tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35374367067336901572024-03-13T03:27:15.023-07:00 Jassy Speaks FirstA First Amendment lawyer speaks up on First Amendment issues.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-9887327359481760212015-07-31T21:30:00.001-07:002015-07-31T21:30:33.764-07:00Silencing Westboro: Did Governor Jindal Find the Formula?The Westboro Baptist Church does despicable things at funerals. At the hundreds of funerals its members have protested, desperate for attention, they hold signs with messages such as "You're Going to Hell" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."<br />
<br />
These messages are uncouth and unpopular and rightly so. Yet, it seemed the Church was on a roll when, in 2011, it won an 8-1 decision in the US Supreme Court called <i><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf">Snyder v Phelps</a></i>. The Court held that the Church's offensive speech was protected and could not give rise to civil liability for a claim called intentional infliction of emotional distress (pretty much what it sounds like) when the father of a slain soldier sued because Church members picketed outside his son's funeral. The Court explained that, although some of the signs related to the Snyder family, most addressed broader topics that were ostensibly of public concern -- e.g., gays in the military.<br />
<br />
In the <i>Snyder </i>case, the Church complied with all local police directives. The picketing took place on a 10 by 25 foot plot of public land, behind a fence, 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held. The funeral procession passed within 200 to 300 feet of the picketers. The picketing was peaceful and not loud. Snyder successfully sued for $10.9 million in damages before his judgment was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. "Simply put," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, "the church members had a right to be where they were."<br />
<br />
This was in part because Maryland, where the picketing in the <i>Snyder</i> case took place, had no funeral picketing law at the time. Now it does, like nearly every other State. The Court noted this and held that it would not decide whether such regulations are constitutional because Maryland had no such law at the time.<br />
<br />
So, it seemed that Westboro could insult funeral-goes to its shriveled-heart's content...? <br />
<br />
But then, a shooter killed two movie-goers in Lafayette, Louisiana. The shooter apparently was a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/lafayette-theater-shooting-john-houser.html?_r=0">Westboro sympathizer</a>.<br />
<br />
When Louisiana Governor (and presidential candidate) Bobby Jindal heard that Westboro might come to the victims' funerals he <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/westboro-baptist-church-to-protest-funeral-louisiana-despite-threat-of-arrest">warned</a>: "If they come here to Louisiana, if they try to disrupt this funeral,
we're going to lock them up," Jindal said during an interview on
Sunday's Meet the Press. "We're going to arrest them. They shouldn't try
that in Louisiana. We won't abide by that here." <br />
<br />
Jindal then issued an <a href="http://gov.la.gov/assets/docs/BJ%202015-16%20Disturbing%20The%20Peace%20During%20Funerals.pdf">executive order</a> directing authorities to "strictly enforce" Louisiana's disturbing the peace law, which prohibits any "utterance, gesture, or display designed to disrupt a funeral," and "intentionally blocking, impeding, inhibiting, or in any other manner obstructing or interfering, within five hundred feet" of a funeral or funeral procession.<br />
<br />
Curiously, Jindal's executive order was not on the Governor's website until <a href="http://www.fox8live.com/story/29641736/family-friends-community-say-final-goodbyes-to-lafayette-theater-shooting-victims">after the funerals commenced</a> and possibly after they were over. <a href="https://twitter.com/JassySpeaks1st">I was checking</a> the Governor's website throughout the day.<br />
<br />
Jindal's threats worked. The Westboro <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-fail-show-louisiana-shooting-victims-funerals-213644251.html;_ylt=A86.J70pZrhV2HcAAKsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--">protestors did not show up</a>.<br />
<br />
This is not really new. The City of Charleston temporarily <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/charleston-bans-protests-funerals-60-days-article-1.2268761">banned funeral protests</a> within 300 feet of a funeral following the recent, tragic shootings there.<br />
<br />
And after the recent, terrible shootings in Chattanooga, the Mayor of that town <a href="http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/chattanooga_warns_westboro_bap.html">issued an order</a> stating that any picketing, protesting or
demonstrating within 500 feet of a funeral or memorial service is
considered "offensive" under Tennessee law and is prohibited.<br />
<br />
I can't tell if the Westboro protestors showed up in Charleston or Chattanooga. <br />
<br />
Is this all constitutional? Probably not. But, practically, it's working ... at least it worked in Louisiana.<br />
<br />
In <i>Synder, </i>the Supreme Court left the door open to legitimate time, place and manner restrictions for funeral protests. But, vague terms prohibiting "gestures" or "utterances" that would "inhibit" a funeral from 500 feet away are tough to square with the First Amendment. And is <i>all</i> picketing around funerals "offensive" in Chattanooga? What about the counter-protestors who often show up to shame Westboro, as they deserve to be shamed, and support the fallen. Also, it doesn't help much that the clear intent of the temporary Charleston law and Jindal's threats were unequivocal: "We're going to arrest them." That strongly suggests (as if there were any doubt) that the rules and enforcement are viewpoint-based, which is a First Amendment no-no.<br />
<br />
But, if Westboro won't show up or fight it, then maybe this is the formula for silencing Westboro: pass a law, even a temporary one, restricting funeral protests and make it clear that the law will be enforced (with prejudice if necessary) and, adding on, keep an executive order mandating that enforcement out of public view or commentary until after it is too late to challenge it. <br />
<br />
As much as I <i>really </i>don't like what the Westboro people say and do, I am not comfortable with vague laws that restrict speech coupled with threats to arrest peaceful protestors. I am also unimpressed that Governor Jindal boasts about his support for the Second Amendment (see his Twitter account), even in the face of a mass shooting, but seems to have such little regard for the (appropriately unpopular) First Amendment rights of the Westboro Church, as recognized by the Supreme Court just a few years ago.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-21025568776299771082015-06-30T07:43:00.000-07:002015-06-30T10:14:12.006-07:00California's new vaccination law vs. freedom of religion<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">California Governor Jerry Brown <span style="font-family: inherit;">just</span> signed into law a <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277">new provision</a> (SB 277) requiring all public and private schoolchildren to be vaccinated, with exceptions only for medical reasons. The law will be phased in, and it has a very small window for "personal belief" exemptions for non-run-of-the-mill vaccines, but it has no special exception for religious objections. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Nothing in the First Amendment or any other law will give parents opposed on religious grounds a way to object to the new vaccine law. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">In<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html"><i> Employment Division v. Smith</i></a>, the Supreme Court held that a generally applicable law (forbidding the use of an hallucinogenic drug) had no exception under the First Amendment where Native Americans wanted to use the drug for religious reasons. The Court specifically noted that the "First Amendment's protection of religious liberty" does not require exemptions from "civic obligations" such as "compulsory vaccination laws." </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">The decision follows another from 1905, <i><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/case.html">Jacobson v. Massachusetts</a>,</i> where the Supreme Court upheld a mandatory vaccination law, making an analogy to conscription laws where men could be called into the armed forces even over their "religious or political convictions." </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">And, in 1944, the Supreme Court held in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/321/158"><i>Prince v. Massachusetts</i></a> that a parent "cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child," because the "right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child<span class="co_starPage" id="co_pp_sp_780_167"></span> to communicable disease."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">After the ruling in <i>Employment Division v. Smith</i>, Congress passed a law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (also known as RFRA), which gives some room to object to general federal laws for religious reasons. This will not impact California's new vaccination law because the federal RFRA <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/507/">does not apply to the States</a>, and, <a href="http://time.com/3766173/religious-freedom-laws-map-timeline/">unlike other States</a>, California has no state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">California's courts also would be very unlikely to read a religious exception into the vaccination law, especially since the Legislature opted not to include one. In fact, the <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277">new law</a> would actually repeal the <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/HSC/1/d105/2/1/s120365"><span style="font-family: inherit;">existing</span> law</a> that allows for an exemption to immunizations based on personal beliefs. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">And California's <a href="http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/52067">courts</a> repeatedly have cited the Supreme Court's decisions in <i>Jacobson</i> and <i>Prince</i> for the proposition that compulsory vaccinations of children do not infringe on religious liberty interests.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Cali<span style="font-family: inherit;">for<span style="font-family: inherit;">nia</span></span></span> <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx"><span style="font-family: inherit;">is now</span></a> the 32nd state to eliminate a general personal belief exemption and the third (along with Mississippi and West Virginia) to eliminate a religious exemption. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, any noise about challenging California's new vaccination law on religious grounds is just that -- noise. Get ready for the needles.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-68686039944347292142015-06-29T08:43:00.000-07:002015-06-29T09:08:04.898-07:00The First Amendment and the Gay Marriage DecisionThe Supreme Court's decision in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf"><i>Obergefell v. Hodges</i></a>, recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples, is an enormously important milestone on the road to full equality for the LGBTQ community. Its detractors vow to resist the ruling, claiming in particular that vendors should be able to refuse to provide food, flowers, etc. at gay weddings, and that protesting officiants should be able to opt out of performing such marriages.<br />
<br />
These challenges find little, if any, support in the First Amendment. Forcing a rabbi or priest or other member of the cloth who opposes gay marriage for religious reasons to conduct a same-sex wedding would directly intrude on religion. But, having a disagreeable county clerk officiate such a wedding would not violate the First Amendment. <br />
<br />
The continuing battle will be whether religion can serve as a justification for discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity under laws other than the First Amendment. It cannot and should not, but there is more legal work to be done.<br />
<br />
<b>The First Amendment Is No Defense</b> <b>To A General Law</b><br />
<br />
The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause states that Congress (or, by extension, local and state governments) shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Free Exercise Clause does not, however, exempt
people from following neutral laws of general applicability. That
means: laws meant to apply to everyone do not give anyone a free pass
simply because religion is invoked.<br />
<br />
The rule comes from <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html"><i>Employment Division v. Smith</i></a>,
a case where the Supreme Court held that Native Americans could not
use peyote (a Schedule I controlled substance -- i.e., an illegal drug),
even for religious rituals, and also claim unemployment benefits. The Court ruled that, because no one was supposed to use
peyote, and the individuals at issue were legitimately discharged from their jobs for using peyote (for religious reasons), the State could fairly deny them unemployment compensation. Who wrote the decision for the Court in that landmark case?
Justice Scalia.<br />
<br />
Following the logic in Justice Scalia's opinion, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_counties_in_the_United_States_offering_an_LGBT_non-discrimination_ordinance">jurisdictions</a> that disallow discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity (including in <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm">federal government</a> contracting) cannot rely on the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee as a defense to a discrimination claim. For example, the New Mexico Supreme Court <a href="http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf">recently held</a>, over First Amendment objections, that a photographer could not refuse to photograph a gay wedding because that State has a public accommodation law, a neutral law of general applicability, that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.<br />
<br />
But not all jurisdictions in America bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. Yesterday, the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gays-employment-20150626-story.html#page=1">Los Angeles Times</a> told the story of Katrina Martir, a teacher in Kentucky who was fired for revealing that she is lesbian, with no legal recourse because neither her county nor her State barred such discrimination. In such unfortunate cases, the party discriminating needs no First Amendment "defense" because the law did not forbid the discrimination in the first instance.<br />
<br />
Now, however, under <i>Obergefell</i>, it is not legal for the <i>government </i>to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples anywhere in the U.S. Thus, a pastor or other religious figure (i.e., not a government agent) could legitimately raise deeply-held religious objections to performing a gay wedding. But, a county clerk or magistrate judge no longer has a such an argument.<br />
<br />
Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas defiantly <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-texas-idUSKCN0P900F20150629">vowed to resist</a> <i>Obergefell</i> by telling <i>government</i> employees in Texas that they have a First Amendment right not to officiate same-sex marriages. The Attorney General's edict fundamentally misunderstands the law. Government employees who officiate marriage ceremonies are not members of the clergy nor are they random citizens entitled to exercise their religious rights. They are <b><i>on the job</i></b>. Their job includes following the law, and it is disgraceful for the highest-ranking law enforcement official in their state to instruct them otherwise. A county clerk who officiates marriages is acting as the face of the government, not a religion and not their own personal perspective. The First Amendment does not permit the government to refuse marriage licenses based on religion. That would squarely violate another clause in the First Amendment, which forbids the establishment of religion. <br />
<br />
<b>Religious Freedom Restoration Act </b><br />
<br />
In response to the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Employment Division v. Smith</i>,
Congress (apparently very concerned about Native Americans' right to
use peyote for religious reasons) passed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, giving a statutory right to invoke religious freedom in
response to otherwise generally applicable federal laws. RFRA -- not the
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment -- has later been used as a
justification for allowing people, and even corporations, to avoid
laws of general applicability.<br />
<br />
The most recent, famous application of RFRA was in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf"><i>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</i></a>,
when the Supreme Court, in a decision side-stepping the First
Amendment, ruled that a closely-held (family owned) corporation with
religious objections did not need to provide employees with insurance
coverage to obtain contraceptive drugs despite Obamacare
regulations.<br />
<br />
In the <i>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</i>
decision, the Court addressed an important issue: would RFRA allow
businesses to invoke religion to discriminate based on
race? Of course not, the Court wrote, in an opinion authored by Justice
Alito and joined by Justice Scalia (author of <i>Employment Division v. Smith</i>) and Justice Kennedy (author of <i>Obergefell v. Hodges</i>):
"Our decision today provides no such shield [against racial discrimination]. The Government has a
compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in
the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial
discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal."
This rule barring racial discrimination, even for religious reasons, follows on
decades of cases and laws ensuring that people of all races are permitted to
participate in society equally.<br />
<br />
As sweeping and monumental as the <i>Obergefell</i> decision is, it does not clearly resolve a lingering issue about whether the government has a compelling interest in stopping sexual orientation discrimination the way it does with racial discrimination.<br />
<br />
But, it is quite clear from <i>Obergefell</i>,
that, in the context of weddings at least, same-sex couples have equal rights to opposite-sex couples to government recognition, and that the First Amendment cannot be used as a
justification to treat same-sex couples differently. The Court explained that laws and other government actions banning same-sex marriage "abridge central precepts of equality" and are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Apparently the Texas Attorney General missed that page in the opinion.<br />
<br />
The <i>Obergefell</i> decision expressly
acknowledges -- as it must -- that the First Amendment still protects vocal opposition to gay
marriage; "The Constitution, however, does
not permit the State to bar same sex couples from marriage on the same
terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex." The decision also
acknowledges that one of the bases for recognizing marriage as a
fundamental right comes from the right of association, which is grounded
in the First Amendment.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>"It's certainly going to be an issue"</b><br />
<br />
During oral argument in the <i>Obergefell</i> case, Justice Alito noted that a religious school lost its tax exempt status for opposing interracial marriage and asked if the same thing could happen to a religious school that opposed same-sex marriage. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli (who was arguing in favor of gay marriage for the federal government) candidly responded: "... It's certainly going to be an issue." It is an issue because of the inconsistency in the law, nationwide, in disallowing discrimination based on sexual orientation. As I noted, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States">many states</a> do not outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and <a href="http://time.com/3766173/religious-freedom-laws-map-timeline/">many states</a> have their own versions of RFRA.<br />
<br />
<b>The So-Called "First Amendment Defense Act"</b><br />
<br />
One week <i>before</i> the Court issued its decision in <i>Obergefell</i>, <b> </b>Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Representative Paul Labrador (R-ID) introduced the "<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/269138514/First-Amendment-Defense-Act#scribd">First Amendment Defense Act</a>." The law is meant to stop "discrimination" against people who believe (or act on their belief, whether religious or "moral") that marriage is limited to one man and one woman. In other words, the law basically says: "Don't discriminate against people who discriminate." The proposed law would be unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
First, this proposed law assumes that the First Amendment itself is no defense. If this is really what the First Amendment meant, we wouldn't need a new law to "defend" it because the First Amendment is part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. <br />
<br />
Second, this proposed law would enshrine and essentially endorse discrimination against same-sex couples, contrary to the holding in <i>Obergefell</i>. Imagine if it read: the federal government will not deny taxpayer-funded government contracts or grants to anyone who, for religious or other "moral" reasons, acts on their opposition to interracial marriage. Wrong. Bad. Now, replace the word "interracial" with "same-sex". The proposed law simply cannot be squared with what the Court just held in <i>Obergefell</i> -- that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution protects "personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs." A contrary system would consign same-sex couples "to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable in their own lives."<br />
<br />
What if a person who believes firmly in <i>supporting</i> gay marriage for religious or moral reasons <i>refuses</i> to help fund a government contract or grant award to a person who disagrees with gay marriage? Under the proposed law, there would be no support in the law for the <i>pro-gay marriage </i>religious or moral conviction. Such a viewpoint-based law, like all viewpoint-based laws, would be presumptively unconstitutional, and could not survive First Amendment scrutiny. Ironic, isn't it? The "First Amendment Defense Act" would violate the First Amendment.<br />
<br />
<b>Final Thoughts</b><br />
<br />
<i>Obergefell</i> was decided correctly. I look forward to the day when the law will not countenance discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in any context. We are not there yet.<br />
<br />
As strongly as I believe in full equality, I do have a problem with forcing members of the clergy to perform marriage ceremonies antithetical to their strongly-held beliefs. That is a line I think is fairly drawn in favor of religion -- no matter how unfortunate I perceive those religious views to be.<b> </b> I have no problem, however, with telling county clerks -- who are the face of the governments that employ them -- to perform gay marriages even if their religious beliefs (or their moronic Attorneys General) dictate otherwise.<br />
<br />
In order to fully realize the equal dignity recognized in <i>Obergefell, </i>we need more laws making clear that discrimination against those who are LGBTQ has no place in our society or under our Constitution.</div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-56788720652158276802014-04-04T07:11:00.000-07:002014-04-22T00:10:40.380-07:00The McCutcheon hangover. Take two aspirin, America. It's not so bad.Relax. It's going to be OK.<br />
<br />
Two days ago, in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf"><i>McCutcheon v. FEC</i></a>, the US Supreme Court struck down limits on what individuals can give, in the aggregate every two years, to candidates for federal office, political parties and political action committees (PACs). That means an individual is still limited in how much he or she can give to <i>particular </i>candidates, parties and PACs, but is not limited in how much he or she can give <i>overall</i> in each two-year cycle.<br />
<br />
Does <i>McCutcheon</i> mean the sky is falling? No. <br />
<br />
Look, the decision is not surprising. After <i>Buckley v. Valeo</i> (where the Court held that money equals speech), <i>First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti</i> (holding that corporations have political speech rights) and <i>Citizens United v. FEC </i>(striking down limits on spending money for electioneering independent of campaigns) there was no real doubt that a majority of this Court would make sure that individual donors can contribute to as many federal candidates as their bank accounts will allow.<br />
<br />
The chorus in America is hoarse from screaming disdain for the decision. I think the hand-wringing over this particular case is overdone.<br />
<br />
I respond to some of the most common reactions to <i>McCutcheon</i> below:<br />
<br />
<b>Reaction #1: The <i>McCutcheon</i> decision means there will be even more money in politics!</b><br />
<br />
<i><u>Response:</u><b> </b></i>Maybe.<br />
<br />
First note: <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/">more money was spent on the 2008 presidential race</a> (<i><b>pre</b></i>-<i>Citizens United</i>) than the 2012 presidential race (post-<i>Citizens United</i>); although more was spent on congressional races in 2012 than in 2008. Which brings us to whether the <i>McCutcheon </i>decision will bring more money into politics.<br />
<br />
There are <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-campaign-finance-20140403,0,4243840.story?page=1&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20latimes%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fnation%20%28L.A.%20Times%20-%20National%20News%29&utm_source=feedburner&track=rss#axzz2xthokWpe">fewer than 700 people</a> <i>in the entire country</i> who bumped up against the aggregate limits (what <i>McCutcheon</i> addresses) in the last election cycle. Is it likely that all 700 of those individuals will max out now that the aggregate limits are gone? Is it likely that thousands more people will exceed what would have been the aggregate limits pre-<i>McCutcheon</i>? I doubt it because those same people already could have donated even more to SuperPACs.<br />
<br />
Remember that after <i>Citizens United</i> was decided in 2010, SuperPACs were created, which allow unlimited donations and unlimited spending independent of candidates' campaigns. A lot of money poured into SuperPACs. In fact, there was approximately <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567110-after-expensive-election-proponents-stricter-campaign-finance-laws-are-looking">$1 billion in spending by independent groups in the 2012 election cycle</a>, but it could have been even more because SuperPACs can take an unlimited amount of money. Of that $1 billion, <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567110-after-expensive-election-proponents-stricter-campaign-finance-laws-are-looking">63% came from the top 1% of donors</a> (the top 1%, by the way, is a lot more than 700 people). It seems just as likely that high-rollers will simply <i>shift</i> their massive donations from SuperPACs to candidates and parties, than that there will be a marked influx of money -- <i>i.e.</i>, "more money" -- <i>overall</i> in the long run. <br />
<br />
<b>Reaction #2: More money in politics is terrible!</b><br />
<br />
<i><u>Response:</u><b> </b></i>This has evolved into a truism we hear all the time without much articulated support. I start from the position that discussion of political issues is the highest, most prized form of speech. <br />
<br />
Whether I am right or wrong about the total amount of money that will flow into politics after <i>McCutcheon</i>, I am not convinced that more money in politics is an inherently bad thing. The money we're talking about will be taken out of the accounts of wealthy people and given to media companies of various types for advertising (good for a struggling industry and borderline national economy (read jobs)) in order to discuss political issues. Discussing and engaging on political issues is not the worst way to spend our money.<br />
<br />
In the first election cycle after <i>Citizens United</i>, Americans spent around $6 billion on politics, which is less than we <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567092-limiting-role-money-politics-hard-full-disclosure-would-be-welcome">spend every year on potato chips.</a> We spend more than <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700079377/Billions-spent-for-porn-sad-loss-to-society.html?pg=all">twice as much on pornography</a>. And, we spend over <a href="http://business.time.com/2012/01/23/how-much-you-spend-each-year-on-coffee-gas-christmas-pets-beer-and-more/">$100 billion per year on beer</a>. Is a lot -- albeit a whole lot -- of campaigning an inherently worse way to shuffle around funds in society? <br />
<br />
<b>Reaction #3: More money in politics means only the rich will have a voice!</b><br />
<br />
<b> </b><br />
<u><i>Response</i>:</u> So, you admit that money equals speech ...?<br />
<br />
Just because the rich can spend more on politics (and they have <i>always</i> been able to do that, by the way) doesn't mean they will get the political <i>results</i> that they want. <br />
<b></b><br />
<b>Reaction #4: More money in politics means bigger donors will get whatever they want! </b><br />
<br />
<i><u>Response:</u> </i>Please give voters a little more credit.<br />
<br />
The non-partisan, non-profit <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">Center for Responsive Politics</a> <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567110-after-expensive-election-proponents-stricter-campaign-finance-laws-are-looking">found</a> that, in the 2012 election cycle (<i>i.e., </i>post-<i>Citizens United</i>), the candidate with the outside money advantage <i><b>lost</b></i> in seven out of the ten congressional races that garnered the most outside spending.<b> </b><br />
<br />
In California's last gubernatorial election, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/01/local/la-me-governor-money-20110201">Republican Meg Whitman spent $177 million and Democrat Jerry Brown spent $36 million</a>. <b> </b>Brown won.<br />
<br />
In 1992 and 1996, billionaire Ross Perot spent tens of millions of his own money running for president. Perot's portrait is not hanging in the White House.<br />
<br />
<b><b>Reaction # 5: More money in politics means Republicans will sweep into power!</b></b><br />
<br />
<i><u>Response</u></i>: See my response to Reaction #4.<br />
<br />
According to the <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance"><i>New York Times</i></a>, in the 2012 presidential race, Obama's camp <i>raised more</i> money than Romney's camp, but Obama <i>spent less</i> than Romney. SuperPACs attacking Obama wildly outspent those attacking Romney. Among SuperPAC donors (no limit, remember), 49% of those supporting Obama gave $1 million or more, compared with 42% of those supporting Romney. Obama won. <b><b> </b></b><br />
<br />
Perhaps the best response to Reaction #5 came from Matt Canter, deputy executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, <span id="goog_70411603"></span><a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-campaign-finance-20140403,0,4243840.story?page=2#axzz2xthokWpe">who said<span id="goog_70411604"></span></a> that the <i>McCutcheon</i> decision would "significantly boost our efforts to keep control of the Senate."<br />
<br />
<b><b> </b></b><br />
Oh yeah, that reminds me ... the Democrats also kept control of the Senate after <i>Citizens United.</i><br />
<b><b> </b> </b><br />
<b>Reaction #6: More money in politics means more corruption!</b> <br />
<br />
<u><i>Response</i></u>: Not to sound too Clintonesque, but it depends what you mean by "corruption." <br />
<br />
First, there can only be corruption if the candidate you supported wins. (See my response to Reactions #4 and #5.) If a donor hedges his or her bets and supports more than one candidate in the same race, then won't voters just hear more voices? Isn't that a good thing in political debate?<br />
<br />
There is concern among many that <i>McCutcheon</i> limits the idea of corruption to <i>quid pro quo</i> (Latin for "something for something") dealing, and discounts the purportedly corrupting effects of influence and access. But, if corruption gets defined too broadly then any efforts by any constituent who gave any money to get a politician to act could be considered corrupt. I like the idea of our representatives listening to us. I know that means that big donors may get more time, but they don't get more votes than we do. Again, see my response to Reactions #4 and #5.<br />
<br />
<b>Reaction #7: More money in politics is not what the Founders would have wanted!</b><br />
<br />
<u><i>Response</i></u>: Really?<br />
<br />
Hey, I have a great admiration for a great many things that the Founders imparted to us, but their concept of who should have influence in politics is not one of them. In the Founders' era, only white males who owned land could vote and hold office. A battle against <i>McCutcheon</i> is not the right time or place to invoke the Founders.<br />
<br />
<b> </b><br />
<b>Reaction #8: This decision will lead to more bad rulings on campaign finance issues!</b><br />
<br />
<i><u>Response</u></i>: Again, apologies to Clinton, but it depends what you mean by "bad". <br />
<br />
Maybe <i>McCutcheon</i> will open the door to even <i>more</i> money in politics in later decisions. That is very possible. The Court could one day strike down the ban on "soft money" contributions to political parties and the individual limits on donations to particular candidates. The concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in <i>McCutcheon</i> was ready to do away with all of those limitations. But, I find it significant that no one else on the Court joined Thomas' opinion.<br />
<br />
Also, the Chief Justice's controlling opinion in <i>McCutcheon</i> reemphasized the importance of disclosure requirements -- <i>i.e.</i>, encouraging transparency of the very donations at issue. I like the idea advanced by the <a href="https://sunlightfoundation.com/">Sunlight Foundation</a> that there ought to be real-time transparency for hard money contributions in politics. That would mean we could instantly see, on the Internet, who is giving what to whom. Such immediate transparency would further our democratic principles, further address many of the reactions noted above and be consistent with the First Amendment. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-21129532526766644732014-01-27T22:28:00.002-08:002014-01-28T07:33:08.923-08:00US Supreme Court's first defamation case in nearly a decade has high points<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Earlier today, the US Supreme Court issued its <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-315_j5fl.pdf">decision in <i>Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper</i></a>. It is the first defamation case before the Court <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1488.ZO.html">since 2005</a>.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">The <i>Air Wisconsin</i> case involved statements made by an airline regarding Hoeper, a pilot the airline was on the verge of firing. The airline expressed its concern to TSA that Hoeper, who was about to board a flight as a passenger, was "unstable" and might possibly be armed because Hoeper was someone with clearance to carry weapons on planes (he was not carrying a weapon). Hoeper sued for defamation and won a large judgment from a jury, which was later affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court. The airline said it was protected from the lawsuit by a relatively new <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ71/html/PLAW-107publ71.htm">federal law</a> that gives extra protection for statements intended to aid in airline safety.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">The US Supreme Court's decision is notable for a few reasons.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">First, it <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">reaffirmed that substantially true statements cannot support a claim for defamation. According to some, there was an open question whether even true statements, spoken without sufficient knowledge of whether they are true or false, could support a claim for defamation. In other words, there was some theorizing that even true statements could support a defamation claim if the speaker acted recklessly toward whether the statements were true (or even if the speaker <i>incorrectly </i>believed them to be false). We've all heard the phrase "truth is a defense to defamation." Setting aside my firm belief that it should be more than just a defense -- <i>i.e.</i>, that defamation plaintiffs should always have to <i>prove</i> falsity -- a result that would have imposed liability on true statements in a case like <i>Air Wisconsin </i>would have been a terrible blow for the First Amendment ... not to mention airline safety. Thankfully, the Court ruled the right way. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Second, a corollary to the first point is that the Court reaffirmed that </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">it is not possible to establish actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) without showing that the allegedly defamatory statement was <i>false</i>. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">[Disclosure: I was counsel of record on the First Amendment Coalition's <i>amicus curiae </i>(friend of the Court) <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-315_pet_amcu_fac.authcheckdam.pdf">brief</a> in this case, arguing that every context where the actual malice standard appears (including this one) requires a showing a falsity. It is heartening to know that the Court agreed with that position!]</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Third, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">the Court independently reviewed the jury's decision whether the statements were materially true or false. That important decision should guide other, lower appellate courts that they ought to do the same thing under similar circumstances. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Fourth, the decision uses the phrase "materially" true and false repeatedly, emphasizing that only "materially false" statements -- <i>i.e.</i>, statements that leave a different effect on the mind of the reader or listener than that which the truth would have produced -- can support a defamation claim such as Hoeper's. That phrase originates from the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1799.ZO.html">second-to-last defamation case</a> before the Supreme Court, decided in 1991, but the doctrine is more commonly referred to as "substantial truth" by practitioners. In fact, that is how I referred to it above. I think the principle being set forth is the same, but it remains to be seen whether there will be a shift in nomenclature as a result of this decision. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Fifth, the</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"> biggest (pleasant) surprise was that the Court reviewed the jury's verdict on material falsity, and then reversed the jury's decision. The <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/12-315-AWAC-cert-petition-FILED-9-11-12-1398998_1.pdf">airline</a> and <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/12-315-AWAC-BIO-final.pdf">Hoeper</a> asked the Court to decide whether the jury's decision on falsity should be reviewed by an appellate court. The Court <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/air-wisconsin-airlines-corp-v-hoeper/">conspicuously excluded that issue</a> when agreeing to hear the case. But, a majority (6-3) went on to not only rule that the Court should evaluate that issue, but that the jury got it wrong. The dissenters, Scalia, Thomas and Kagan -- interesting bedfellows! -- thought that a jury should take another look with proper instructions from the trial court.</span></span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-52771969913636535472014-01-18T23:48:00.000-08:002014-01-20T09:37:24.286-08:00New Decision About Blogger's Speech Rights Is Not As Exciting As Reports SuggestYesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the federal appellate court covering most of the West) issued a decision at the crossroads of blogging and the First Amendment. The case is called <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/01/17/12-35238.pdf"><i>Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox</i></a>. The result was correct: the blogger won when she should have. From some of the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117">press coverage</a>, it is tempting to believe the decision is monumentally amazing or at least unexpected. It is neither. <br />
<br />
My favorite headlines about the decision announce that <a href="http://rt.com/usa/bloggers-law-media-defamation-812/">bloggers have First Amendment rights</a>. Of course they do. That is not worth much more discussion. Moving on ... <br />
<br />
The decision held the plaintiffs had to show negligence in order to hold Cox (the blogger) liable for defamation. For those unfamiliar with defamation law, that might sound like a big deal, but the reality is that all defamation claims involving speech on a matter of public concern (as the speech in this case did) require <b><i>at least</i></b> a showing of negligence, and many require much more, such as actual malice (which means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth), in order to establish liability and recover damages. That rule, laid down by the US Supreme Court in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7102507483896624202&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"><i>Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.</i></a>, is <i><b>forty years old</b></i>. The fact that the Ninth Circuit finally got around to applying the <i>Gertz</i> rule to the Internet is pretty unremarkable and really could not have come out any other way without directly contradicting US Supreme Court precedent. The trial court's conclusion that the plaintiffs did not even need to
show negligence was obviously wrong, and the Ninth Circuit really was
compelled to reverse that decision. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/blogger-journalist-protection-court-crystal-cox_n_4619271.html?utm_hp_ref=media">Some</a> also seem very excited by the Court's contention that, up until this decision, neither the US Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit had previously held that the "institutional press" has the same basic rights in a defamation case as "individual speakers." I think that is just plain wrong ... because the issue has come up before. For example, in the grand-daddy defamation case of them all, <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254"><i>New York Times v. Sullivan</i></a>, the Supreme Court held that its First Amendment-based rulings applied to protect the "individual petitioners" in the companion case, <i>Abernathy et al. v. Sullivan</i>, as well as the <i>New York Times</i>. Moreover, yesterday's Ninth Circuit decision acknowledges that US Supreme Court precedent <i><b>requires</b></i> treating the institutional press the same as individuals in defamation cases. And, the Court notes, it helps that "sister circuits" come to the same conclusion. (BTW - I recognize that this case was decided under <a href="http://www.leagle.com/decision/19831286670P2d616_11251">Oregon law</a> which claims that <i>Gertz</i> only protects media defendants, but Oregon's take on the First Amendment simply can't be squared with US Supreme Court precedent.)<br />
<br />
There is another reason the decision is less than exciting. The Court held that the plaintiffs were not public officials who would have had to prove the higher actual malice standard to establish liability. I disagree with the Court's conclusion on this point because the plaintiffs were appointed by another court to serve as bankruptcy trustees, making their status as public "officials" at least a close call. But, apparently the blogger (Cox) also argued in the trial court that the plaintiffs were public figures (in addition to being public officials), even though she seemed to abandon that argument in the appellate court. That's too bad, because I don't think it is a close call to say that the plaintiffs -- who were appointed by the court and subject to the court's review and control -- were at least limited purpose public figures (meaning they would have to prove liability under the onerous actual malice standard). <br />
<br />
Also, <a href="http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2014/quick-thought-bloggers-opinion-and-todays-ruling-from-ninth-circuit">some are concerned</a> that the Ninth Circuit considered some of the defendant's blog postings to be constitutionally protected opinion, particularly in light of their hyperbolic context. That is not cause for concern. Context has long been a hallmark of determining whether a statement is constitutionally protected opinion in the <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10324687765806750370&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Ninth Circuit</a> and the <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7582860956470530700&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">US Supreme Court</a>. Since the advent of Internet cases, <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13116900709739750851&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">courts</a> recognize that things move faster and looser on the Internet, lending statements toward constitutionally protected opinion. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-21432081391356158312014-01-13T21:49:00.000-08:002014-01-13T21:49:31.958-08:00Polar Vortex In Legal Hell Before Satanists Get Monument In OklahomaSatan worshipers <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite">want to put</a> a 7-foot monument to Satan (technically a horned dude named Baphomet) on the Oklahoma capital grounds. They say it will complement a privately-funded 10 Commandments monument that was possessed and installed by the Oklahoma Legislature a few years ago. The ACLU sued to have that monument exorcised from the capital. It was a bad omen for the Satanists that, pending the ACLU's suit, legislators collectively said "no damn way," putting a pitch fork in any plans to put up any other monuments. <br />
<br />
"Like H-E-double-hockey-sticks," say the Satanists and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (no, I'm not making that up ... <a href="http://www.venganza.org/">here is their website</a> in case you want to join ... you can become an ordained Pastafarian minister for only $20!). <br />
<br />
So, do the Satanists have a legal shot in hell at getting their monument? The devil is in the details, but -- basically -- no, they don't. <br />
<br />
The US Supreme Court recently held unanimously<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null"> </a>in <i><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17552801861738108362&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">City of Pleasant Grove v. Summum</a>, </i>that a local government may choose to put up a 10 Commandments monument, but decline to put up another religiously-oriented monument in a public space. Although the <i>Pleasant Grove </i>case was technically decided on Free Speech Clause grounds, a majority of the Court stated that they saw no violation of the First Amendment's clause forbidding the establishment of religion.<br />
<br />
There is a better chance that the ACLU will succeed in showing that there ought to be no new religiously-based
monument on the Oklahoma state capital grounds ... not even one of the 10 Commandments. Ah ... maybe that's the
point!!! Maybe the Satanists are really just the devil's advocate. They may lack soul, but they are fiendishly clever! <br />
<br />
PS - Please forgive me. Am I going to burn for all the bad puns in this post? You know who made me do it ...<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-87811596219460481862014-01-10T15:33:00.002-08:002014-01-10T15:33:37.402-08:00I'm back!I took a hiatus from this blog for a few months to start a <a href="http://jassyvick.com/">new law firm</a>. A few of my handful of followers (mostly blood relatives) occasionally asked, "Whatever happened to that blog you were doing? It was OK." Once the administrative adventures of starting a new firm subsided, I decided to jump back in. I am teaching First Amendment law at UC Irvine's law school this semester so I will not post as often while that is happening, but I am excited to wax on about the marvelous and (sometimes) mundane world of First Amendment issues ...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-89384553053897080292013-08-24T13:16:00.001-07:002013-08-24T13:21:13.194-07:00On the same day, one whistleblower gets to sue the government and another gets 35 years in prisonIn separate decisions handed down last Wednesday, courts gave starkly different treatment to two whistleblowers, highlighting oddities in First Amendment law. <br />
<br />
In one case, <i><a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/21/10-55978.pdf">Dahlia v. Rodriguez</a></i>, whistleblower Angelo Dahlia (a police officer) alleged he was punished by his superiors for telling his union and outside law enforcement about misconduct within his department. The Ninth Circuit ruled in a rare <i>en banc</i> opinion that Dahlia could proceed with a civil rights claim that he was unjustly retaliated against for disclosing the conduct of his fellow officers, ruling that “often ... unless public employees are willing to blow the whistle,
government corruption and abuse would persist undetected and
undeterred.” <br />
<br />
US Supreme Court cases craft a weird rule in First Amendment law: if a government worker blows the whistle <i>inside</i> a government body's chain of command as part of his or her official duties, then the First Amendment <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6711908971660042297&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">generally will <u>not</u> protect the worker's speech</a>, but if the worker blows the whistle to outside sources -- including the media -- the First Amendment <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16997195768089298466&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1">generally <u>will</u> offer protection</a> if the speech is of sufficient public concern. Same speaker, same information, but different audience = different rules. That helps explain the result in the <i>Dahlia</i> case, but what about the other decision handed down on Wednesday?<br />
<br />
In the other -- and far more famous -- case, soldier Bradley (now <a href="http://www.today.com/news/i-am-chelsea-read-mannings-full-statement-6C10974052">Chelsea</a>) Manning, was <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bradley-manning-sentenced-35-years-leaking-secrets/story?id=20021288">demoted, dishonorably discharged and sentenced to 35 years in prison</a> for telling the media (via Wikileaks) about <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/bradley-manning-leaks_n_3788126.html">government misconduct</a>, including the killing of civilians in Iraq.<br />
<br />
In both cases, the whistleblower went <i>outside </i>the chain of command. Why is Dahlia looking forward to redemption for the retaliation he faced, while Manning is looking forward to the better part of his life in Fort Leavenworth? <br />
<br />
An easy distinction is that Manning disclosed classified information. That is too easy. What if a police department simply called its actions and conduct "classified"? Surely, that label alone cannot be the end of the analysis. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://boingboing.net/2013/08/22/chelsea-mannings-statement-o.html">Manning says</a> she revealed classified information, "out of a love for my country and my sense of duty to others," in an effort to make a positive difference in policies and awareness of government conduct. Dahlia didn't like the way his fellow officers were treating suspects in custody. The Ninth Circuit applied a fact-specific inquiry to protect <i>Dahlia</i>'s speech. There was no protecting Manning's speech.<br />
<br />
Something is not right with these rules and the discrepancies in last week's decisions. They simply cannot be reconciled from a constitutional perspective. There ought to be greater First Amendment protections for reporting <i>inside</i> the chain of command and there ought to be at least <i>some</i> protections on a case-by-case basis even in the military context for whistleblowing <i>outside</i> the chain of command.<br />
<br />
Or else, as the Ninth Circuit put it in the <i>Dahlia</i> case, "government corruption and abuse" will "often ... persist undetected and
undeterred.” <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-39728043275222169852013-08-14T20:40:00.001-07:002013-08-15T21:16:20.270-07:00The holes in Ellen Kardashian's defamation lawsuit against the Kardashian clanLast week, Ellen Kardashian, the widow of famed attorney Robert Kardashian and step-mother of celebutantes Kim, Khloe and Kourtney Kardashian, sued Bunim-Murray Productions, Ryan Seacrest Productions and various members of the Kardashian family, including the three Kardashian daughters and their mother, Kris Jenner, for defamation and other claims. On its face, the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/159002285/Complaint-Kardashian-v-Bunim-Murray-BC517508-08-07-13">Complaint</a> is weak.<br />
<br />
The bulk of the Complaint targets statements purportedly made during an episode of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians," which Ellen alleges, without supporting detail, was "orchestrated" and "carefully scripted" by the defendant production companies. <br />
<br />
The lawsuit mainly complains about the following allegedly false statements: <br />
<ul>
<li><i>That Ellen bad-mouthed several members of the Kardashian family.</i> Ellen's response: I didn't say those things ... my late husband did. So Ellen may well believe those statements are true, but she wants it to be clear that she did not say them. It is possible to bring a defamation claim for misattributing a quote, but it is not clear how Ellen was or could have been damaged by this alleged misattribution when she does not disavow the underlying statement. </li>
<li><i>That Ellen married Robert in his home as he was dying, and they were only married for a few weeks.</i> In the Complaint itself, Ellen alleges that they were married in Robert's home 10 days after Robert was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and just a few weeks before his death. It seems that the Complaint alone would support a winning substantial truth argument -- i.e., that it is substantially true Ellen married Robert in his home as he was dying, and that he died shortly after their marriage. </li>
<li><i>That Ellen married Robert when he was in his pajamas</i>. First, it is not remotely clear that such a statement is defamatory toward Ellen -- maybe toward Robert for not dressing up a little more -- but then Ellen goes on to insist that Robert was not in his pajamas, but was actually in a "'Tommy Bahama' style shirt." I see, so maybe this case should be called the "Pajama vs. Tommy Bahama" lawsuit. That has a nice, melodic ring! </li>
<li><i>That Ellen was sued and attempted to evade service</i>. Ellen complains that Kris Jenner wanted to "press charges" against her. A lay person might easily confuse a civil suit with the concept of "pressing charges" in the criminal sense, and the Kardashian/Jenner clan did, in fact, sue Ellen. Ellen sought permission from the court to countersue, but <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/159022635/Withdrawal-of-Leave-to-File-Counterclaim-08-05-13">withdrew that effort</a> in favor of filing this new lawsuit two days later. Also, calling Ellen a "slippery snake" for supposedly not wanting to be served is a matter of opinion.</li>
</ul>
The defamation claim is weak because -- although I don't know the underlying facts -- the Complaint itself suggests that all of the statements were either substantially true or protected opinion. Moreover, Ellen, who is almost certainly at least a limited purpose public figure, will have to prove that the defendants acted with actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). That will be especially difficult for Ellen to show against the producers because, among other things, they could most likely reasonably rely on the Kardashians as witnesses to the underlying events, many of which happened years ago.<br />
<br />
The other claims in the Complaint are also weak. Ellen alleges the public disclosure of private facts, but then asserts that the underlying "facts" are false. Which is it? Are they facts or are they false? I've seen this before: you can't base a defamation claim and publication of private <i>facts</i> claim on the same underlying allegations. They are mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is a virtual throw-away. A plaintiff cannot evade the strictures of a defamation claim by restyling it as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Remember the movie <i>The People vs. Larry Flynt</i>? That's what that whole Supreme Court scene was all about. Here's the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0485_0046_ZS.html">Supreme Court decision</a> in case you want to check.<br />
<br />
And, finally, a claim for "conspiracy to defame"? <a href="http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/applied-equipment-corp-v-litton-saudi-arabia-ltd-31558">No such thing</a>. Conspiracy is not an independent claim in California.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-5452262785048301622013-08-09T18:53:00.002-07:002013-08-12T10:55:02.239-07:00This is what self-censorship looks likeTwo weeks ago, I <a href="http://jassyspeaksfirst.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-programs-threats.html">explained</a> how the NSA surveillance program threatens First Amendment rights, including the chilling of speech because of the fear of government surveillance. This week, two secure email providers shut down. This morning, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls">The Guardian revealed</a> that, through a loophole in the law, the NSA can see your emails and listen to your phone calls without a warrant. This afternoon, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-august-9-2013-news-conference-at-the-white-house/2013/08/09/5a6c21e8-011c-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d_story.html">President Obama vowed</a> to make changes to the NSA system. <br />
<br />
The part in the middle (about the secure email service providers shutting down) shows how this dramatic script evolves into a free speech snuff film.<br />
<br />
Lavabit.com, a provider used by leaker Edward Snowden, <a href="http://boingboing.net/2013/08/08/lavabit-email-service-snowden.html">shut down its secure email service yesterday</a>. The founder, Ladar Levison, <a href="http://lavabit.com/">explained his dilemma</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in
crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of
hard work by shutting down Lavabit ... I feel you deserve to know what’s going on--the first amendment is
supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like
this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As
things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six
weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests. ... I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.
</blockquote>
No more Lavabit means no more speech on Lavabit. <br />
<br />
So, why don't Lavabit's users just go somewhere else ... like Silent Circle, another secure email provider? Oh, yeah, Silent Circle also <a href="https://silentcircle.com/">announced</a> its "preemptive" shut down <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/silent-circle-shutting-down-encripted-email_n_3732779.html">this week</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Silent Circle has preemptively discontinued Silent Mail service to prevent spying. ... the less of your information we have,
the better it is for you and for us. ... We have not received subpoenas, warrants, security letters, or anything
else by any government, and this is why we are acting now. </blockquote>
Another such provider, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/silent-circle-shutting-down-encripted-email_n_3732779.html">TorMail, is gone too</a>.<br />
<br />
I don't (I mean didn't) use any of these services, but I might like to. I might like to think that maybe, just maybe, there is a way for me to communicate without warrantless spying by the NSA. Sadly, I now have to catalog those wishes and hopes along with being a good basketball player and owning a Ferrari -- i.e., things that ain't too likely.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-58572493205309526302013-08-08T00:05:00.001-07:002013-08-08T00:05:37.879-07:00Taxing Lap Dances: A Risque Threat To Speech Everywhere<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to take the case of <i><span>677 New Loudon Corp. v. State of New York Tax Tribunal</span></i><span>, following a <a href="http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/Oct12/157mem12.pdf">decision from New York's highest court</a> holding that the government may tax erotic dancing but not other forms of dancing. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span>The
government should not tax some forms of expressive conduct more than
others. The Supreme Court should take the case and reverse the New York
court's decision.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span>The Supreme Court <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=501&invol=560">recognizes</a> that nude dancing is "expressive conduct within the outer perimeters of the First Amendment." And, the Supreme Court <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=481&invol=221">has held</a>
that "official scrutiny of the content of [speech] as the basis for
imposing a tax is entirely incompatible" with the First Amendment. Put
these two rules together, and taxing authorities should not be able to
discriminate between nude dancing and other forms of dancing.</span></span></span> </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span>The
New York high court was sharply divided 4-3. Although New York's tax
scheme exempts "choreographic" and "dramatic or musical arts"
performances,</span><span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
New York's tax authority decided to impose a tax on establishments
where women perform private lap dances and pole dances. The dissent
said it was clear that dancing was exempted, and saw no constitutional
distinction between "highbrow dance and lowbrow dance" because "a dance
is a dance." The dissent is right. Such discrimination between expressive acts is not constitutional.</span> </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span>This issue is broader than just nude dancing. Yesterday, Media Coalition, a conglomeration of media organizations, filed an <a href="http://mediacoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Brief-filed-by-Media-Coalition.pdf"><i>amicus curiae </i>brief</a> encouraging the Supreme Court to take the case. Media Coalition began its brief with the provocative question: "</span><span><span>May a State impose a sales tax on tickets to the
Broadway musical <i>Mamma Mia,</i> while exempting tickets to <i>Rigoletto</i>?”
That is a fancy way of saying: may the government tax speech based on
its content -- whether that content is found in video games, the silver
screen, books or a "gentleman's club"? Nope ... not constitutional. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span>This issue also is broader than just what happens in New York.
The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Utah and Texas also approve
discriminatory taxes based on the content of speech, and a few other
state legislatures are considering such laws. A few weeks ago, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-17/lap-dances-targeted-by-philadelphia-for-amusement-revenue-taxes.html">Philadelphia decided</a> to extend its "amusement tax" to lap dancing.</span></span></span> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span><span style="font-size: small;"><span>Former Chief Justice John Marshall <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0017_0316_ZS.html">wrote</a> nearly two hundred years ago that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." </span></span>Businesses featuring lap dances should not be unduly taxed for featuring their particular brand of free speech. As the dissenters in New York's case found, it would not be constitutional to tax <i>Hustler</i> while leaving <i>The New Yorker</i> untaxed. The bottom line is that taste and taxes do not mix. </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span> </span> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-62137668050550676852013-08-06T00:04:00.001-07:002013-08-06T07:41:41.143-07:00Pen vs. Sword a/k/a First Amendment vs. Second AmendmentHow, you may think, can the First Amendment's free speech provision be in conflict with the Second Amendment's right to bear arms? <span style="font-size: small;">Look to the land of "stand your ground" plus televised trials. Look to Florida.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In <i>Wollschlaeger v. Florida, </i></span>t</span>he <span style="font-family: inherit;">Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether a Florida law preventing doctors from asking patients about gun ownership violates the First Amendment. The <a href="http://www.postonpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Docket-105-2012.06.29-Order-on-Cross-Motions-for-SJ.pdf">district court enjoined</a> the law, <a href="http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/790.338">Florida Statute sec. 790.338</a>, which provided that a health care practitioner "<span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">should refrain from making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a family member of the patient" unless such information is "relevant" to medical care or safety. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">The State of <a href="http://op.bna.com/hl.nsf/id/mapi-92vmu9/$File/woll%20state%27s%20brief.pdf">Florida is defending its law</a> in the "Docs vs. Glocks" case, claiming that a thoroughly undramatic series of anecdotes commanded the necessity of this obscure provision. For example, doctors supposedly declined to treat at least two people who refused to say whether they owned guns. Really? Why would a doctor do that? It seems hard to fathom. Is it possible there is a little more back-story there? </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">The law also states that docto<span style="font-family: inherit;">rs "</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">should refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination." Oh please. Are we really supposed to believe there is an epidemic of gun-bashing doctors hell-bent on refusing to uphold their Hippocratic oath?</span> </span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Florida insists that its law allows doctors to counsel patients on gun safety. The problem is the doctors are not supposed to ask if guns are even present in a patient's home, so that puts doctors in the position of either counseling everyone or no one about gun safety or making potentially inappropriate guesses about who needs a talking to about guns.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Another fundamental problem is that the law is vague, leaving doctors to guess whether the medical board -- which has the power to sanction doctors for violating this law -- will later agree that the questions were "relevant." </span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">I understand that lots of people are fervently pro-gun rights, but it is not necessary to take away a doctor's First Amendment rights -- let alone interfere with a doctor's ability to counsel and advise patients -- in order to keep guns. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span>Doctors should not be so micromanaged by the government concerning their examinations. They should be able to ask questions about gun ownership in the confines of the doctor-patient relationship rather than be chilled from asking questions for fear of later disciplinary action. </span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.3333px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">I side with the Docs.</span></span></span></span></span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-30506709255875674372013-08-02T10:39:00.000-07:002013-08-02T10:39:22.897-07:00The Ninth Circuit's Irreconcilable Video Game Rulings<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">By <a href="http://bostwickjassy.com/kevinvick.html">Kevin Vick</a> (guest blogger)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Ninth Circuit’s July
31 decisions in <a href="http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0813//09-56675"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brown v. Electronic Arts</i></a>
and <a href="http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0813//10-15387"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Keller v. Electronic Arts</i></a> cannot
be reconciled with each other or the First Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Both
lawsuits involve the alleged use of athletes’ likenesses in highly-popular
video games.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The suits claim that
popular <a href="http://www.ea.com/">Electronics Arts (EA)</a> games <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Madden
NFL </i>and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NCAA Football</i> include
players whose characteristics – e.g., jersey number, height, weight, skin tone,
home state – are based on the attributes of real-life players such as
plaintiffs Jim Brown (NFL Hall of Famer) and Samuel Keller (former University
of Arizona and University of Nebraska quarterback).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While
the lawsuits are based on the same core allegations, they differed in one
respect that determined the outcome. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
claims at issue in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brown</i> were for
alleged violations of the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act">Lanham Act</a> (the federal trademark and unfair
competition law), while the claims in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Keller</i>
were for violations of California’s common law and statutory rights of
publicity, which gives the right to control your persona … within the confines
of the First Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The difference in the
claims made all the difference, as the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
Brown’s lawsuit while holding that Keller can proceed with his case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The principal reason: the Ninth Circuit applied
different tests to the respective claims.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The different approaches cannot be reconciled under the First Amendment.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>For
Brown’s Lanham Act claims, the court applied the test first set forth by the
Second Circuit in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1704090655237798849&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rogers v. Grimaldi</i></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rogers</i>
test provides strong free speech protections to creators – not just video
games, but movies, books and other expressive works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lanham Act plaintiffs complaining about the
alleged use of their name or likeness in expressive works must show that (1)
the use has no artistic relevance to the work and (2) the work explicitly
misleads consumers to believe that the plaintiff endorsed or sponsored the
work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This standard is difficult for
plaintiffs to meet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Defendants routinely
defeat Lanham Act claims based on the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rogers</i>
test (as in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brown</i>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>However,
the Ninth Circuit held in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Keller</i> that
California right of publicity claims were not subject to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rogers</i> test, but to the “transformative
use” test – i.e., whether the defendant has sufficiently transformed the plaintiff’s
persona in some expressive way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
transformative use test provides far less First Amendment protection than the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rogers</i> test because it is a multi-factor
analysis that culminates in a question of fact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That is much less useful to defendants looking to defeat a lawsuit on
First Amendment grounds via a pre-trial motion. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
Ninth Circuit should not have treated the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brown
</i>and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Keller </i>cases
differently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Video game maker EA should
have won both.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Ninth Circuit said that
Lanham Act claims are meant to protect against consumer confusion, while right
of publicity claims are designed to protect celebrities’ interests in the value
of their personas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This distinction does
not withstand scrutiny.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Courts and
commentators have often referred to the Lanham Act as the federal equivalent to
state right of publicity claims.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And a
concern for individuals’ interests in the values of their personas animates
many Lanham Act decisions in favor of celebrity plaintiffs. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(I’m looking at you Tom Waits!) Likewise,
right of publicity claims have often been seen as vehicles to prevent opportunistic
defendants from misleading the public into believing that celebrities endorse
or are affiliated with defendants’ products bearing their name or likeness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, consumer confusion and the
celebrity’s interest in the value of his or her name are two sides of the same
coin.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Moreover,
even if Lanham Act claims and right of publicity claims <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">did</i> protect different interests, why would that justify providing
right of publicity defendants with a watered-down version of First Amendment
protection?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Ninth Circuit failed to
answer that question, or even acknowledge that it requires an answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is especially frustrating given the
well-recognized – indeed, paramount – importance of First Amendment speech
rights.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>That
failure – along with some contrary decisions from other jurisdictions applying
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rogers</i> test to state right of
publicity claims – may lead to en banc review in the Ninth Circuit or, perhaps
eventually, review by the Supreme Court.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
the meantime, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Keller </i>decision
encourages plaintiffs to change the label on their claims from “Lanham Act” to
“right of publicity.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such a facile
sidestep offends the First Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It will also further
encourage and exacerbate the patchwork of state right of publicity laws and rulings – a legal regime that is particularly unsuited for the 21<sup>st</sup>
century and modern technologies such as the Internet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The result is a potential minefield for
content creators and distributors as JP Jassy and I explained in this <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/communications_lawyer/august2011/why_federal_right_publicity_statute_is_necessary_comm_law_28_2.authcheckdam.pdf">article advocating a federal right of publicity statute</a> that would preempt state right
of publicity laws.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>Guest blogger Kevin Vick is my partner at Bostwick & Jassy LLP, a stellar lawyer and all around good guy. Here is his <a href="http://bostwickjassy.com/kevinvick.html">bio</a>. </i>- JP Jassy </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-44177632996153137522013-08-01T16:02:00.002-07:002013-08-01T18:37:35.747-07:00Congressman's office denies threatening blogger, but questions persistAccording to the <a href="http://www.dailydot.com/politics/mike-rogers-cispa-congressman-sue-masnick-techdirt/">Daily Dot</a>, the office of <a href="http://mikerogers.house.gov/">Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI)</a> denies threatening blogger <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/user/mmasnick">Mike Masnick</a> with a defamation claim. See my last <a href="http://jassyspeaksfirst.blogspot.com/2013/07/prominent-blogger-is-told-congressmans.html">post</a> for an explanation of why such a claim was not viable, even if it were threatened and the threat were carried out.<br />
<br />
There are a few problems with the denial. First, it identifies the reporter that Rogers' staff purportedly did <i>not</i> tell about the threat. But, when Masnick went public with the threat, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130730/13342024004/staffers-rep-mike-rogers-apparently-claim-they-could-sue-me-defamation.shtml">he didn't identify the reporter</a>. Basically, Rogers' office is saying "we didn't tell the guy you didn't name the thing you said we said." That seems off.<br />
<br />
Next, Rogers' office is basically saying that the reporter who told Masnick about the threat is a liar. Maybe they will find themselves on the other side of a defamation claim now?<br />
<br />
Finally, the reporter declined to comment to the Daily Dot, but pointed them in the direction of Rogers' chief of staff, who has not yet responded to the Daily Dot as of "late" this afternoon. If the chief of staff confirms the threat was made then Rogers' office will have a carton of eggs on its proverbial face.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-78443388436813973522013-07-31T06:35:00.002-07:002013-07-31T06:35:29.476-07:00Prominent blogger is told Congressman's staff threatened him with a defamation lawsuitYesterday afternoon, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/user/mmasnick">Mike Masnick</a>, editor of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/">Techdirt</a> blog, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130730/13342024004/staffers-rep-mike-rogers-apparently-claim-they-could-sue-me-defamation.shtml">stated</a> that staffers for <a href="http://mikerogers.house.gov/">Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)</a> told a Michigan-based reporter that Rogers, "could sue [Masnick] for defamation concerning things [he'd] said about Rogers." On Twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/mmasnick">Masnick stated</a> that Rogers' office was "telling reporters that they want to sue me for defamation."<br />
<br />
I asked Rogers via Twitter to confirm whether his office threatened Masnick, and, if so, what the basis for that threat was. I got no response. I also called Rogers' DC and Michigan offices after 9am local time this morning, but did not reach anyone who was able to answer my questions. If the threat is genuine, it sure is tough to figure out what it could be based on. Nevertheless, I tried to figure it out ...<br />
<br />
Michigan has a <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28e0i4lpzm1ora5t55mgunzq45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-600-5805">one year statute of limitations</a> for defamation claims. So, I went through Masnick's Techdirt posts in the past year that concerned Rogers. To me, they look like constitutionally protected opinion, or, to the extent they reflect any statements of fact, Rogers (as a public official) would have a very difficult time proving the requisite
actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth)
even assuming any underlying factual assertions were false, which he would also have to
prove. <br />
<br />
The most recent Masnick post about Rogers was an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130725/01094323938/why-does-rep-mike-rogers-always-mock-internet-its-users.shtml">opinion piece</a> from July 25 excoriating Rogers, who is Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, for his stance against the Amash Amendment that would have defunded sweeping portions of the NSA surveillance program, and for concluding a speech with what Masnick called the "obnoxious" suggestion that those in support of the Amash Amendment were only voting that way because of "Facebook likes." I see no potential defamation claim there. Instead, I see constitutionally protected opinion and some statements of fact tied back to a video of Rogers' speech embedded in the post.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/16253022748/oh-look-rep-mike-rogers-wife-stands-to-benefit-greatly-cispa-passing.shtml">Another story</a> from a few months ago highlighted Rogers' purported conflict of interest in pushing for legislation that supposedly would benefit his wife's former company. Saying a politician has a conflict of interest is, unless based on false information, protected opinion. Saying it in the context of a heated debate about the merits of proposed legislation gets even further protection as the First Amendment's highest purpose is to protect political speech. Furthermore, Rogers (a public official) and his wife (a public figure by virtue, at a minimum, of her marriage to Rogers) would have a hard time proving actual malice (as all public figures do) even if they could show that underlying statements were false. <br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/14525322730/thousands-people-tweet-to-rep-mike-rogers-that-theyre-not-14-not-their-basement-they-still-oppose-cispa.shtml">another post</a>, Masnick recounted the extraordinary backlash Rogers received from <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23CISPA&src=typd">scores of people on Twitter</a> when Rogers suggested that the only people opposed to the enormously unpopular <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act">CISPA cybersecurity legislation</a> he championed were "14-year-olds in their basement." Masnick also wrote an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/13354422728/cispa-sponsor-claims-opposition-is-14-year-olds-their-basement.shtml">opinion piece</a> deriding Rogers for that same comment.<br />
<br />
Finally, Masnick <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/18341622994/cispa-sponsor-mike-rogers-may-go-to-lead-fbi.shtml">shuddered at the thought</a> that Rogers might be named the next director of the FBI. Opinion. Full stop.<br />
<br />
I don't know whether Rogers endorsed any threats (veiled or otherwise) to sue Masnick for defamation, but the prospect that he did is disturbing. Rogers is a powerful man. He is in charge of the House Intelligence Committee in a time where more and more people are afraid of the power their Government holds over intelligence gathering methods. <br />
<br />
The threat of a defamation suit often stops speakers cold in their tracks. It doesn't seem like Masnick has had that reaction, but it also looks like he has tougher skin than most (perhaps tougher than Rogers and/or his staff anyway). In a <a href="https://twitter.com/mmasnick">tweet this morning</a>, Masnick emphasized that the Rogers staff only said they "*could* [sue] likely knowing it would get back" to Masnick, but Masnick "doubts they're serious."<br />
<br />
Let's hope: (a) there was some miscommunication about a threat to sue; or (b) any such threat was not serious. It would be unbecoming for Rogers or his staff to threaten Masnick with a defamation suit. To actually sue would be unseemly.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-58257088565506801962013-07-30T21:23:00.001-07:002013-07-30T21:23:42.273-07:00To Alpha, NJ: Cities cannot bring defamation suits. So cut it out.Dear Borough of Alpha, New Jersey:<br />
<br />
I've never visited you, but from your <a href="http://www.alphaboro.org/">website</a>, you look like a lovely Garden State enclave. Now, please show some respect for the First Amendment.<br />
<br />
Last week, you <a href="http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/express-times/index.ssf/2013/07/alpha_officials_file_defamatio.html">sued</a> a few anonymous online commentators for defamation. The <a href="http://www.nj.com/warrenreporter/index.ssf/2013/07/alpha_aims_to_identify_anonymo.html">suit claims</a> that "Save Alpha" and others slandered the "good name, reputation and public standing" of the "Borough of Alpha." Your suit wants to end future criticism and interference with borough business. <br />
<br />
Here's the problem: government bodies (like you) cannot sue for defamation. <br />
<br />
There used to be laws to prevent criticism of the King of England. Then we had a Revolution. Remember that? Your State played an honorable role in challenging the royal prerogative to be free from critical examination.<br />
<br />
Then, in 1798, Congress made the mistake of passing the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to publish "any false, scandalous and malicious writing ... against the government ... with intent to defame ... or to bring [it] ... into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against [it] ... the hatred of the good people of the United States." That law, which expired hundreds of years ago, is deep in the dustbin of history.<br />
<br />
Nearly fifty years ago, the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZS.html">US Supreme Court held</a> that, "although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history," due to a "broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment."<br />
<br />
Your suit claims that your Borough was defamed by citizens' comments concerning the way Alpha functions (or fails to function). But, I don't care what you think defamed you. It really doesn't matter because the rule is clear. In this country, the King cannot sue for defamation. Neither can the US Government. Nor can you. You simply don't have a "reputation" that can possibly outweigh the First Amendment.<br />
<br />
I know some of your city council members also sued. As public officials, they have a low probability of success because of the high burdens they must satisfy in a defamation case. I highly doubt that their suit will work out for them, but there is no question your suit is garbage.<br />
<br />
Yours truly,<br />
Jean-Paul JassyAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-16037991870517785522013-07-25T06:39:00.001-07:002013-07-25T06:39:22.255-07:00The NSA surveillance program's threats to the First Amendment<span style="font-family: inherit;">Yesterday, the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/24/us-usa-defense-spying-idUSBRE96N16I20130724">House voted 217-205</a> <b>not </b>to stop the NSA's Internet surveillance program that collects vast amounts of phone and email communications from millions of Americans. The program has many <a href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/07/polls-show-americans-still-bugged-by-nsa-surveillance-revelations/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">folks worried about threats to privacy rights</a> and the Fourth Amendment. But, the program threatens First Amendment rights, too. Here's how:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>(1) No more anonymous speech</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The First Amendment protects America's rich tradition of <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html">anonymous speech</a>. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson used pseudonyms. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers, which advocated the ratification of the Constitution itself, under fictitious names. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "Times","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Times; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">It is often because of an overbearing government that individuals rightly choose to keep their identities veiled. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But, that choice is removed when the Government asserts
the authority to gather everything transmitted over the Internet. Imagine if the Redcoats could find Junius, a still unidentified but highly influential, pamphleteer whose treasonous columns were widely reprinted in pre-Revolutionary War newspapers. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So long as we all keep using phones, email and social media -- and we will -- our speech is not truly anonymous, at least not from the eyes and ears of the NSA. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>(2) Chilling speech and the receipt of speech</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I put the words "al Qaeda" in a previous post. And I just used those words again. I am probably on a list somewhere now, and so are you for reading this. Don't bother leaving. I'm sure it's too late.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/nsa-leaks-spying-internet_n_3633510.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003">Reports show</a> that some people already are more careful about what they say and how they use the Internet because of the NSA program. That means speech is being chilled, and when speech is chilled it also is not being heard or read. Chilled speech is bad for the First Amendment because it is bad for a society that prides itself on open dialogue.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The law in this area is less than ideal. The Supreme Court recognizes the dangers of chilled speech, but a closely-divided (5-4) decision from 1972, <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10934551929850496191&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"><i>Laird v. Tatum</i></a>, held that an Army surveillance system designed to control civilian protests did not violate the First Amendment. In the 21st Century, the <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/29/10-15616.pdf">Ninth Circuit held</a> that a class action could proceed against the Government for warrantless wiretapping, while the <a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">Sixth Circuit held</a> that plaintiffs in a similar case could not proceed. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>(3) Threats to a free and independent press</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I'm going to lump a few government overreaches together for this part. First, reporters undoubtedly are caught up in the NSA dragnet. But, we also know now that the Department of Justice was <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/14/ap_reporters_allegedly_spied_on_by_the_justice_department_aren_t_alone.html">spying on Associated Press</a> and <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admin-spied-fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-134204299.html">Fox News</a> reporters, getting their emails and phone records and who knows what else. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A democracy depends on an independent press serving as a watchdog on government. It is one thing for agencies to operate in secret (we know that has to happen to get certain things done), but secretly spying on the press is another story. If the Government is spying on the press -- even as part of a broader program -- it is compromising the independence and freedom of the press to gather and report on a host of important matters, particularly the functioning of the Government itself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>(4) Infringing on the right of association</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b> </b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In 1958, the <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4515566352758049665&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Supreme Court rejected</a> Alabama's effort to get the membership rolls for the NAACP, establishing a right to association rooted in the First Amendment: "It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the
advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the
‘liberty’ assured by the ... freedom of speech." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Today, the NSA could figure out the NAACP's membership rolls by accessing listervs, phone records, emails or whatever else might be available as part of its surveillance program. And here's the really scary part: the NAACP would never know. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">At least Alabama's strong arm tactics were transparent.</span><br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-92031825663722047142013-07-22T21:38:00.001-07:002013-07-22T21:38:39.029-07:00Climate change on trial in a defamation caseA modern-day Scopes Monkey Trial is unfolding in a District of Columbia defamation case.<br />
<br />
In 1925, two of the most famous lawyers of the time, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, argued over whether John T. Scopes should have been prosecuted for teaching evolution in public school. Scopes was convicted and fined $100, although the conviction was later overturned on a technicality.<br />
<br />
Now, Pennsylvania State University climatology professor Michael Mann, a prominent researcher in the study of global warming, is in a legal fight with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) over his climate change research. As today's <a href="http://onwardstate.com/2013/07/22/professors-lawsuit-against-national-review-can-proceed/">article from <i>Onward State</i> explains</a>, CEI accused Mann of manipulating data regarding the connection between human behavior and global warming. Penn State investigated the allegations and exonerated Mann, as did British authorities and the EPA.<br />
<br />
In an <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/the-other-scandal-in-unhappy-valley/">editorial</a> published just after the release of the Freeh report on the Sandusky sexual abuse scandal at Penn State, CEI labeled Penn State's internal investigation of the Mann issue "hogwash," called for a new investigation, and stated that "Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he molested and tortured data."<br />
<br />
Then, an online <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn"><i>National Review</i> piece</a> by Mark Steyn, linked to the CEI editorial and wrote that he was "not sure" he would have "extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal" as the CEI editorial, but that the CEI piece "has a point" as Penn State's internal investigation was a "joke." The <i>National Review</i> post also states that Mann "was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus." (The "hockey stick" refers to the sharp rise in global temperatures, when represented on a graph, over the past 150 years.) <br />
<br />
Mann sued CEI and <i>National Review </i>for defamation in the District of Columbia.<br />
<br />
On Friday, July 19, the Court denied <i>National Review</i>'s special motion to dismiss Mann's case under D.C.'s anti-SLAPP statute. In its <a href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann_v_Natl_Review_Order_7-19-13.pdf">ruling</a>, the Court rejected arguments that the <i>National Review</i> piece was constitutionally protected opinion, rhetorical hyperbole or fair comment because, according to the Court, it was "something more than brutally honest commentary." <br />
<br />
The Court held that "to call [Mann's] work a sham or to question his intellect and reasoning is tantamount to an accusation of fraud (taken in the context and knowing that Plaintiff's work has been investigated and substantiated on numerous occasions)."<br />
<br />
The Court went on to hold that <i>National Review</i>'s statements were "based on provably false facts," which means Mann's case must proceed, presumably so the truth or falsity of the facts can be "proven." <br />
<br />
Setting aside that the text and tenor of the <i>National Review</i> article smells strongly of opinion (i.e., that the Court's decision was simply wrong), the ruling begs the question: is the evidence supporting climate change going to get its day in court? And, is this how it happens ... in a defamation case? Yes, that's what we're looking at.<br />
<br />
In 2009, the US Chamber of Commerce demanded that the EPA hold a "trial" on climate change, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/25/nation/na-climate-trial25">conjuring up the ghost</a> of Mr. Scopes by labeling it, "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century." The EPA didn't bite; but, the Chamber may now get its wish.<br />
<br />
The case could be narrowed to whether <i>National Review</i> and CEI falsely stated that Mann distorted data and their respective states of mind at the time of the purportedly defamatory publications, but both sides seem poised to tackle the broader issues of climate change in order to bolster their positions.<br />
<br />
That's what happened in 1925: it wasn't simply whether Scopes taught evolution, it was whether there was a real basis for doing so.<br />
<br />
This could be a lot more than just a run-of-the-mill defamation case ... Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-18250618242106122892013-07-18T13:59:00.000-07:002013-07-18T17:23:55.505-07:00Playwright Threatened With Bogus Suit Re "Killing Fields" ActorAn <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-killing-fields-haing-ngor-20130714,0,2884437.story">article</a> today in the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/">Los Angeles Times</a> reports that playwright Henry Ong is being threatened with a lawsuit by the estate of Academy award winning actor <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0628955/">Haing S. Ngor</a>. The threatened suit has no merit and Ngor's estate should give it up.<br>
<br>
Ngor, a gynecologist, survived the dictatorship of Pol Pot in Cambodia and later won an Oscar for his role portraying a journalist in "The Killing Fields," a 1984 movie about the Khmer Rouge regime. Ong wrote a play, "Sweet Karma," about a "Dr. Vichear Lam" that is based on Ngor's life. Promotions for the play avoid using Ngor's photographic likeness.<br>
<br>
In the play, "Dr. Lam" is depicted as, among other things, an adulterer who has sex with a patient. Ong says the play is based on published accounts about Ngor and interviews with people close to Ngor.<br>
<br>
Without providing details, a representative of Ngor's estate told the LA Times that "legal action" against Ong is "imminently pending."<br>
<br>
Bad idea.<br>
<br>
Dead people -- or, rather, the estates of dead people -- cannot sue for defamation. That is well-established in the law, <a href="http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/60321">particularly in California</a>.<br>
<br>
A more likely scenario is a suit alleging a violation of Ngor's right of publicity. Dead people -- I mean the heirs of dead people -- <i>can</i> sue for that in California, but <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d4/1/2/2/3/s3344.1">the law</a> permitting such suits expressly excludes plays. <br>
<br>
Plays are fully protected by the First Amendment, particularly when they recount facts. Setting aside defamation concerns, the First Amendment also protects references to real persons in fictional stories. For example, the California Supreme Court <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3956106467746132778&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">held</a> that the use of Rudolph Valentino's name in a fictionalized film was protected. The law <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1336579.html">also protects</a> the use of real persons in works that blend fact and fiction for dramatic impact.<br>
<br>
The show must go on for "Sweet Karma".Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-85315452753056938942013-07-18T12:36:00.000-07:002013-07-18T12:39:09.047-07:00Bad News for Bradley Manning Means Bad News For First Amendment<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This morning, a military judge refused to dismiss the charge against Bradley Manning for "aiding the enemy" when he disclosed classified information to WikiLeaks That is bad news for Manning. It is also bad news for the First Amendment. Here's why ...</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/us/judge-in-manning-case-allows-charge-of-aiding-the-enemy.html?hp&_r=0">article</a> gives a good account of this morning's events. The Government's argument boils down to this: Manning was "aiding" al Qaeda because he disclosed information to WikiLeaks, which is on the Internet, and al Qaeda has access to the Internet. That's it. That's flimsy.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Under <a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm">military regulations</a>, "aiding the enemy" applies to “any person who ... gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly,” whether or not the "intelligence" is classified. </span>That means any time anyone in the military with any information shares that information on the Internet in any context, that person could be prosecuted because the information <i>might</i> be accessed by the enemy. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">On the other hand, it also might be accessed by the public and press, leading to needed changes in our system.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Manning's defense lawyers argued that Manning was not "aiding the enemy" because he was trying to share information with a media outlet (WikiLeaks) and "spark" debate and reform. Well, the former certainly happened. The jury is still out on the latter. See my previous <a href="http://jassyspeaksfirst.blogspot.com/2013/07/is-wikileaks-legitimate-media-would.html">post</a> on the subject. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The bar should be higher -- e.g., proof that harm was imminent or actually occurred (see another <a href="http://jassyspeaksfirst.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-first-amendment-protects-media-when.html">post</a> of mine on a related subject) or at least some proof that the enemy actually received/accessed the material.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">According to an excellent <a href="https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/07/how-todays-aiding-enemy-ruling-bradley-mannings-case-could-affect-journalists-and">blog post</a> by <a href="http://www.aclu.org/blog/author/ben-wizner">Ben Wizner</a> of the <a href="http://www.aclu.org/">ACLU</a>, over a thousand active duty members of the military maintain blogs. What is happening to Manning better be a wake up call to those members not to discuss anything that has anything to do with the military because whatever they say might be accessed by the enemy.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The military traditionally has a lot of control over its members' speech. This makes sense in the heat of battle, but when it comes to retrospective looks at policy positions and simply embarrassing information (i.e. most of what Manning disclosed), it makes much less, if any, sense at all.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-73144648781687101382013-07-17T09:20:00.000-07:002013-07-17T11:22:48.908-07:00Asiana decides NOT to sue KTVU<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">According to a <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/usa-crash-suit-idINDEE96G0AI20130717">report</a> from <a href="http://in.reuters.com/">Reuters</a> this morning, Asiana Airlines has come to its senses. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Asiana executives have changed their minds, and will not sue KTVU for its report on July 12 that erroneously identified the pilots of Asiana Flight 214 with offensive names. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Reuters reports that Asiana's statement reads: <span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">“Asiana Airlines has decided not to proceed with the case since KTVU has issued a formal apology and in order for us to focus all our efforts on managing the aftermath of the accident."</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">KTVU did the right thing by promptly apologizing for its erroneous report. Asiana threatened to sue after KTVU apologized.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline ! important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Today, Asiana did the right thing by deciding not to sue ... even though it should never have made the threat in the first place because it had no basis to sue and KTVU had already apologized. See my <a href="http://jassyspeaksfirst.blogspot.com/2013/07/asianas-absurd-threat-to-sue-tv-station.html">post</a> of July 15. </span></span></span><br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-40126149225862194802013-07-16T17:30:00.000-07:002013-07-16T18:13:50.670-07:00What Results of Today's First Amendment Survey MeanEarlier today, the <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/">First Amendment Center</a> put out its excellent annual report on the <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SOFA-2013-final-report.pdf">State of the First Amendment</a>. Let's take a look at some of its results and what they mean in real world terms.<br />
<br />
When over 1,000 American adults were asked about "the single most important" freedom we have, 47% said freedom of speech (with freedom of religion coming in second at 10%). Great! But, 34% believe "that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees." This is a big jump from last year when only 13% agreed with that statement. Not great; although, it is not clear from the Report what "going too far" really means.<br />
<br />
The report notes that, in the past 15 years of polling, there have been two marked jumps in the view that the First Amendment "goes too far": after the September 2001 terrorist attacks and now (this year's survey was conducted in May 2013, shortly after the Boston Marathon bombings). This is a potent reminder that the value Americans place on even our most cherished freedoms may fluctuate because of fear. <br />
<br />
This fear may be reflected in other ways. As compared with five years ago, more Americans (44% today vs. 37% in 2008) believe
that journalists should "be required to reveal their confidential sources
to make America safer." A majority (51%) of Americans still disagree with forcing journalists to reveal their sources under such circumstances. This poll was conducted in May 2013, before Edward Snowden asked to be revealed on June 9 as the source of massive NSA leaks. <br />
<br />
Although only 1% identified freedom of the press as the right they hold most dear, the Report shows the perceived level of bias in the media is at its lowest point since 2004. That is encouraging, but surprising considering how often we hear about alleged bias in the media.<br />
<br />
And, it is tempered by another statistic: a whopping 74% of Americans get "most" of their news from media sources whose "views" are in line with their own. Perhaps that means Americans perceive less bias simply because they exercise their own bias in choosing their unbiased news sources.<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-67403551642510355752013-07-15T22:58:00.000-07:002013-07-15T22:58:40.279-07:00Honking and flashing headlights = free speechTwo cool articles published today raise an offbeat First Amendment issue: can you exercise First Amendment rights with your car? Yes, you can.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/emfoxhall">Emily Foxhall</a> of the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/">Los Angeles Times</a> <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-zimmerman-protest-honking-20130715,0,7813882.story">wrote today</a> about an incident yesterday where a motorist, <a href="https://twitter.com/NickySilv">Nick Silverman</a>, was ticketed by the Los Angeles Police Department for honking his horn to show his support for people protesting the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial. Apparently, the ticket actually states that Silverman was "honking to support protestors." It also states that he honked "excessively," but he says he only honked once. <br />
<br />
In 2011, the <a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs-3/state-v-immelt.pdf">Washington Supreme Court struck down an overbroad law</a> that restricted honking, holding that honking can be a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. That kind of precedent makes sense as the U.S. Supreme Court consistently recognizes conduct that communicates (e.g., flag burning) as a form of speech. Silverman's honk in support of protestors is protected as well.<br />
<br />
In another <a href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/07/is-flashing-your-cars-headlights-protected-by-the-first-amendment/">piece published today</a>, <a href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/author/amy-e-feldman/">Amy E. Feldman</a> of <a href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/">Constitution Daily</a> reports that individuals in Utah, Florida and Tennessee successfully disputed citations for obstructing justice when they flashed their headlights to warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap ahead. These courts found that the flashing headlights were a form of speech. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3537436706733690157.post-81473222805778368252013-07-15T07:49:00.000-07:002013-07-15T10:33:14.577-07:00Asiana's absurd threat to sue TV station for defamationAsiana Airlines announced this morning that it will sue <a href="http://www.ktvu.com/">KTVU</a>, a San Francisco Bay Area television station, for incorrectly reporting the names of the pilots of Asiana Flight 214 that crashed July 6. A lawsuit would be beyond ridiculous and has no basis in the law.<br />
<br />
On Friday, July 12, an anchor on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFwNfbsPny0">KTVU reported</a>, while showing a graphic onscreen, that the names of the pilots on Asiana's Flight 214 were "Sum Ting Wong", "Wi Tu Lo," "Ho Lee Fuk," and "Bang Ding Ow." It is not clear how KTVU got these fake and offensive names, but they were actually confirmed by an intern at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The station and NTSB have already <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPNl2S30MF8">apologized</a> for the error.<br />
<br />
Asiana now threatens to sue for defamation, claiming that its reputation was harmed by the broadcast. Twitter is bursting with comments that carry the same basic theme: it was the plane crash that hurt your reputation, not KTVU's broadcast. <br />
<br />
The names were offensive, and someone was playing a prank, but let me be very clear: Asiana has no lawsuit here.<br />
<br />
First, there is no harm, at least none Asiana would ever be able to show in court. The broadcast was promptly corrected. People are not going to stop flying Asiana because it supposedly employs a captain named "Sum Ting Wong," but they may well stop because of a crash landing. Asiana would have to prove that they suffered harm because of KTVU's broadcast separate and apart from the crash. No chance that will work.<br />
<br />
Second, Asiana -- which is undoubtedly a public figure because, among other things, it advertises extensively and is heavily regulated by governments across the globe -- would have to prove actual malice (i.e., that KTVU knew or had reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of its broadcast). Asiana will not satisfy that burden, which requires clear and convincing evidence. KTVU confirmed the names with the NTSB and then promptly corrected the error. Those two things alone gut any possible showing of actual malice.<br />
<br />
Third, a prank is not a statement of fact and a defamation claim requires a statement of fact.<br />
<br />
There is more that could be written, but let's wait and see if Asiana follows through on its threat before wasting more time on this nonsense. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13489026571028648974noreply@blogger.com4