Author Archives: Bill

The court heard four major communications cases in the 2023-24 term and reported opinions in the spring and summer of 2024.

Moody v Netchoice involved state  government attempts to stop “censorship” by social media companies.  At issue was whether the First Amendment allows a   Florida or Texas to require that social-media companies host third-party communications.  The Florida and Texas state laws were intended to ensure that conservative voices were not censored by big tech companies, and the laws were premised on the idea that social media are common carriers.

In a rare unanimous decision, the court said that social media companies are not common carriers but rather private media companies and that they could not be regulated by state governments.  A state government “cannot get its way just by asserting an interest in better balancing the marketplace of ideas,” said the Supreme Court opinion.  “Whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles (of the First Amendment) do not vary.”

Among a long list of cases supporting Netchoice are  Republican National Committee v Google, which was dismissed in favor of Google on Aug. 24, 2023.  The RNC alleged that Google had been intentionally misdirecting its emails to Gmail users’ spam folders at the end of each month “to secretly suppress the political speech and income of one major political party.”  The court said the RNC had not proven bad faith and  that, in any event, that would have been protected by section 230 of the CDA. Another similar case  protecting the right of private companies to free speech was YouTube v Prager, 2020.

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. When a public official blocks someone from their social media personal, unofficial social media account, is that an act of censorship prohibited by the First Amendment?  The court ruled that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their personal social media accounts ARE acting for the government, and therefore ARE violating the First Amendment when they block their critics.

Vidal v. Elster,   Does the the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violate the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure? The proposed trademark in question was “Trump too small.”  The court said that the Lanham Act prohibits the registration of a trademark that identifies a particular living individual, unless that individual agrees.  Refusal to register the trademark does not violate the First Amendment.

MORE: See the SCOTUS Blog 

Sports Illustrated first cover Aug. 15, 1954

By Bill Kovarik

Sports Illustrated — once the beloved icon of sports news and photography — has been sidelined for financial irregularities and technical fouls. It probably won’t be back.

The fouls involved articles scraped up through artificial intelligence bots – an ethical lapse which came to light in November, 2023. Worse, the magazine tried to cover it up with AI portraits of the supposed authors. The ruse was quickly spotted and the editor was fired.

As advertisers began pulling out, the remaining editors and management faced increasing financial trouble and then, on Jan. 5, 2024, defaulted on regular quarterly payment to its owners, Authentic Brands Group. Two weeks later, ABG terminated the licensing agreement and laid off most of the reporting staff.

So, let’s pause for a moment of silent reflection, in recognition that another great institution is passing us by, headed for the intellectual property bone yards, where its icons will be recycled to brand products like designer swimsuits and tennis shoes.

Sports Illustrated was founded in 1954 by Henry Luce of the Time-Life group to compete with two of the major sports magazines of the time — Sport (founded 1946) and the venerable Sporting News (founded 1886). Back then, people thought Luce was crazy to invest in a “jockstrap” magazine, but his timing was good.

Illustrated magazines were filling the consumer demand for high quality visual experiences while the dominant media — radio and early television — offered audiences only low visual definition. Sports Illustrated also presented better quality journalism and photography than was possible in daily newspapers at the time, and Luce managed to keep all his magazines a step ahead of the competition.

In the 1950s and 60s — a time when politics was America’s most dangerous occupation — Sports Illustrated occupied center field by raising the tone of sports news. Along with sports that were already well covered, like boxing and baseball, Sports Illustrated opened tennis, golf, football and basketball to greater public participation.

Some of its editorial innovations are still well known, such as the athlete of the year and the annual swimsuit issue. Making the cover of Sports Illustrated was, for an athlete, a lot like a Nobel Prize for a scientist.

However, by the end of the twentieth century, the business of magazine and newspaper publishing fractured under competitive pressures from cable, streaming and internet publications. Advertising and circulation declined, and so did Sports Illustrated, despite valiant attempts to save it.

The magazine was sold during the Time-Warner breakup in 2018 and, after changing hands, was picked up by Authentic Brands Group, which specializes in

franchises like Reebok shoes, clothing brands like Juicy Couture, and commercial celebrity names like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe.

ABG will profit from the Sports Illustrated photo archives and the famous swimsuit editions, if nothing else. But the chances that Sports Illustrated will return from the elephant graveyard of news magazines are probably about the same as those of Sport (d. 2000), Sporting News (d. 2012), or for that matter, general photo magazines like Look (d. 1971) or Life (d. 20 00).

Its not only that the genre is no longer profitable, or that if you want to make a small fortune in publishing, you have to start with a big one.

No.

It’s that the world has moved on. Deadspin, theAthletic, network media like ESPN, and media from individual franchises and conferences have all taken center field now. Magazines of all kinds are long gone.

One reason why all this matters more than, say, shifts in seasonal produce or fashions in furniture, is that print journalism was a quality element in a bundle of services that have come unglued.

Thoughtful writing and brilliant photography no longer have solid financial support from middle America.  Magazines like Sports Illustrated were lost on the amusement park midway and drained of life by the digital-industrial information complex.

There is no fixing the loss of magazines, but there are ways to rebuild the media. Repealing Section 230 would be a start in the US.  Adopting legislation like Canada’s Online News Act and Australia’s News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code would be helpful. In Europe, the Digital Services Act is expected to restrain Big Tech and new cross border journalism initiatives will help stabilize financing for some publications.

Recent reform proposals in the US include the Local Journalism Sustainability Act of 2021, 2022 and 2023.  While the act has attracted bipartisan support, it remains in committee while larger antitrust issues get sorted out in US v Google, US v Apple,   issues with Microsoft, and US v Meta.

Protest in Hong Kong, March 2023, held behind “crime tape.”  (Associated Press)

According to the Hong Kong Democracy Council,  authorities have jailed more than 1,500 political prisoners since 2019, half of whom are under the age of 25. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/01/hong-kong-china-crackdown-democracy/

This segment of The Problem with John Stewart was broadcast before the Fox – Dominion settlement      announced April 19, 2023.