Anniversary of Smith v Daily Mail

When should the names of juveniles accused of murder be made public? Forty years ago, under West Virginia state law, the answer was ‘never.’  It was illegal for a news organization to make public the name of anyone under 18  accused of a crime.

Generally there are good reasons for keeping the names of juvenile offenders private, including a better chance for rehabilitation.  But who has the duty to keep a name quiet? A newspaper? And would that be true for a teenager accused of murder, for which there is no chance of rehabilitation?

After a school shooting in 1977, editors of the West Virginia Daily Mail decided that a murder charge against  a 14 year old should be made public. A county prosecutor brought indictments against the paper’s employees for violating state law, and the paper fought the case to the US Supreme Court, which agreed that such state laws were unconstitutional prior restraints on the press in violation of the First Amendment.  The duty to keep a juvenile’s name confidential belonged to law enforcement, not the press, the court said.

See: Daily Mail editorial Feb 8, 2018  
Washington & Lee case summary

Libel laws don’t favor Roy Moore

Judge Roy Moore, the embattled Republican nominee for Alabama’s open U.S. Senate seat, must surely long for the good ole days, says Vincent R. Johnson,  a law professor at St. Mary’s University, in a Nov. 19 op-ed for the San Antonio Express-News. 

Until 1964, the American legal principles governing libel and slander were completely out of sync with the free speech and free press guarantees of the First Amendment.

First, a defamatory statement at that time was presumed to be false. The plaintiff did not have to prove falsity. Second, it made no difference how much care the speaker exercised. If the statement was false, strict liability was imposed. Third, certain statements were presumed to cause harm. Even if a plaintiff presented no evidence of actual losses, a jury could award a large amount of damages based simply on the nastiness of the utterance and the extent of its circulation.

All that changed with the 1964 New York Times v Sullivan case, Johnson notes.

FCC lifting rules on media concentration

US & International Media Concentration

Depending on your point of view, the new broadcast station ownership rules issued  Nov. 16, 2017  by the Federal Communications Commission  will either increase market diversity by ridding us of antiquated rules,  or,  it will decrease diversity by helping large media companies grow even larger.

The new rules are part of a standard four-year review of broadcast ownership rules. They follow a pattern of deregulation since the Reagan era.      Continue reading →

Trump’s Russian allies slowly learning US libel law

Oleg Deripaska totally missed the point of US libel law. (Hint: It doesnt exist to punish the critics of the rich and the corrupt).

A libel suit by a Russian billionaire got booted out of federal court Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2017.

Oleg Deripaskaha had sued the Associated Press for exposing his links  to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

US  District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said  the suit  “cherry-picked sentences” that he wrongly claimed were defamatory even though he “does not dispute any material facts.”     

According to the AP, the story revealed how Manafort, a decade before joining the Trump campaign, had proposed to Deripaska a confidential business strategy to support pro-Russian political parties and to influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and former Soviet republics to benefit Putin’s government.

To recover for libel, a story must be false.

A busy year for US libel lawyers

US First Amendment guarantees for freedom of speech and press are fairly straightforward  “black-letter law” — That is, they are so well settled in precedent  and statute that they are no longer subject to reasonable argument.

And yet, this year and last,  we have seen a raft of lawsuits apparently filed in the unlikely hope that the Trump administration’s dream of curtailing First Amendment rights will be endorsed by the courts. As Melissa Rosenberg of the Washington Post says:  “Billionaires want to enlist you in their secret plans to take down the press.”   For example:

Fake earthquake: Comedian John Oliver  was sued by coal company owner Bob Murray on June 21, 2017. The libel suit alleged that Oliver “meticulously planned attempt to assassinate the character  of … Mr. Murray.” (See Murray’s brief here).  Murray filed a similar lawsuit in April over a New York Times editorial.  (The Times response is here .)  In both cases, Continue reading →

Does anti-trust law apply to Google & Facebook?

It may be time to think about breaking up the high-tech monopolies that dominate American telecommunication, says  Jonathan Taplin,  director emeritus of USC’s  Annenberg Innovation Lab in a New York Times article April 23, 2017.  Taplin is the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”

Taplin notes that Google has an 88 percent market share in search advertising, Facebook owns 77 percent of mobile social traffic and Amazon has a 74 percent share in the e-book market. “In classic economic terms, all three are monopolies,” Taplin says.

Continue reading →

Trump damaging press freedom worldwide

Turkish presidet Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warmly embraced Trump’s “fake news” concept.

US president Donald Trump’s unprecedented attack on freedom of the press is being used as an excuse for repressive policies worldwide, according to Reporters Without Frontiers, a global press advocacy group.

“Predators of press freedom have seized on the notion of ‘fake news’  to muzzle the media on the pretext of fighting false information,” the group said in a March 16, 2017  statement.

“By targeting journalists in this manner, the US president ended a longstanding American tradition of promoting freedom of expression and sent a powerful message to media censors.”

FAQ about Trump & the press

EnemyQ: Donald Trump says the press is the “enemy of the people.”  How unusual is that?
A:  It is the first time anything like that idea has come from an American president. Historically,  the phrase “enemy of the people” is employed by dictators presiding over totalitarian states, such as Joseph Stalin in Russia or Mao Zedong in China.   It is also the title of an Henrik Ibsen play, but the central figure is a doctor who is concerned about water pollution at a local resort that is an economic mainstay of a small town.  Continue reading →

Video

Pray for the Press

Pope Francis says:  “I often wonder: How can media be put to the service of a culture of encounter.  We need information leading to compromise for the good of humanity and the planet.  Join me in this prayer request. That journalists, in carrying out their work, may always be motivated by respect for truth and a strong sense of ethics.”

Trump’s threat to freedom of the press

Say what you will about American politics, right or left, conservative or liberal; if there is one bedrock value in American life, it is the absolute devotion to freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly — that is, the First Amendment, and with it, the ability to openly follow one’s own moral compass and to discuss important issues of the day from one’s own perspective.

No candidate for office can threaten this bedrock value without incurring the wrath of an aroused electorate.  Yet Donald Trump and followers insist that the “evil” media must be muzzled for their convenience, and that the Constitution is no impediment.

In recent months, Trump has repeatedly demonized the media, to the pointwhere reporters covering his rallies have been beaten and abused; he has

Continue reading →