Nate Gotlieb, Journalism 3776

Nate Gotlieb | Fall 2013 | Journalism 3776 | Dr. Sanders | University of Minnesota

[sjmcnate-blog]

FBI interviews in Montevideo terror case remain sealed pending court decision

A man accused of plotting to attack the Montevideo, Minn., police station is asking that his FBI interview remain sealed, the Star Tribune reported Thursday.

FBI agent Shane Bell questioned Buford Rogers on May 3 in Montevideo immediately after his arrest, the Star Tribune reported.  

Agents found two Molotov cocktails, a containerized device wrapped in duct tape and an explosive device wrapped in cloth during a search of Rogers' parents’ residential trailer, the report said.

Bell said he questioned Rogers for 40 minutes before he reading his Miranda rights. Bell said he was concerned there might be other live devices and worried about the safety of officers and bomb technicians on the scene, according to the report.

The FBI then interviewed Rogers for several more hours, the report said.

Rogers was indicted in May on a charge of being a felon in possession of explosive devices and a firearm, according to the Star Tribune.

A federal judge ruled last Friday that the delay in reading Rogers his rights was permissible as a “public safety” exception under federal law, according to the report.

The judge ruled that only some of his early statements could be used in the trial and all of his statements after his rights were read were admissible.

The Star Tribune then requested that admissible portions of the transcript and video of the interview be released to the public.  

The U.S. Attorney agreed but Rogers' defense attorney said the transcript should remain sealed.  

The defense attorney said the release “could taint the jury pool, a circumstance that calls for the remedy of a change of venue.”

This situation is similar to several of the cases we discussed in preparation for case assignment 3.  The Supreme Court in Nebraska Press Association v. Stewart, for example, ruled that restricting the press wouldn't have hampered the defendant's right to a fair trial.  

The Supreme Court said in that case a restraining order would not have stopped publicity.  The court noted the crime took place in a small town and news of it was likely to travel by word of mouth.  The Supreme Court held “a community cannot be restrained from discussing a subject intimately affecting life within it.”  

The Montevideo crime took place in a small town, similar to Nebraska Press Association, and certainly affected life within it.  Keeping the records sealed would therefore do little to spread news of what happened because everyone's likely to have heard about it.  The Star Tribune lawyer could even argue that keeping the records sealed could precipitate the spread of false rumors.

The Freedom of Information Act assumes that all records are presumed open unless they fall under one of the nine exempted categories.  Under that assumption and the assumption that most people in Montevideo already know about the case, I'm assuming the court will open the interviews to the public.

[helfand3776]

Media outlets cautious with Newtown 911 recordings

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. 

[sjmcnate-blog]

I didn't listen to the tapes either but I can see why they are historically important. The tapes will help the American public understand  the true panic and tragedy those at Sandy Hook Elementary School felt that day.  We need to remember these horrific incidents so others like them never happen again.  It's similar to the Holocaust, or genocide in that way: these incidents may continue to happen if we continue to push them out of our memory. 

That being said, there is a certain maturity level needed to understand what happened that day.  Young kids certainly should not be exposed to these tapes without first understanding the greater context.  These tapes will elicit a very powerful emotional reaction, one that can be damaging without the proper context.  

I'm glad the tapes were released but hope the cable networks give the full historical context when presenting them.  The tapes should inspire action, not reaction.

[alilacey-blog]

The pledge of allegiance has long been an issue in the United States. Most recently, State of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed legislation in October 2012 that gives all Michigan students the right to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school classrooms. This timeline provides “Fast...

[sjmcnate-blog]

I was one of the many kids who said the pledge in elementary school without thinking about it.  That's good in someways, I think.  Expressing patriotism is a good thing.  It unites us as Americans, classmates and neighbors and gives us strength in tough times.  

I see this line "under god" as more of a uniting cause than controversial.  It  draws on America's historical roots in many ways.  Most of the earliest European settlers came to America to escape religious persecution.  America has always been a relatively free place for people to practice their religion and I think the line "under god" pays homage to that more than indicating a religious affiliation between church and state.

That being said, everyone should have the right not to say the pledge if they so choose.  We need to be sensitive of other peoples' interpretations of our traditions, even if we see them as normal.  Americans should be free to say what they want (as long as it's not in the five categories of unprotected speech) and should not be forced to say the pledge.

[sjmcnate-blog]

James Winston, the media and the Heisman Trophy

The decision by the Florida State Attorney's office not to charge Florida State star quarterback Jameis Winston with sexual assault essentially ensures that he will win the Heisman Trophy, an award given annually to college football's best player.

Winston has been one of the most prolific players on the best college football team this season.  He's thrown thrown for 35 touchdowns and led the Seminoles to a 13-0 record and a No. 1 ranking.

Winston had come under heavy media scrutiny for an sexual assault he had had been accused of committing.  The state attorney decided he didn't have enough evidence to press charges, however, so the case was dropped.  

The case received heavy media attention, especially on ESPN (the nation's football hub), because of Winston's high profile.  I thought the media handled his case with fairness and respect to both the accuser and to Winston.  I also thought the Florida attorney did a fair job of keeping the media informed while conducting a thorough investigation.  He could have merely thrown the case under wraps but it seemed like he was transparent about his investigation and how he conducted it.  

It would have been a disaster for Florida State if Winston would have been charged.  He would have likely lost the Heisman Trophy and people would be calling for the resignation of the Seminole's coach and athletics director.  That didn't happen, though, so no one has to worry about it.

The media needs to exercise restraint when dealing with high-profile charges such as these.  Reporters in this case could have used confidential sources to uncover unreported evidence but these leaks largely didn't happen.  That's ok.  The media fulfilled its watchdog role by bringing this case to the forefront in the first place.  It was right in exercising restraint when the allegations became public.  

That doesn't mean the media shouldn't scrutinize Winston for what he did.  His lawyer admitted that he had a one-night stand with the accuser, though the exact details are shaky.  His promiscuity shouldn't be applauded but he shouldn't be singled out for it.  Because lets face it: many athletes engage in this type of behavior.  

The questionable behavior Winston engaged in deserves to be somewhat scrutinized.  But I appreciate that he wasn't convicted of a crime in the media before the state did its investigation.  It saved his reputation and his chance at the Heisman.

[sjmcnate-blog]

Haitian photographer wins copyright case in U.S. court

A 62-year-old Haitian photographer has won a major copyright ruling in U.S. District Court, the New York Times reported last week.  

A Manhattan jury awarded Port-au-Prince resident Daniel Morel $1.22 million for copyright infringement, the report said.  

The jury found that Agence France-Presse and its American distributor Getty Images willfully infringed upon Morel’s copyright of eight pictures he took of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, according to the report.

Morel posted the photos on TwitPic, a website that allows users to put pictures on Twitter, hours after the earthquake on Jan. 12, 2010. A Twitter user named Lisandro Suero then reposted the pictures claiming they were his, the report said.

Agence France-Presse took the photos from TwitPic and distributed them to clients, and Getty Images distributed the photos in the United States, according to the report.

NYTimes.com briefly used the Getty photos that evening, the report said.  The Washington Post, ABC, CBS and others who settled with Mr. Morel before Friday’s ruling had also used them.

Agence France-Presse had originally filed a suit against Morel seeking a judgment that the agency had not infringed upon his copyright and that instead he was interfering with its business practices, according to the report.

A Federal District Court judge disagreed and said that the agency needed Mr. Morel’s permission to publish his photographs, the report said.

The judge had a jury determine whether the infringement had been willful and had it decide damages, according to the report.  The jury found that Agence France-Presse and Getty had violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel to the National Press Photographers Association, said in an interview with the Times that the ruling reinforced photographers’ rights in the era of social media.

“Like anything of value, people need to ask permission, give credit and pay fair compensation for those images,” he said. “And when they don’t, photographers need to be able to stand up for their rights.”

This is a good lesson for me as a young journalist.  I need to be careful about where I get my content and information from and need to double check my sources.  A mistake like this could be costly to both my news organization and my career, so I'll try and prevent them before they occur.

[tabbertnick-blog]

I got a cool lesson on defamation this morning in another journalism class. Jim Barnum - vice president and general counsel of Hubbard Broadcasting - and Paul Hannah - partner of attorney firm Kelley and Hannah - stopped by to talk about the legal aspects of broadcast reporting, and what you need...

[sjmcnate-blog]

I agree with Nick that I've learned good lessons about defamation through my classes, especially 3776.  I've learned throughout my time at SJMC how important it is to communicate well with co-workers, employers and sources.  Journalists can avoid many of these situations by practicing good communication and good judgement.  The lessons I've learned in college have sharpened my judgement on tough ethical situations.  I now feel better prepared and more confident to tackle the potential tough situations I will face in my first job.

[sjmcnate-blog]

Flight attendant sues Leno, "Tonight Show" over bestiality comments

A New York-based flight attendant has sued NBC Universal Media, "The Tonight Show" and Jay Leno for defamation, claiming Leno falsely accused her of smuggling rats onto a plane in her underwear, according to a Courthouse News Service report.

Louann Giambattista, 55, said Leno's depiction of her has wreaked havoc on her marriage and made her an outcast in her community.

Leno showed a photo of Giambattista and had three panelists comment on her story during a July 18 segment called "Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda."  She claims the panelists "systematically criticized, defamed, and humiliated her," and Leno "indulged panelists' outlandish comments and laughed as his guests attacked Ms. Giambattista's character."

Giambattista claims her husband "now suffers from severe sexual dysfunction and inability to perform sexually" as a result of the segment, the report says.  

She also claims Leno knew the story was based on "blatantly false and malicious rumors."

Giambattista originally sued American Airlines in July after she claimed she was discriminated against because of a perceived mental disability, an ABC News report said.  

Giambattista said she was subject to detentions and interrogations by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement when she worked international flights because two flight attendants told American Airlines she was bringing her concealed pet rats onto work flights, the report said.  

Giambattista's lawyer denied that she brought rats onboard flights and Giambattista no longer works for the airline.  

Giambattista will struggle to win her lawsuit against Leno and NBC because she will have to prove actual malice -- a reckless disregard for the truth -- since she is a public figure under the Gertz standard.   

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gertz that there are three categories of public figures: all-purpose, limited purpose and involuntary.  The court defines limited purpose public figures as those who voluntarily inject themselves or are drawn into a controversy.  

Giambattista qualifies as a limited purpose public figure because she initiated the lawsuit against American Airlines, thereby prompting the controversy.  She is also an involuntary public figure because the bizarre nature of her case immediately generated media attention.

Giambattista will also have to prove falsity -- that Leno's claims weren't true -- because bringing rats onto airplanes is an issue of public concern.  The Supreme Court ruled in Hepps that plaintiffs must prove falsity in cases of public concern.  

Giambattista will win the case against Leno and NBC if she proves the network acted with a reckless disregard for the truth and that she indeed did not bring rats onto planes.  She may be able to prove falsity but most likely won't be able to prove actual malice.  

[sjmcnate-blog]

Analysis: Judge made right call in Google fair use lawsuit

Google's project to digitally copy millions of books for online searches does not violate copyright law, a U.S. Circuit Court judge in Manhattan has ruled.  

The ruling ended a nearly decade-long lawsuit over the fair use of the collections at the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress and other university libraries, NPR reported Friday.  

Google started scanning books by both living and non-living authors in 2004, NPR reported.  

The Authors Guild, a non-profit organization of American authors, sued Google in 2005, because about 20 million of the books Google digitized were under copyright, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.

The Guild wanted $750 dollars for each book scanned, which Google estimated would have cost it $3 billion, NPR reported.  

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Denny Chin said Google's display of parts of the texts constitutes fair use, the Los Angeles Times reported.  Chin ruled that the project was transformative and serves several educational purposes. 

Google doesn't show the books in their entirety but displays key or relevant sections.  Chin said Google Books is likely to boost book sales and will give life to outdated books that sit in the bowels of libraries, NPR reported. 

Google welcomed the decision but the Authors Guild plans to appeal, NPR reported.  

We learned about the four-part fair use test in class Wednesday.  The test looks at the purpose of the use, the nature of the work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used and the effect of the use on the potential market.  

Google Books passes the fair use test.  The purpose of use is clearly educational and having books easily available has tremendous societal benefits.  

Google uses only snippets of books and leaves out the most important parts.  It does not harm book sales, an argument even the judge agreed with.  

The only portion Google books doesn't pass is the "nature of use" prong because it has scanned popular books such as "Harry Potter" and "Twilight."  But the program passes the test on three of the prongs and should therefore be allowed to continue.  

The judge made the right call in this case and lets hope the appeal is denied.  

[sjmcnate-blog]

Pastor says seizure of snakes violates freedom of religion

A Tennessee pastor cited for having poisonous snakes at his church said the law infringes on his freedom of religion, a Knoxville TV station reported Friday.

Law enforcement cited the pastor Thursday for breaking a Tennessee law regarding the possession of poisonous reptiles, the report said.  The pastor said he knew serpent handling was illegal but said the law violated his First Amendment freedom of religion, according to the report.

The pastor and some of his church members hold poisonous snakes while praying and singing, which they claim shows the power of God, the report said.

"I believe in the power of God and that it'll let you heal to seek and it'll move and it'll cast out devils. It'll move in tongues, it'll move and take up serpents," the pastor told the TV station. "Here I am I'm getting snakes took, I'm facing jail time, I'm facing being taken away from my wife, my children, I'm facing being pulled out of my church just simply because I went out in the woods and caught a rattlesnake and I brought it to a service because I believe the bible said they shall take up serpents."

The TV station talked with lawyers and professionals who said the pastor is fighting a losing battle.  

The experts agreed that since it is a law of general applicability, it would apply to the entire community and therefore the pastor.  

"For a law like this, in respect of snakes, the goal is not to suppress anyone's religion, the goal is to prevent a public nuisance," one expert said.

The report said there have been cases similar to this.  It cited one called Swan V. Pack in which the court said the state may prevent a group from handling snakes as a part of its religious service.

The report also notes that attacks on laws using religion and First Amendment rights are nothing new.  It cites a case involving a Mormon who said the First Amendment gave him the freedom to practice polygamy.  The report notes the Supreme Court's rejection of that argument.  

These sorts of cases involve the content-neutral, speech-restricting regulations we talked about during unit one.  We learned that content-neutral restrictions are generally okay because they apply to all people and prevent public nuisances.  Content-based regulations must undergo strict scrutiny because they discriminate against a message.  

The regulation in this case is content-neutral.  Average people aren't allowed to possess poisonous snakes.  And for good reason.  

[sjmcnate-blog]

Angels' slugger Pujols suing radio commentator for defamation

Los Angeles Angels star Albert Pujols filed a defamation suit earlier this month against a radio commentator who accused him of using steroids.   

Former major leaguer Jack Clark said during an Aug. 2 appearance on a St. Louis radio station that he "knew for a fact" that Pujols used steroids and performance enhancing drugs, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.  

The comments have damaged Pujols' reputation and caused him personal humiliation, mental anguish and anxiety, the suit says.  

Clark based his comments on a conversation he had with Pujols' former personal trainer, but Pujols and the trainer have denied the accusation.  

An attorney for Clark last week said that Pujols should take a polygraph test to determine if he is telling the truth.  Pujols' lawyer called the request "ridiculous."  

The radio station later issued a retraction and an apology to Pujols.

Pujols will have a hard time winning this case, and he appears to know that.   

Pujols will have to prove "actual malice," since he's a public figure.  As we discuss in class, this means he will have to prove Clark made his statement with knowledge that it was false or with "reckless disregard" as to its falsity.     

Pujols would be considered a "general public figure," because he has a role of special prominence in society and is in a positive of persuasive power.  He will therefore need to prove a higher actual malice standard.  

The U.S. Supreme Court established a high standard for defamation of public officials in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964.  The court's rulings in Curtis Publishing v. Butts & AP v. Walker extended that standard to public figures.  

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.  the court decides that there are three types of public figures.  It rules that states can require private plaintiffs to prove negligence but that public figures must prove actual malice.

Pujols faces the highest burden of proof, and winning the case won't be easy.  

He won't win, looking at the standards laid out in previous defamation cases.

[sjmcnate-blog]

Obama needs to learn Pentagon Papers lessons, lawyer says

The government should ignore the First Amendment at its own peril, First Amendment lawyer James Goodale said Wednesday.

Goodale spoke about the lessons of the Pentagon Papers on Wednesday night at the Cowles Auditorium as part of the annual Silha Lecture.

He said he doesn't think President Barack Obama has learned them.

Obama has indicted more leakers under the Espionage Act than any other U.S. President, Goodale said.  He said the administration is not nearly as transparent as it claims to be.  

He pointed to the government's recent indictments of leakers such as Edward Snowden and Chelsea (Bradley) Manning as examples of the government's aggressiveness.

Goodale became famous because of the Pentagon Papers case in the early 1970s.  He defended the New York Times after it decided to publish the secret government documents about America's historical involvement in Vietnam.  

The U.S. government sued the Times upon publication and Goodale defended the newspaper in court.  He argued the Espionage Act should not apply to the press.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in his favor, holding prior restraint was nearly impossible to justify under the First Amendment.

Goodale said he thinks the case has two lessons: the government should ignore the first amendment at its own peril and journalists should push through "top secret" branding.

Goodale was an entertaining speaker -- a wiry, fiery man who appeared very passionate about defending First Amendment freedoms.  His points raised serious concerns about the efficacy of the current administration.  

Guardian article supports Goodale's claims

A study by the Commission to Protect Journalists has found the Obama Administration's pursuit of leakers to be the most aggressive since the 1970s, The Guardian reported last week.

Former Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie authored the study.  He told The Guardian he feels the administration's actions have "severely hindered the release of information that could be used to hold it to account."

Obama had promised to be more open, Downie said, after inheriting a culture of secrecy that had built up since 9/11.  But instead, Obama has become "more aggressive" in his pursuit of leakers of information, the article said.  

The Commission has called on the government to end prosecutions of leaders under the Espionage Act and to increase transparency, the article said.

[sjmcnate-blog]

NYT editor emphasizes importance of free press

The Guardian on Sunday published an in-depth piece on the New York Times and its executive editor, Jill Abramson.  The article quotes Abramson's strong views about the importance of the first amendment.

"The First Amendment is first for a reason," Abramson told the Guardian. "It makes me feel a little like I'm pontificating to cite the founders of this country, but it's true they were so afraid of centralised power that they saw a free press as the critical bulwark against unbridled government – and that is our role."

We've learned in class what categories of speech the First Amendment does and doesn't protect.  We've also studied cases where the first amendment is put to the test.  

Our study of the first amendment is contained to the classroom -- at least for now.  Abramson deals with these First Amendment situations every day.

She said President Barack Obama's pursuit of official leakers under the Espionage Act has "put a chill on sources, particularly those involved in national security matters."

"There are principled people inside the government who want to share certain information but are now too scared to talk because they fear prosecution," Abramson said.

The relationships between journalists and official types -- whether they be public relation people or government employees -- is oftentimes contentious.  Abramson has a right to be frustrated, because the government shouldn't be withholding information.  

Abramson goes on to say she is "unfazed" by the fifth estate sites such as WikiLeaks.  She said the paper is still the world's premier home for journalism, and she expects that important sources will continue providing it with information.  

We've talked in class about how the press is the most protected medium of speech.  It's people like Abramson who ensure the press acts ethically and who are ultimately responsible for keeping the government honest.  I'm comforted to know how strong of an advocate she is for government transparency.

[sjmcnate-blog]

Government shutdown could slow press efforts

The National Park Service granted more than 125 veterans access to the World War II Memorial on Tuesday, despite the recent government shutdown. 

The park service initially kept the veterans out of the memorial on Tuesday but reneged when members of Congress intervened and helped push aside the barriers. A parks service spokeswoman said the agency let the veterans in so they could conduct First Amendment activities at the memorial.

The government shutdown shouldn't limit citizens' rights to exercise free speech but could affect the media.  

Many government employees are currently furloughed and some government websites are either partially or completely down.  This means media members covering federal government don't have access to current information.  

The First Amendment provides a right to gather information.  But it's hard to gather that information when the people who have the keys to it aren't available.  

This could especially affect FOIA requests (although they are notoriously slow).  It will inevitably delay the government's speed in processing them, which could slow journalists in their long-term projects.  

One of the justifications for freedom of expression discussed in class was the watchdog value of free speech.  But the press can't fill its fourth-estate role if there is no federal government to check.

I worked on a story this summer that required me to call the Department of Education for information and eventually submit a FOIA request.  That information would be unavailable to me today. 

The government will eventually start functioning again, and records and information will change hands.  But any significant delays in the dissemination of information is a detriment to a free press.  

[sjmcnate-blog]

Here is a test text post

Here is my test post.

Here's a photo: