the NBC News Technology section, which highlights an interesting study done on the subject. The results suggest that “women who played as characters dressed up in skimpy outfits seemed more likely to objectify their own, non-virtual bodies in a similar way.”

Right below that, it says that the same group of women “appeared to be more accepting of so-called rape myths – believing that women who are victims of sexual assault have themselves to blame.” This is very troubling.

As women become even more sexualized in video games, it will be interesting to see if a state decides to crack down on the trend in some way. It will also be intriguing to see if individuals start suing video companies because of negative effects that arise from playing video games.

Might someone sue for obscenity? I’m sure it’s possible, though I highly doubt they’d actually win that case. But if somebody brought forward a case that proved that the violent, sexualized aspect of video games led to both men and women being desensitized toward sexual assault and rape? What if that case alleged that this resulted in the rise of sexual assaults and rapes? That type of case would provide the video game industry with a whole different problem.

This article is from a month ago, but I think it is still pertinent because people are still talking about Miley Cyrus's VMA's performance. Years from now, there will undoubtedly be references to Miley Cyrus twerking on Robin Thicke. Reading through some of these complaints filed to the FCC gives me a greater appreciation for the laws that are in place. One person wrote, “How is it possible that you threw a coniption [sic] fit over Janey Jackson’s nipple slip and yet I was subjugated to 4 minutes of Miley Cyrus last night?” Nobody is “subjugated,” to MTV. It’s a channel that is completely optional. This viewer a) had the option not to have cable or b) had the option to turn the TV off. But he/she didn’t. The Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction is not a fair comparison. That was on CBS, a basic broadcast channel that everyone with a television has access to. It was during an event that millions of people, even children, were watching and thus, were exposed to it. Regardless of how the courts dealt with that case, I think it is unfair to compare it to the Miley/Thicke performance.

I imagine one of the hardest parts about being in the television industry is pleasing everyone. Undoubtedly the person who suggested Miley should spend a year in a convent has different television interests than millions of people who watch the VMA’s. As a whole, I think that the broadcasting laws that are in place have been relatively effective in terms of shielding the general population from indecency that they don’t want to see. I think people need to be mindful about what they choose to watch, especially if they are easily offended. MTV has been known to be a station that can, at times, push the envelope, and I don’t think anything about the VMA’s was surprising, per se. I don’t think anybody really expected that performance, but at the same time, nobody expected a VMA’s show to be G-rated, and if they did, they were watching the wrong channel.

As an avid sports fan, I didn't really have to go looking for this article; I randomly stumbled upon it when I was reading ESPN.com and was interested in it because it seemed applicable to what we had been talking about in class. An article that was in the Daily Mississippian, the student newspaper at the University of Mississippi, alleged that members of the football team were disrupting a play that concerned the death of a gay student. Later on in the article, it says the football players were asked to apologize, and many of them did. The article didn’t mention any potential repercussions for the players, although the assistant provost told ESPN.com that they hadn’t “entered the punishment stage yet,” implying that there might be one. While they didn’t break any laws, the school still has the jurisdiction to hand down punishment if they deemed fit.

This article reminded me of R.A.V. vs St. Paul when the Supreme Court decided that St. Paul’s law that protected against hate speech was unconstitutional. When I was thinking about that case, I was reminded of a quote that my friend used as his senior quote in the yearbook. The quote, said by French philosopher Voltaire, went something along the lines of, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Cases like R.A.V. vs. St. Paul are what allow these football players the ability to say whatever they’d like to say even if it is derogatory and hurtful. They will face no legal punishment because, even if it was hate speech, it didn’t fall into one of the five unprotected categories. I feel like R.A.V. vs. St. Paul was extremely important in terms of setting precedence for a thousands and thousands of speech cases.

I think this is a really interesting new law. While it doesn’t directly pertain to a concept we’ve specifically talked about in class, I believe it is something worth commenting on. I often hear people say they’re glad they didn’t “grow up during the digital era,” because they would have gotten themselves in trouble on the Internet. I believe it is fair for kids to be protected by this type of law because children are prone to making mistakes. It would be unfortunate for minute, trivial things people said on the Internet at age 12 to comeback and haunt them when they are trying to get a job ten years later.

At the same time, it is still important that kids are mindful of what they put on the Internet. The worry I would have with this law is that kids would be more likely to extend some of their legal rights and put up pictures of themselves doing things they shouldn’t be doing just because they know they can have it erased from the virtual universe. While it seems important for kids to be able to take back silly comments they made online, it’s also important that kids don’t use abuse this law.

In addition to a law like this, which I think should be seriously considered in all states around the country, I feel that First Amendment rights in regards to web privacy needs to be an important classroom topic. Just because freedom of speech is protected in most cases, it doesn’t mean you should just go around putting whatever you feel like on the Internet. I think that’s one thing that a decent number of kids don’t necessarily understand. In most states, this type of law has yet to be enacted, and the importance of kids being careful with what they write/post on the Internet is even more important. I think it’s critical that kids are aware of the ramifications of their words. I’ve read stories where teens were driven to suicide because of nasty comments on the Internet, which is tragic, and a pretty good example of the fact that kids don’t always understand how powerful words can be.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Helfand 3776 Tumblr