See Saltzman v. Goddard.
We are the Digital Media Law Project
March 1st, 2013
by Jeffrey P. Hermes
DMLP
Many of you who have followed the adventures of the Citizen Media Law Project know that we have been contemplating a change of our project's name for quite some time (the eagle-eyed will have seen our new name and logo appearing in stealth fashion here and there on our site and elsewhere). The change from "Citizen" to "Digital" is a profound one for us, reflecting an ongoing discussion within our project (now and hereafter the "DMLP") about the nature of the online journalism and publishing ecosystem and our role in supporting those involved in it.
When our project started in 2007, the disruptive effects of the Internet on the journalism industry were in full swing, while at the same time individuals were realizing the potential of blogs, social media, and other open online platforms to change how we share information of public importance. The ability of individuals to participate directly in meeting the information needs of their communities marked a critical shift in how we communicate on public issues. However, many of those exploring the possibilities of citizen journalism did so with little understanding of the legal risks that they might face, risks that traditional journalism organizations had long understood and for which they had developed extensive risk management strategies.
The "Citizen Media Law Project" was intended to close that information gap, by providing freely available legal information about key issues affecting online speech in a form that could be understood without a law degree. We were also deeply concerned about tracking situations in which citizen journalists were actually threatened with legal action, leading us to create our threats database to monitor the legal challenges being faced by online publishers. These resources have been well received, and we continue to support them now.
However, in the last six years, digital journalism has continued to evolve at an exciting and even dizzying pace. Citizen journalists continue to do excellent work, but professional journalists who believe in the potential of online speech have launched numerous independent ventures as well. Freed from the constraints of traditional media, news projects experiment with sharing news in a wide variety of forms, from a constant torrent of short bursts of information to extended, in-depth investigative pieces - or even a seven-year journal of a walk around the world. Data journalism is realizing the incredible potential of mining vast storehouses of digital information for a clearer view of the world. The channels by which we receive all of this information are in constant development as well, as technology provides new and easier ways of creating, sharing, receiving, and even understanding content.
Of course, the legal challenges of this environment are in flux as well, making it essential that a project such as ours be flexible enough to respond to these challenges. So, while we can predict many fundamental legal issues and provide primers and legal guides, we remain on constant alert for new issues that could affect online journalism as a whole and develop tailored responses to those issues as they arise. When a journalist faces a specific issue and needs direct assistance, we can provide pro bono and reduced fee referrals through the Online Media Legal Network, our network of hundreds of attorneys, law firms, and legal clinics. Our project is no longer limited to addressing the narrow challenges faced by new and inexperienced entrants into the journalism market, but innovating to provide a comprehensive and mutually supporting set of resources to assist digital journalism as a whole.
For these reasons, we are now the "Digital Media Law Project." We are looking forward to all of the challenges that this transition entails, and welcome your participation in this new phase of our existence.
Jeff Hermes is the Director of the Digital Media Law Project.
Showing posts with label Citizen Media Law Project. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citizen Media Law Project. Show all posts
Friday, March 01, 2013
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Website Covered By State Reporter's Privilege
New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules Website Covered By State Reporter's Privilege
Posted May 6th, 2010
This morning, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire handed down an important decision holding that a mortgage industry website, The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter, is entitled to protection under the state's reporter's privilege.
The case is Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc., which was argued before the New Hampshire Supreme Court last fall. The dispute centers on an article that Impode-O-Meter published in August 2008, which detailed administrative actions taken by the New Hampshire Banking Department against The Mortgage Specialists, a mortgage lender. The article included a link to a financial document that The Mortgage Specialists allegedly submitted to the state banking authorities, which Implode-O-Meter had obtained from an anonymous source. After the mortgage company discovered the disclosure, it sued the website, demanding that the document be removed from the Internet and that the anonymous source be identified. A Rockingham County Superior Court judge granted these requests.
In the part of the decision dealing with the reporter's privilege, the state high court ruled that New Hampshire's qualified reporter's privilege applied to Implode-O-Meter and could protect the identity of the source who provided the loan document. The court flatly rejected The Mortgage Specialists' argument that "the newsgathering privilege is inapplicable here because Implode is neither an established media entity nor engaged in investigative reporting." ...
Posted May 6th, 2010
This morning, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire handed down an important decision holding that a mortgage industry website, The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter, is entitled to protection under the state's reporter's privilege.
The case is Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc., which was argued before the New Hampshire Supreme Court last fall. The dispute centers on an article that Impode-O-Meter published in August 2008, which detailed administrative actions taken by the New Hampshire Banking Department against The Mortgage Specialists, a mortgage lender. The article included a link to a financial document that The Mortgage Specialists allegedly submitted to the state banking authorities, which Implode-O-Meter had obtained from an anonymous source. After the mortgage company discovered the disclosure, it sued the website, demanding that the document be removed from the Internet and that the anonymous source be identified. A Rockingham County Superior Court judge granted these requests.
In the part of the decision dealing with the reporter's privilege, the state high court ruled that New Hampshire's qualified reporter's privilege applied to Implode-O-Meter and could protect the identity of the source who provided the loan document. The court flatly rejected The Mortgage Specialists' argument that "the newsgathering privilege is inapplicable here because Implode is neither an established media entity nor engaged in investigative reporting." ...
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Will Italy's Conviction of Google Execs Stick?
Will Italy's Conviction of Google Execs Stick?
Citizen Media Legal Project
March 2nd, 2010 by Arthur Bright
I've no doubt that CMLP blog readers, fellow netizens that you are, are well aware of an Italian court's conviction last week of three Google executives for invasion of privacy of an Italian teenager.
(In case you missed the story, here it is in short: the teenager (who either suffered from Down's syndrome or autism; reports differ) was filmed by four other teens who were bullying him, and the bullies posted the video on YouTube. Google promptly removed the video after receiving a formal complaint. Italian authorities then criminally prosecuted four Google execs for defamation and invasion of privacy. Last week, the Italian court found three of the execs guilty of invasion of privacy; the defamation charges were dropped against all four. More back-story can be found in my 2008 post when the possibility of charges was first announced.)
Of course, Google is apoplectic. Much of the rest of the media world is too: Mathew Ingram of gigaom.com rounds up:
The Wall Street Journal called it “madness,” and suggested it was “crazy, even for Italy,” while the Inquirer called it “a blow against common sense and Internet freedom.” Danny O’Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation called it “a threat to the Internet,” and the National Post said it suggested that “Fascism is alive and well.”
And that doesn't include Anna Masera's commentary on The Guardian's website, where she warns that "today Italy is a little bit more Chinese"—in the online oppression sense, of course.
So the vast majority of the responses have been damning of the Italian judge's verdict, and Google has said they're going to appeal. John Naughton writes for The Observer that:
[I]t's likely that they will be vindicated because even if the Italian appeal fails, there is always the possibility of recourse to the European Court in Strasbourg, which will take the view that European Union law, as currently drafted, appears to give hosting providers a safe harbour from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence...
Citizen Media Legal Project
March 2nd, 2010 by Arthur Bright
I've no doubt that CMLP blog readers, fellow netizens that you are, are well aware of an Italian court's conviction last week of three Google executives for invasion of privacy of an Italian teenager.
(In case you missed the story, here it is in short: the teenager (who either suffered from Down's syndrome or autism; reports differ) was filmed by four other teens who were bullying him, and the bullies posted the video on YouTube. Google promptly removed the video after receiving a formal complaint. Italian authorities then criminally prosecuted four Google execs for defamation and invasion of privacy. Last week, the Italian court found three of the execs guilty of invasion of privacy; the defamation charges were dropped against all four. More back-story can be found in my 2008 post when the possibility of charges was first announced.)
Of course, Google is apoplectic. Much of the rest of the media world is too: Mathew Ingram of gigaom.com rounds up:
The Wall Street Journal called it “madness,” and suggested it was “crazy, even for Italy,” while the Inquirer called it “a blow against common sense and Internet freedom.” Danny O’Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation called it “a threat to the Internet,” and the National Post said it suggested that “Fascism is alive and well.”
And that doesn't include Anna Masera's commentary on The Guardian's website, where she warns that "today Italy is a little bit more Chinese"—in the online oppression sense, of course.
So the vast majority of the responses have been damning of the Italian judge's verdict, and Google has said they're going to appeal. John Naughton writes for The Observer that:
[I]t's likely that they will be vindicated because even if the Italian appeal fails, there is always the possibility of recourse to the European Court in Strasbourg, which will take the view that European Union law, as currently drafted, appears to give hosting providers a safe harbour from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence...
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Citizen Media Legal Project website--Will Judge Judith Hayes be able to shut it down?
Someone sent me a link today to Harvard University's website about threats to citizens who try to exercise their freedom of speech.
The website is here.
It's amazing how many powerful people think that the First Amendment doesn't apply to people who criticize them.
The website is here.
It's amazing how many powerful people think that the First Amendment doesn't apply to people who criticize them.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Guajome Park Academy case against employee who exposed grade changes; federal trial Sept. 15, 2009
UPDATE SEPT. 11, 2009: The federal court has ordered Guajome Park Academy to prepare dismissal documents for this case, which had been scheduled for trial next Tuesday. Apparently there is a settlement in the case. Shame on GPA for abusing the justice system to cover up its own wrongdoing.
Citizen Media Law Project summary of case: Guajome Park Academy v. DuPerry
See all Guajome Park Academy posts HERE.
Declaration in favor of McCulloch by Vista Unified School District board president Carol Herrera.
The court has refused to allow a defense witness to testify. Why is the court protecting the Plaintiff? The court granted an order excluding the testimony of Stephanie Persichetti at trial, although the court noted that "Defendant opposes the motion, claiming that this “entire lawsuit arises from the grade change of one student,” taught by Persichetti. Defendant states that Persichetti will provide relevant testimony regarding Plaintiff’s grade change policy and alleged violations of the policy, within the context of her experience as a teacher at the academy.".
Citizen Media Law Project summary of case: Guajome Park Academy v. DuPerry
See all Guajome Park Academy posts HERE.
Declaration in favor of McCulloch by Vista Unified School District board president Carol Herrera.
The court has refused to allow a defense witness to testify. Why is the court protecting the Plaintiff? The court granted an order excluding the testimony of Stephanie Persichetti at trial, although the court noted that "Defendant opposes the motion, claiming that this “entire lawsuit arises from the grade change of one student,” taught by Persichetti. Defendant states that Persichetti will provide relevant testimony regarding Plaintiff’s grade change policy and alleged violations of the policy, within the context of her experience as a teacher at the academy.".
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Truth is an absolute defense to charge of defamation, says Christopher Juillet
Citizen Media Law Project has posted the EDF Ventures v. Ressi case, a defamation lawsuit regarding The Funded blog.
It appears that the lawsuit is in vain, since The Funded keeps no information about people who post on the site.
"The best rule for writers to follow is to avoid making posts if they can't back up their claims...Be right and be able to prove it because truth is an absolute defense."
Company files defamation lawsuit against anonymous Web poster
Posted by Tina Reed
The Ann Arbor News
August 21, 2008
After executives at an Ann Arbor venture capital firm discovered an anonymous, negative Internet posting about the company, they weren't just mad: They decided to sue.
In a court filing, EDF Ventures accused "John Doe" of defamation for implying in a comment posted on the Web that the people running the firm were dishonest. The comment was made on a California-based Web site called The Funded, which was created to allow entrepreneurs to rate investors anonymously...
Adeo Ressi, the Web site founder, said last week that he planned to cooperate with the subpoena and provide the records he has. But he said the information will likely be unhelpful because of the measures the site takes to make posters anonymous.
The Web site's policy tells visitors, who must be approved to sign up and comment, that all personal information is discarded after approval.
"It's the best thing that ever happened to The Funded," Ressi said. "This case will prove it is truly anonymous."...
It appears that the lawsuit is in vain, since The Funded keeps no information about people who post on the site.
"The best rule for writers to follow is to avoid making posts if they can't back up their claims...Be right and be able to prove it because truth is an absolute defense."
Company files defamation lawsuit against anonymous Web poster
Posted by Tina Reed
The Ann Arbor News
August 21, 2008
After executives at an Ann Arbor venture capital firm discovered an anonymous, negative Internet posting about the company, they weren't just mad: They decided to sue.
In a court filing, EDF Ventures accused "John Doe" of defamation for implying in a comment posted on the Web that the people running the firm were dishonest. The comment was made on a California-based Web site called The Funded, which was created to allow entrepreneurs to rate investors anonymously...
Adeo Ressi, the Web site founder, said last week that he planned to cooperate with the subpoena and provide the records he has. But he said the information will likely be unhelpful because of the measures the site takes to make posters anonymous.
The Web site's policy tells visitors, who must be approved to sign up and comment, that all personal information is discarded after approval.
"It's the best thing that ever happened to The Funded," Ressi said. "This case will prove it is truly anonymous."...
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Teacher sues "Teacher Smackdown" website
Citizen Media Law Reports announces:
Cruse v. Teacher Smackdown
Lawsuit Date: 05/2008
Subject Area: Defamation
Party Issuing Threat: Loretta DiAnne Cruse
Party Receiving Threat: Teacher Smackdown
"In May 2008, Loretta DiAnne Cruse, a former special-ed teacher at Norfolk Elementary School in Arkansas, sued the Teacher Smackdown website for defamation in Arkansas state court.
"Teacher Smackdown is a teacher watchdog site, which describes its function as "identif[ying] the molesters, thieves, and lecherous adults masquerading as teachers in our society" and "giv[ing] parents resources and information on protecting our kids and identifying these monsters."
"The dispute revolves around an April 9, 2007 post about Cruse. The entire post is no longer available, but an abbreviated version (scroll down) is..."
Cruse v. Teacher Smackdown
Lawsuit Date: 05/2008
Subject Area: Defamation
Party Issuing Threat: Loretta DiAnne Cruse
Party Receiving Threat: Teacher Smackdown
"In May 2008, Loretta DiAnne Cruse, a former special-ed teacher at Norfolk Elementary School in Arkansas, sued the Teacher Smackdown website for defamation in Arkansas state court.
"Teacher Smackdown is a teacher watchdog site, which describes its function as "identif[ying] the molesters, thieves, and lecherous adults masquerading as teachers in our society" and "giv[ing] parents resources and information on protecting our kids and identifying these monsters."
"The dispute revolves around an April 9, 2007 post about Cruse. The entire post is no longer available, but an abbreviated version (scroll down) is..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)