A 51 year old, Philadelphia news anchor plead guilty for hacking into her personal email address and leaking her secrets that led to her termination. Larry Mendte said he felt threatened by the young woman and her rising fame at the station. Her salary was higher, she was younger, and he was afraid of being forced out. He bagan hacking into her private email account and leaking stories to the tabloids about her personal life. The woman, Alycia Lane, had emailed a married friend a picture of herself in a bikini and had also gotten into a bar fight among other things. Lane is suing for invasion of privacy and wrongful termination. Reading someone else's emails is a federal offense. The tabloids cannot be held responsible for publishing this information that was intrusive and gathered illegally as statement in the textbook (Chapter 7, pg. 268-9) since the news station played no part in the interception of the information. This has been the ruling in the past but who knows, maybe if we see more of these cases the guidlines will change.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=161054&catid=28
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Student's Right to Free Speech
The New York Times ran a story on March 20, 2007 regarding a student's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The student had made a banner that read, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" that he unfurled during the Olympic torch run in his local community. The case raises important issues of freedom of expression and student censorship that go far beyond the words on that banner.
Joseph Frederick and his fellow students were allowed to leave the grounds of Juneau-Douglas High School so they could watch the Olympic torch pass nearby. When the cameras began to roll, he unfurled his banner, which he says was meant to be funny and get him on television. The principal took it from him, and suspended him for 10 days.
Mr. Frederick says the suspension violated his rights. The school board insists the principal had the right to confiscate the banner and punish the student because the language undermined its teachings about the dangers of illegal drugs. The San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled for Mr. Frederick, citing the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that students have the right to free speech, which can be suppressed only when the speech disrupts school activities.
Here's the link to the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/opinion/20tue1.html.
Joseph Frederick and his fellow students were allowed to leave the grounds of Juneau-Douglas High School so they could watch the Olympic torch pass nearby. When the cameras began to roll, he unfurled his banner, which he says was meant to be funny and get him on television. The principal took it from him, and suspended him for 10 days.
Mr. Frederick says the suspension violated his rights. The school board insists the principal had the right to confiscate the banner and punish the student because the language undermined its teachings about the dangers of illegal drugs. The San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled for Mr. Frederick, citing the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that students have the right to free speech, which can be suppressed only when the speech disrupts school activities.
Here's the link to the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/opinion/20tue1.html.
Maryland Police violate citizens first amendment rights
The Maryland state police were secretly watching several protest groups that included anti-war protesters, enviornmentalists, and animal rights activists. They had labeled these group of people terrorists and were spying on them for a 14 month period. The police did not have cause to start the surveillance and did it secretly which might also be argued as an invasion of privacy. The records were made available to those who were wrongly watched but the records were deemed incomplete. Officials had blacked out much of the information and some citizens are calling it a joke that the officials are witholding their information. The police were arguing that the groups may have been a threat to public safety and that is why their actions were followed but neglect to bring forth and such examples of behavior. Some of the individuals in the terrorist database had never even attended a protest but were simply members of groups that had planned protest activity in Maryland.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
False Advertising Case Leads to Fee Award: POM Wonderfull, LLC
POM Wonderful, LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc., 2008 WL 4351842 (C.D. Cal.)
POM Wonderful won its false advertising case against Purely Juice and sought attorneys’ fees, on top of the $1.5 million award it had received as compensatory damages. Fees are available, though not required, in “exceptional” Lanham Act cases, which generally requires conduct that’s malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or willful. California false advertising law allows a fee award when a lawsuit results in enforcing “an important right affecting the public interest,” if (1) the suit conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class; (2) the costs of litigation make an award appropriate; and (3) the fees aren’t paid out of the recovery.
The court had already found that defendants knew or should have known in 2006 that there were “serious issues of adulteration” in imported pomegranate juice, including the juice they imported. Defendants advertised “100% pomegranate juice” without testing, and indeed in defiance of plaintiffs’ tests, about which they were notified, and ultimately their own tests. Defendants argued that they weren’t aware of problems until they tested the juice themselves, in February 2007, and anyway other competitors were selling adulterated juice. Despite the test results showing added sucrose, they believed, and still believe, that their product was within the range for “pure” pomegranate juice. Negligence alone, they argued, isn’t exceptional.
The court found a fee award justified. Defendants continued to sell the product for over a month after they knew of the problem, which was willful/deliberate misconduct. Moreover, the Lanham Act and state-law false advertising claims were inextricably intertwined, so plaintiffs were entitled to fees for all the false advertising work, even though they wouldn’t be independently entitled to a fee award under California law because the benefit to the public was coincidental.
POM Wonderful won its false advertising case against Purely Juice and sought attorneys’ fees, on top of the $1.5 million award it had received as compensatory damages. Fees are available, though not required, in “exceptional” Lanham Act cases, which generally requires conduct that’s malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or willful. California false advertising law allows a fee award when a lawsuit results in enforcing “an important right affecting the public interest,” if (1) the suit conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class; (2) the costs of litigation make an award appropriate; and (3) the fees aren’t paid out of the recovery.
The court had already found that defendants knew or should have known in 2006 that there were “serious issues of adulteration” in imported pomegranate juice, including the juice they imported. Defendants advertised “100% pomegranate juice” without testing, and indeed in defiance of plaintiffs’ tests, about which they were notified, and ultimately their own tests. Defendants argued that they weren’t aware of problems until they tested the juice themselves, in February 2007, and anyway other competitors were selling adulterated juice. Despite the test results showing added sucrose, they believed, and still believe, that their product was within the range for “pure” pomegranate juice. Negligence alone, they argued, isn’t exceptional.
The court found a fee award justified. Defendants continued to sell the product for over a month after they knew of the problem, which was willful/deliberate misconduct. Moreover, the Lanham Act and state-law false advertising claims were inextricably intertwined, so plaintiffs were entitled to fees for all the false advertising work, even though they wouldn’t be independently entitled to a fee award under California law because the benefit to the public was coincidental.
Trademark Infringement: Apple v. The Big Apple
An article from April 2008 on Wired.com discussed the computer company, Apple, filing a trademark infringement case against NYC & Company, a nonprofit company. NYC & Company partnered with Whole Foods last March to launch organic cotton shopping bags. The bags feature a logo for the New York City's GreeNYC campaign. The logo is a stylized apple with a stalk and a leaf.
Apple called for the trademark to be denied and claimed the city's logo will confuse people and "seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services." Gerald Singleton, the intelluctual-property lawyer representing NYC, said "the city believes that Apple's claims have no merit and that no consumer is likely to be confused."
Beth Goldman, an attorney at Heller Ehrman and head of the firm's San Francisco trademark group, said "when you talk about trademark infringement, the key issue is likelihood of confusion." Also that trademark protection extends to "sight, sound and meaning."
The next step in this trademark scuffle is to commission a series of independent surveys to gauge people's reaction to the new logo in order to see if Apple's opposition holds any merit. Goldman says, "the ultimate arbiter is the consumer." The dispute will play out over a period of 6 - 8 months, before a final decision is made by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the patent office.
This article was from April so there should be a decision made soon but I did not find one yet.
Apple called for the trademark to be denied and claimed the city's logo will confuse people and "seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services." Gerald Singleton, the intelluctual-property lawyer representing NYC, said "the city believes that Apple's claims have no merit and that no consumer is likely to be confused."
Beth Goldman, an attorney at Heller Ehrman and head of the firm's San Francisco trademark group, said "when you talk about trademark infringement, the key issue is likelihood of confusion." Also that trademark protection extends to "sight, sound and meaning."
The next step in this trademark scuffle is to commission a series of independent surveys to gauge people's reaction to the new logo in order to see if Apple's opposition holds any merit. Goldman says, "the ultimate arbiter is the consumer." The dispute will play out over a period of 6 - 8 months, before a final decision is made by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the patent office.
This article was from April so there should be a decision made soon but I did not find one yet.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A New President, New Ad Regulations?
Although a topic that might not have swayed your vote, the regulations of advertising and the mesdia are on the new United State's President's chopping block. In the past, American advertisers rarely looked to the world scope of advertising for ideas and outlines, but this might be changing with the new White House tenants.
I came across an article in Brandweek, (http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/current-issue/e3i431ca797a370fbb26eef7165db7efc10?imw=Y)
that gave a brief overview of the issues that will be addressed in the coming years. One of the issues was the abandoshment of advertising for un-healthy snack foods to kids. As given in the article, the U.K. has already adopted this law and can be appluaded for one of the reasons the child obsesity rate is a little over half the obesity rate of the United States. (http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/22/606/FINALfactsandfigures2.pdf VS. http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn205.pdf).
A new bill is in congress that will pursue blame of false advertising to anyone and eeryone involved, including the printer. I think that this is taking the suit a little too far. As a printer or a production house it is not your responsibilty to reasearch the products chemistry or check inventory of a retailer before exicuting a RFP.
The first couple of months of the new term will be interesting to see what is passed in office and what was just campaign lip service. As a student of media studies, I hope that we will continue to look outside the borders of the United States for means of advertising. In addition, the consequences advertising has on the consumer's life and not the retailers/network's pocket.
Another regulation that will put a dent (a very very small one) in Mr. Murdoch's wallet is the regulation of media conglomerates and furthering monopolies of the media industry. Although the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed a long time ago , the FCC has been quite relaxed in enforcing it.
I came across an article in Brandweek, (http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/current-issue/e3i431ca797a370fbb26eef7165db7efc10?imw=Y)
that gave a brief overview of the issues that will be addressed in the coming years. One of the issues was the abandoshment of advertising for un-healthy snack foods to kids. As given in the article, the U.K. has already adopted this law and can be appluaded for one of the reasons the child obsesity rate is a little over half the obesity rate of the United States. (http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/22/606/FINALfactsandfigures2.pdf VS. http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn205.pdf).
A new bill is in congress that will pursue blame of false advertising to anyone and eeryone involved, including the printer. I think that this is taking the suit a little too far. As a printer or a production house it is not your responsibilty to reasearch the products chemistry or check inventory of a retailer before exicuting a RFP.
The first couple of months of the new term will be interesting to see what is passed in office and what was just campaign lip service. As a student of media studies, I hope that we will continue to look outside the borders of the United States for means of advertising. In addition, the consequences advertising has on the consumer's life and not the retailers/network's pocket.
Another regulation that will put a dent (a very very small one) in Mr. Murdoch's wallet is the regulation of media conglomerates and furthering monopolies of the media industry. Although the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed a long time ago , the FCC has been quite relaxed in enforcing it.
Monday, November 17, 2008
How Advertising Law Varies around the Globe
We are going to cover Advertising Law in our upcoming class. This, again mainly focused on the American Legal System and regulations that apply off course to the jurisdiction in which we live, and how advertising relates to the First Amendment.
Just to have a more expanded vision of the material and learn about other point of view, below are some interesting facts about the regulation of the Adevrtising Industry in other countries that come from some previous research done for an earlier class' presentation.
The most interesting fatc I found was how in most other countries (all in South America, most in Europe) companies or brands are not allowed to explicitely name their competitors. This includes naming, showing the product in any way, a logo, slogan, or making reference to a competitors specific product in any way. This really affects the final copies of advertising campaigns as brands can only focus on their own attributes and never compare another brand's quality, price, or features. Many ads in the US owe their show effect to the explicit exposing of two known brands or products and how the affect the consumer's behavior.
Also, in countries like Mexico and Chile, for example, regulations state that any food or drink commercial must show thru its whole length the phrase "Stay Active, Practice Sports". These countries are very protective of the childre's health and expose some of the lowest abesity rates in the world.
Another interesting fact is how in countries such as Argentina, for example, the regulation of cigarettes and tobacco products is much looser and almost non-existent. The big warnings we see in packages of cigarettes here don't exist. Cigarettes are sold to minors, and tobacco products can advertise anywere, regardless of the audience that is reached be it a TV show, a billboard right across from a kindergarten, or being smoked by avery major daytime tv actor during peak ratings. Just like here, we all want the good health of our kids, but money pulls harder.
Lastly, I can mention the fact of how in Russia a campaign by Coca-Cola was canceled because it included images of historic and traditional Russian monuments and building and Coke is an american product and the government accused it of blasphemy. I guess the regulation of advertising are also under the influence of political issues and corrupt leaders.
Just to have a more expanded vision of the material and learn about other point of view, below are some interesting facts about the regulation of the Adevrtising Industry in other countries that come from some previous research done for an earlier class' presentation.
The most interesting fatc I found was how in most other countries (all in South America, most in Europe) companies or brands are not allowed to explicitely name their competitors. This includes naming, showing the product in any way, a logo, slogan, or making reference to a competitors specific product in any way. This really affects the final copies of advertising campaigns as brands can only focus on their own attributes and never compare another brand's quality, price, or features. Many ads in the US owe their show effect to the explicit exposing of two known brands or products and how the affect the consumer's behavior.
Also, in countries like Mexico and Chile, for example, regulations state that any food or drink commercial must show thru its whole length the phrase "Stay Active, Practice Sports". These countries are very protective of the childre's health and expose some of the lowest abesity rates in the world.
Another interesting fact is how in countries such as Argentina, for example, the regulation of cigarettes and tobacco products is much looser and almost non-existent. The big warnings we see in packages of cigarettes here don't exist. Cigarettes are sold to minors, and tobacco products can advertise anywere, regardless of the audience that is reached be it a TV show, a billboard right across from a kindergarten, or being smoked by avery major daytime tv actor during peak ratings. Just like here, we all want the good health of our kids, but money pulls harder.
Lastly, I can mention the fact of how in Russia a campaign by Coca-Cola was canceled because it included images of historic and traditional Russian monuments and building and Coke is an american product and the government accused it of blasphemy. I guess the regulation of advertising are also under the influence of political issues and corrupt leaders.
Syriana and Plagiarism
One of Hollywood's most liked actors could have been in big trouble after the release of the film Syriana, a co-production between Section Eight studios and Warner Bros. As it is mentioned on the book they were sued for plagiarism by a french writer. Searching up for more info on this I found a couple interesting facts.
The lawsuit was filed by screenwriter Stephanie Vargniault, and it was actually brought up in a French Court, under french law. In our class we focus on the American Legal System and many of the regulations are even exclusive of the State of Missouri, so I think it is interesting to see how international courts can differ but also, for the most part, share similarities with US law.
The name of the original work produced by Vargniault was "Oversight" a script of a thriller about the oil industry. She calimed her script, completed in 2002, was borrowed "very largely" by the Clooney film.
In the book it states that the case was dismissed by the judge because it ruled that the filming of "Syriana" had already started before her scrpts received a United States copyright. This would indicate that US law was utilized over this case. But other articles stated three other main reasons for the French judge to rule the way it did:
First, after comparing both scripts the judged stated they were "obviously different" dissmissing in itself the main argument of plagiarism.
Secondly, more support was given by stating that the small sections were overlap existed were only "coincidental".
Lastly, the ownership of the original script by the french writer was questioned. Court stated "lack of sufficient proof" establishing the "chain of ownership".
I find it interesting how the addictional detail of the case also relate to our content in class. Also, as we have discussed there can be many ways to prove your case and also to dismiss it, the more the stronger your case.
Lastly, it is interesting how this could have been a big problem for huge the corporations in charge of the production had the case been deemed viable, but on the other hand it was a very risky move by the writer, only an individual, because now she is left in charge of paying all the expensive legal fees. I guess another way in which American and French law coincide.
The lawsuit was filed by screenwriter Stephanie Vargniault, and it was actually brought up in a French Court, under french law. In our class we focus on the American Legal System and many of the regulations are even exclusive of the State of Missouri, so I think it is interesting to see how international courts can differ but also, for the most part, share similarities with US law.
The name of the original work produced by Vargniault was "Oversight" a script of a thriller about the oil industry. She calimed her script, completed in 2002, was borrowed "very largely" by the Clooney film.
In the book it states that the case was dismissed by the judge because it ruled that the filming of "Syriana" had already started before her scrpts received a United States copyright. This would indicate that US law was utilized over this case. But other articles stated three other main reasons for the French judge to rule the way it did:
First, after comparing both scripts the judged stated they were "obviously different" dissmissing in itself the main argument of plagiarism.
Secondly, more support was given by stating that the small sections were overlap existed were only "coincidental".
Lastly, the ownership of the original script by the french writer was questioned. Court stated "lack of sufficient proof" establishing the "chain of ownership".
I find it interesting how the addictional detail of the case also relate to our content in class. Also, as we have discussed there can be many ways to prove your case and also to dismiss it, the more the stronger your case.
Lastly, it is interesting how this could have been a big problem for huge the corporations in charge of the production had the case been deemed viable, but on the other hand it was a very risky move by the writer, only an individual, because now she is left in charge of paying all the expensive legal fees. I guess another way in which American and French law coincide.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Art causes controversy
A banner that was creating a lot of controversy because of it's religious implications was getting a lot of complaints. Since it was an art piece meant to invoke discussion they cannot take it down because of First Amendment protection so instead they come up with another legally, sneaky, reason. They find out that the banner did not have a permit, was large, blocked windows and violated construction codes. The school is a private school so it does not have government property like a state school does. The artist was going to apply for a permit to try again but the school officials said not to bother because they wouldn't allow it because the banner was still a hazard because it blocked windows. It proves that there are other ways to get things done without violating the first amendment and if people want them done bad enough they will find a way. Also, the artist could probably make the banner smaller or hang it in another location, that did not block windows, but the school officials would probably fight him on the issue again so he's thus given up.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov14/0,4670,StalinBannerRemoved,00.html
NYCLU: Why was Stalin banner removed from school?
Friday, November 14, 2008
By MARCUS FRANKLIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
NEW YORK — The New York Civil Liberties Union has demanded that city officials explain why they ordered a private art school to remove a banner displaying an image of Josef Stalin.
In a letter Thursday to the Department of Buildings, NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman expressed concern that the banner was taken down from The Cooper Union after some residents of the local Ukrainian community complained that it "seemed to promote" the Soviet dictator on the 75th anniversary of a famine he imposed. The famine, called the Holodomor, killed millions of Ukrainians.
The banner was part of an art exhibit, "Stalin by Picasso, or Portrait of Woman with Mustache." Lene Berg, the artist who created the banner, said it was intended to provoke discussion about the relationship between art and politics.
The 52-foot-by-36-foot banner features a reproduction of a 1953 Pablo Picasso portrait of Stalin. At the time, the image was viewed as a critique of the Soviet leader.
But the Ukrainian community found it offensive, said Tamara Olexy, president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.
"It's like hanging a portrait of Hitler in a synagogue or in a Jewish community," she said.
After receiving several complaints, the Department of Buildings investigated the banner's legality and determined it violated construction and zoning regulations, the agency said Friday.
"We determined the sign was too high, too large, lacked a permit and blocked the building's windows," buildings spokeswoman Kate Lindquist wrote in an e-mail. "The department does not regulate sign content."
But Lieberman said the NYCLU's understanding was that the complaints were about the banner's content, not its size.
"The question remains as to whether the building code was enforced because of objections to the content. If so, that raises questions about censorship," Lieberman said in a statement.
In a Nov. 13 letter to buildings department community affairs director Donald Ranshte, Lieberman said the banner's removal would raise First Amendment concerns if regulations had been selectively enforced based on complaints about its content.
Buildings officials told the school Oct. 31 to remove the banner because it didn't have a permit, Cooper Union spokeswoman Jolene Travis said Friday. The school immediately took down the banner, which had been put up on Oct. 26.
Cooper Union initially planned to apply for a permit to display the banner again, but not until after Nov. 15, when the Ukrainian community in the nearby East Village plans to hold events commemorating the famine, Travis said.
But the school abandoned the effort after being told by buildings officials that banners can't block windows because of fire hazards.
The banner controversy comes less than six months after a Roman Catholic watchdog group protested a Cooper Union student art exhibition that included what the group considered vulgar depictions of religious symbols such as a crucifix and a rosary.
Freedom of speech
The story I found is about atheist group called COCORE, who wishes to put billboards up in Denver just in time for the holiday season. There are of course people who are very against this happening. But, according to the first amendment, there should not be an issue which poses any problems with the group putting the billboards up. Especially since, like we have in Missouri, billboards that express other religious views. Regardless of what people want or don't want put on billboards, it should be allowed.
A representative from COCORE stated about thier first amendment rights:
"And I've read the First Amendment up and down and nowhere does it say that I have to care about your feelings. We're either 10 to 16 percent of the population, and the reason we don't really know is because people are scared to come out because they're ostracized by the people around them."
My question is, can a company that specializes in outdoor advertising say no, due to thier beliefs, or because the billboard is associated with the ads that are posted on thier billboards?
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17977308/detail.html
DENVER -- A controversial billboard will likely be popping up in a neighborhood near you, just in time for the holidays.
The billboard is paid for by a Colorado atheist group. The message sits against a blue sky backdrop and says, "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."
Ten billboards will pepper metro Denver, while one will be put up in Colorado Springs.
"And we're putting them up in November and December because of the holidays, when church and state issues tend to come up a lot," said Joel Guttormson, with Metro State Atheists. "To let non-believers, free-thinkers and atheists know that they are not alone, especially in a country like ours that is predominantly Christian."
Pastor Willard Johnson of Denver's Macedonia Baptist Church called the billboards a desperate effort to discredit Christianity.
"The Bible is being fulfilled. It says that in latter days, you have all these kinds of things coming up, trying to disrupt the validity of Christianity," Johnson said. "If they don't believe in God, how do they believe they came about? We denounce what they are doing. But we do it with love, with gentleness, with decency and with compassion."
Bob Enyart, a Christian radio host and spokesman for American Right to Life, said it's hard to ignore the evidence.
"The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evidence. If we ignore the evidence for gravity or the Creator, that's really dangerous," said Enyart. "Income tax doesn't not exist because somebody doesn't believe in it. And the same is true with our Creator."
The billboards will go up Nov. 17. The atheist group, called Colorado Coalition of Reason or COCORE, also wanted to put up signs in Fort Collins and Greeley, but a billboard company there refused to carry the message.
Johnson said atheism is a rebellion against Biblical principals and the billboard will likely offend many Christians.
COCORE said this is about First Amendment rights.
"And I've read the First Amendment up and down and nowhere does it say that I have to care about your feelings. We're either 10 to 16 percent of the population, and the reason we don't really know is because people are scared to come out because they're ostracized by the people around them," said Guttormson.
A representative from COCORE stated about thier first amendment rights:
"And I've read the First Amendment up and down and nowhere does it say that I have to care about your feelings. We're either 10 to 16 percent of the population, and the reason we don't really know is because people are scared to come out because they're ostracized by the people around them."
My question is, can a company that specializes in outdoor advertising say no, due to thier beliefs, or because the billboard is associated with the ads that are posted on thier billboards?
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17977308/detail.html
DENVER -- A controversial billboard will likely be popping up in a neighborhood near you, just in time for the holidays.
The billboard is paid for by a Colorado atheist group. The message sits against a blue sky backdrop and says, "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."
Ten billboards will pepper metro Denver, while one will be put up in Colorado Springs.
"And we're putting them up in November and December because of the holidays, when church and state issues tend to come up a lot," said Joel Guttormson, with Metro State Atheists. "To let non-believers, free-thinkers and atheists know that they are not alone, especially in a country like ours that is predominantly Christian."
Pastor Willard Johnson of Denver's Macedonia Baptist Church called the billboards a desperate effort to discredit Christianity.
"The Bible is being fulfilled. It says that in latter days, you have all these kinds of things coming up, trying to disrupt the validity of Christianity," Johnson said. "If they don't believe in God, how do they believe they came about? We denounce what they are doing. But we do it with love, with gentleness, with decency and with compassion."
Bob Enyart, a Christian radio host and spokesman for American Right to Life, said it's hard to ignore the evidence.
"The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evidence. If we ignore the evidence for gravity or the Creator, that's really dangerous," said Enyart. "Income tax doesn't not exist because somebody doesn't believe in it. And the same is true with our Creator."
The billboards will go up Nov. 17. The atheist group, called Colorado Coalition of Reason or COCORE, also wanted to put up signs in Fort Collins and Greeley, but a billboard company there refused to carry the message.
Johnson said atheism is a rebellion against Biblical principals and the billboard will likely offend many Christians.
COCORE said this is about First Amendment rights.
"And I've read the First Amendment up and down and nowhere does it say that I have to care about your feelings. We're either 10 to 16 percent of the population, and the reason we don't really know is because people are scared to come out because they're ostracized by the people around them," said Guttormson.
I found this article interesting because it seems to be good example of parody use. This story was about a spoof of the New York Times that was issued Wednesday, November 12th. This paper included stories that said that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had ended and the health care issues, gas issues and global warming issues were almost solved. Also added were stories of how there had been an abolition of corporate lobbying and a recall for all gasoline powered cars. The group that put the parody together said they did it so that the new Obama administration would keep their promises. The paper was paid for by small online contributions. The group looked into the legal issues of using the New York Times nameplate style and believes it falls under "fair use".
The idea of this paper seems very risky, but at the same time, very entertaining. The reason that they put the paper out is also very interesting to me. It was "to maintain the pressure on the people we've elected so they do what we've elected them to do" says one of the group members. Also something to note is that every one of the people in the pseudo journalists has another daytime job and remained anonymous during the publishing of this paper. Most of this is because many of the 30 that worked on the project worked on other New York daily papers.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=C754505CDC809D2480446A5DD17C7D01?contentId=7851165&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
The idea of this paper seems very risky, but at the same time, very entertaining. The reason that they put the paper out is also very interesting to me. It was "to maintain the pressure on the people we've elected so they do what we've elected them to do" says one of the group members. Also something to note is that every one of the people in the pseudo journalists has another daytime job and remained anonymous during the publishing of this paper. Most of this is because many of the 30 that worked on the project worked on other New York daily papers.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=C754505CDC809D2480446A5DD17C7D01?contentId=7851165&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Freedom of Speech: Prior Restraint - DefCon Case
After looking at this week's PowerPoint presentation, I came across the topic of "Prior Restraint" and was curious to find out a little bit more about some recent cases regarding this topic. In my search I found an interesting case involving press conference at a DefCon hacker conference. The case revolves around an issue that resulted due to a ruling made by a federal judge - the ruling granted a temporary restraining order to hald a scheduled conference talk about security vulnerabilites.
FEDERAL JUDGE IN DEFCON CASE EQUATES SPEECH WITH HACKING --
LAS VEGAS -- Lawyers with the Electronic Frontier Foundation said a federal judge who granted a temporary restraining order on Saturday to halt a scheduled conference talk about security vulnerabilities came to "a very, very wrong conclusion." They said the judge's order constituted illegal prior restraint, which violated the speakers' First Amendment right to discuss important and legitimate academic research.
"When you discuss security issues, if you are telling the truth, that should be something protected at the core of the First Amendment," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the non-profit EFF, who was at DefCon to participate in an annual ask-the-EFF panel and to launch the organization's Coders Rights Project. "If you are truthfully telling the world about a dangerous situation, and (it is) a situation which is dangerous not because the security researcher exposes the vulnerability (but) because the person who made the product . . . made the vulnerability, (then) this should be core speech."
Opsahl was speaking at a press conference at the DefCon hacker conference in Las Vegas on Saturday after District Judge Douglas Woodlock of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts granted a temporary restraining order requested by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
The MBTA sought to bar three students enrolled at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- Zack Anderson, R.J. Ryan and Alessandro Chiesa -- from presenting a talk at DefCon about vulnerabilities in magnetic stripe tickets and RFID cards that are used in the MBTA's payment system. The MBTA feared that the students planned to teach the audience how to fraudulently add credit to a payment ticket or card in order to ride the transit system for free.
Opsahl said the judge, in making his decision, misinterpreted a part of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that refers to computer intruders or hackers. Such a person is described in part in the statute as someone who "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command to a computer or computer system."
Opsahl says the judge, during the hearing, likened the students' conference presentation to transmitting code to a computer.
"The statute on its face appears to be discussing sending code or similar types of information to a computer," Opsahl said. "It does not appear to contemplate somebody who is giving a talk to humans. Nevertheless, the court . . . believed that the act of giving a presentation to a group of humans was covered by the computer fraud, computer intrusion statute. We believe this is wrong."
EFF staff attorney Marcia Hoffman told reporters that the decision set a very dangerous precedent.
You can read the article that discusses the case in detail and also listen to recordings from the hearing at: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/eff-to-appeal-r.html.
FEDERAL JUDGE IN DEFCON CASE EQUATES SPEECH WITH HACKING --
LAS VEGAS -- Lawyers with the Electronic Frontier Foundation said a federal judge who granted a temporary restraining order on Saturday to halt a scheduled conference talk about security vulnerabilities came to "a very, very wrong conclusion." They said the judge's order constituted illegal prior restraint, which violated the speakers' First Amendment right to discuss important and legitimate academic research.
"When you discuss security issues, if you are telling the truth, that should be something protected at the core of the First Amendment," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the non-profit EFF, who was at DefCon to participate in an annual ask-the-EFF panel and to launch the organization's Coders Rights Project. "If you are truthfully telling the world about a dangerous situation, and (it is) a situation which is dangerous not because the security researcher exposes the vulnerability (but) because the person who made the product . . . made the vulnerability, (then) this should be core speech."
Opsahl was speaking at a press conference at the DefCon hacker conference in Las Vegas on Saturday after District Judge Douglas Woodlock of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts granted a temporary restraining order requested by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
The MBTA sought to bar three students enrolled at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- Zack Anderson, R.J. Ryan and Alessandro Chiesa -- from presenting a talk at DefCon about vulnerabilities in magnetic stripe tickets and RFID cards that are used in the MBTA's payment system. The MBTA feared that the students planned to teach the audience how to fraudulently add credit to a payment ticket or card in order to ride the transit system for free.
Opsahl said the judge, in making his decision, misinterpreted a part of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that refers to computer intruders or hackers. Such a person is described in part in the statute as someone who "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command to a computer or computer system."
Opsahl says the judge, during the hearing, likened the students' conference presentation to transmitting code to a computer.
"The statute on its face appears to be discussing sending code or similar types of information to a computer," Opsahl said. "It does not appear to contemplate somebody who is giving a talk to humans. Nevertheless, the court . . . believed that the act of giving a presentation to a group of humans was covered by the computer fraud, computer intrusion statute. We believe this is wrong."
EFF staff attorney Marcia Hoffman told reporters that the decision set a very dangerous precedent.
You can read the article that discusses the case in detail and also listen to recordings from the hearing at: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/eff-to-appeal-r.html.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Intrusion Upon Seclusion led to Wrongful Death
I wanted to learn more about Intrusion Upon Seclusion and came across an interesting case--The Amy Boyer Case (Resmburg v. Docusearch, 1999). It started in July of 1999 when Liam Youens contacted Docusearch, an internet-based investigation and information service, and requested the information about Amy Lynn Boyer, a woman Youens had been obsessed with since high school.
Docusearch sold Youens Boyer's social security number and employment information. Docusearch obtained Boyer's work address by having a subcontractor, Michelle Gambino, place a "pretext" call to Boyer. Gambino lied about who she was and the purpose of the call in order to convince Boyer to reveal her employment information.
In October of 1999, Youens drove to Boyer's workplace and shot her to death and then he committed suicide. Amy Boyer's mother sued Docusearch and the private investigators that worked with Youens for wrongful death; invasion of privacy through intrusion upon seclusion; invasion of privacy through commercial appropriation of private information and others.
Intrusion upon seclusion occurs where there is an invasion, through conduct offensive to an ordinary person, of an individual's information in which a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Amy Boyer's estate argued that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her address and social security number, and that Docusearch's action in indiscriminately releasing this information was reasonably offensive.
Docusearch sold Youens Boyer's social security number and employment information. Docusearch obtained Boyer's work address by having a subcontractor, Michelle Gambino, place a "pretext" call to Boyer. Gambino lied about who she was and the purpose of the call in order to convince Boyer to reveal her employment information.
In October of 1999, Youens drove to Boyer's workplace and shot her to death and then he committed suicide. Amy Boyer's mother sued Docusearch and the private investigators that worked with Youens for wrongful death; invasion of privacy through intrusion upon seclusion; invasion of privacy through commercial appropriation of private information and others.
Intrusion upon seclusion occurs where there is an invasion, through conduct offensive to an ordinary person, of an individual's information in which a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Amy Boyer's estate argued that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her address and social security number, and that Docusearch's action in indiscriminately releasing this information was reasonably offensive.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
False Light
After our last class, I found myself a bit confused about False Light vs. Libel so I thought I'd look into the two areas a bit more. In doing so, I found an interesting case that discusses false light and the idea that it is "outdated". In the case that I read, (which took place in 1994) the Rocky Mountain News published several stories about a local crime family. In doing so, one of the children of the family came forward and sued the publication, claiming defamation and "false light" invasion of privacy. Although the court heard the guy's case, the result was that the state of Colorado wouldn't recognize it as a legitimate claim (apparently Colorado is a state that does not recognize false light). I found one particular quote of the article quite intriguing, it notes, "The Colorado case is the latest step in a slow but important trend among states that have decided that this controversial form of privacy claim has no place in their courts. The trend is good news for the media, who have enough to worry about with defamation and other privacy lawsuits and who inevitably become the main targets of false light where it exists."
You can read the entire article at: http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/26-4/lib-falselig.html.
A more recent article (published Oct. 27, 2008) discussed the state of Florida's decision in a recent false light case. The claim included a man suing a Florida newspaper for mentioning, during an article about a paving business, that he “shot and killed” his wife. Not until later in the article did it mention that the shooting was part of a hunting accident. He argued that while the statement was strictly true, the lack of context left the impression that he had killed her intentionally. It cast him in a false light, he claimed, even if it wasn’t strictly false. The remainder of this article can be found at: http://public.getlegal.com/articles.
I also found this site to be extremely informative in describing the difference between false light and defamation claims: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/false-light.
You can read the entire article at: http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/26-4/lib-falselig.html.
A more recent article (published Oct. 27, 2008) discussed the state of Florida's decision in a recent false light case. The claim included a man suing a Florida newspaper for mentioning, during an article about a paving business, that he “shot and killed” his wife. Not until later in the article did it mention that the shooting was part of a hunting accident. He argued that while the statement was strictly true, the lack of context left the impression that he had killed her intentionally. It cast him in a false light, he claimed, even if it wasn’t strictly false. The remainder of this article can be found at: http://public.getlegal.com/articles.
I also found this site to be extremely informative in describing the difference between false light and defamation claims: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/false-light.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Li Ning (chinese apparel brand) and Nike and Adidas
This is the article on Li Ning and NIke...
http://blog.oregonlive.com/playbooksandprofits/2008/08/li_ning_oneups_adi_dassler_and.html
During our class on Trademarks and Copyrights the issue of the similarities between the emerging chinese sports apparel brand Li Ning and Nike were mentioned. In this article it is interesting to see the similarities of both logos, but it also talks a little about the similarities of the brand's positioning and even the opening one of the first stores in Portland Oregon, HQ of Nike. At the same time, a new aspect of possible copyright infringement is brought up; the slogan that accompanies the logo says "Anything is possible" , amazingly similar to Adidas' "Impossible is Nothing". Here is an excerpt from the article, also above is the link to it:
"Li Ning is also peculiarly Chinese in another way: Its logo is a V-like stroke, suspiciously similar to Nike's "Swoosh", and is accompanied by the slogan "Anything is possible", a clumsy play on Adidas's "Impossible is nothing"."
I think it is also interesting to see how this relates to another aspect discussed druing class: how copyright and trademark law, as possibly all others, become not so clear when the issues involve international companies and different countries legislation.
From other articles I found I could see that the stores opened by the brand also resemble terribly those of Nike. We have not discussed copying a store design in class, but wonder if that would also be considered infringement.
I wonder if there was a sports apparel brand in the U.S. wanting to launch themselves with such logo and such slogan if they would even attempt to obtain licences and approval or if it would mean a huge lawsauit in favor of Nike and Adidas...
Daniel
http://blog.oregonlive.com/playbooksandprofits/2008/08/li_ning_oneups_adi_dassler_and.html
During our class on Trademarks and Copyrights the issue of the similarities between the emerging chinese sports apparel brand Li Ning and Nike were mentioned. In this article it is interesting to see the similarities of both logos, but it also talks a little about the similarities of the brand's positioning and even the opening one of the first stores in Portland Oregon, HQ of Nike. At the same time, a new aspect of possible copyright infringement is brought up; the slogan that accompanies the logo says "Anything is possible" , amazingly similar to Adidas' "Impossible is Nothing". Here is an excerpt from the article, also above is the link to it:
"Li Ning is also peculiarly Chinese in another way: Its logo is a V-like stroke, suspiciously similar to Nike's "Swoosh", and is accompanied by the slogan "Anything is possible", a clumsy play on Adidas's "Impossible is nothing"."
I think it is also interesting to see how this relates to another aspect discussed druing class: how copyright and trademark law, as possibly all others, become not so clear when the issues involve international companies and different countries legislation.
From other articles I found I could see that the stores opened by the brand also resemble terribly those of Nike. We have not discussed copying a store design in class, but wonder if that would also be considered infringement.
I wonder if there was a sports apparel brand in the U.S. wanting to launch themselves with such logo and such slogan if they would even attempt to obtain licences and approval or if it would mean a huge lawsauit in favor of Nike and Adidas...
Daniel
Fox V. FCC
I found this article interesting because I have always been a little opposed to some of the stipulations the FCC lays down on broadcast media.
In this case, the FCC cited Fox for so-called fleeting expletives that were spoken by Cher and Nicole Richie during the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards. However, Fox was not issued any monetary fine, rather it was more of a warning for future broadcasts. But, Fox shot back, calling the citations "arbitrary and capricious" changes in the FCC policy, which had exempted for decades one-time profanities during live broadcasts. This case has reached the Supreme Court because the 2nd Court of Appeals agreed with Fox, ruling in 2007 that the new policy was invalid until the FCC could better explain and justify it. To many people's surprise the Supreme Court has taken this case because they feel that constitutional questions are at the very center of this argument.
I think it is good that no monetary fines were issued for the one time profanities, but I also think it is ridiculous that Fox was cited in the first place. Live television is a completely different type of broadcast, in which true "live" TV is hard to censor and impossible to censor without a delay. However, in my opinion, the FCC should have issued more of a notice to the media of the new policy before enacting it, making sure to include a basis for the change, considering it has been the same for numerous years.
Please read more at: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117995144.html?categoryid=22&cs=1
In this case, the FCC cited Fox for so-called fleeting expletives that were spoken by Cher and Nicole Richie during the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards. However, Fox was not issued any monetary fine, rather it was more of a warning for future broadcasts. But, Fox shot back, calling the citations "arbitrary and capricious" changes in the FCC policy, which had exempted for decades one-time profanities during live broadcasts. This case has reached the Supreme Court because the 2nd Court of Appeals agreed with Fox, ruling in 2007 that the new policy was invalid until the FCC could better explain and justify it. To many people's surprise the Supreme Court has taken this case because they feel that constitutional questions are at the very center of this argument.
I think it is good that no monetary fines were issued for the one time profanities, but I also think it is ridiculous that Fox was cited in the first place. Live television is a completely different type of broadcast, in which true "live" TV is hard to censor and impossible to censor without a delay. However, in my opinion, the FCC should have issued more of a notice to the media of the new policy before enacting it, making sure to include a basis for the change, considering it has been the same for numerous years.
Please read more at: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117995144.html?categoryid=22&cs=1
Invasion of Privacy
I found this article on The Times website about BBC radio presenters Russell Brand (who hosted the MTV Video Awards) and his partner Jonathan Ross. A few weeks ago Russell and Jonathan prank called Andrew Sachs (an British actor) and left lewd messages on his answering machine about Russell Brand having a sexual relationship with Andrew Sachs granddaughter Georgina Baillie. The messages were broadcast on the radio and since then the BBC has received 27,000 complaints from listeners about the lewd comments made by the radio presenters. Since the broadcast Russell Brand has resigned and his partner Jonathan Ross is also on his way out the door. The BBC is now fearful that Georgina Baillie will sue the company for invasion of privacy, stating that "at the time this was broadcast Georgina had a reasonable expectation that this was a private matter. Merely because Brand is a celebrity, he doesn’t have the right to broadcast details of private sexual liaisons.” I honestly do not believe that Ms. Baillie has a case, she did in fact have sex with Russell Brand knowing that he was a celebrity and a radio presenter. There was not an invasion of privacy, she is just embarrassed that she became a punch line on a radio show.
If you would like to view the article, go to: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5042870.ece
If you would like to view the article, go to: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5042870.ece
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Libel, Invasion of Privacy and the Internet
There was a video posted on CNN.com which covered a story about a Web site that "outs" people with STDs. From my understanding of the story, information could be posted about anyone, by anyone. As important as it may be for someone to feel the need to post that information, by doing so without someone's consent, it is both an invasion of privacy and libel.
Seeing as anyone can post information, the Web site also creates speculation, rumors and puts someone in "false light."
Again, I can understand why someone would think it would be necessary to "warn" others; that kind of information is extremely private and should only be disclosed by the person who is actually infected with an STD.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/11/02/yeager.std.website.kgw
Seeing as anyone can post information, the Web site also creates speculation, rumors and puts someone in "false light."
Again, I can understand why someone would think it would be necessary to "warn" others; that kind of information is extremely private and should only be disclosed by the person who is actually infected with an STD.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/11/02/yeager.std.website.kgw
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Chile upholds lawsuit won by ex-Miss Universe
Court orders journalist to pay $46,000 for affair he alleged
Chilean television entertainer Cecilia Bolocco, Miss Universe 1987 and ex-wife of former Argentine president Carlos Menem, has repeatedly denied the affair that is the subject of the lawsuit.
SANTIAGO, Chile - Chile's Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the slander conviction of a journalist who alleged that a former Miss Universe was having an affair with novelist Paulo Coelho while engaged to Argentina's president.
The court ordered Chilean journalist Victor Gutierrez to pay $46,000 to Cecilia Bolocco for the allegations, which he made during a 2001 television appearance.
Bolocco has repeatedly denied the allegation that she had an affair with the Brazilian author while engaged to Argentine President Carlos Menem.
Menem and Bolocco married in 2001. They are now separated and in the process of getting a divorce. Menem served as president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999.
In his appeal of a lower court ruling, Gutierrez wrote that "there was no intention to offend, and if there was an offense, it would be minor, not serious."
Gutierrez said he would be hard-pressed to pay the fine.
"I'm only a journalist who does not earn millions with his coverage," he wrote in his appeal. "We're dealing with a humble person, whose income goes directly to help his widowed mother and several disadvantaged nieces and nephews."
Gutierrez added that for Bolocco, $46,000 was probably "nothing."
Bolocco did not comment on the ruling Wednesday. It was not possible to contact Coelho for comment.
Gutierrez also lost a 1998 lawsuit filed by singer Michael Jackson after the journalist accused him of child molestation.
Local news media at the time reported that Gutierrez was ordered to pay Jackson $2.7 million. It is unclear if Gutierrez ever paid any of it. He reportedly was outside of the country Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27462695/
Thought this article was interesting since we had talked in class on Monday about whether damages awarded in other countries should be upheld in the US. The defendant doesn't live in the US but this case takes a look at slander law outside the US. The article doesn't say the reason that the two are getting a divorce but one might wonder if there are any truth to the journalist's allegations or if the rumors led to bad feelings in the marriage. Regardless, the rumors came out in 2001 and the couple married in 2001 so obviously Menem didn't take them to seriously. Also, this journalist has been sued by celebrities in the past so one might wonder when he's going to learn to keep his mouth shut.
Court orders journalist to pay $46,000 for affair he alleged
Chilean television entertainer Cecilia Bolocco, Miss Universe 1987 and ex-wife of former Argentine president Carlos Menem, has repeatedly denied the affair that is the subject of the lawsuit.
SANTIAGO, Chile - Chile's Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the slander conviction of a journalist who alleged that a former Miss Universe was having an affair with novelist Paulo Coelho while engaged to Argentina's president.
The court ordered Chilean journalist Victor Gutierrez to pay $46,000 to Cecilia Bolocco for the allegations, which he made during a 2001 television appearance.
Bolocco has repeatedly denied the allegation that she had an affair with the Brazilian author while engaged to Argentine President Carlos Menem.
Menem and Bolocco married in 2001. They are now separated and in the process of getting a divorce. Menem served as president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999.
In his appeal of a lower court ruling, Gutierrez wrote that "there was no intention to offend, and if there was an offense, it would be minor, not serious."
Gutierrez said he would be hard-pressed to pay the fine.
"I'm only a journalist who does not earn millions with his coverage," he wrote in his appeal. "We're dealing with a humble person, whose income goes directly to help his widowed mother and several disadvantaged nieces and nephews."
Gutierrez added that for Bolocco, $46,000 was probably "nothing."
Bolocco did not comment on the ruling Wednesday. It was not possible to contact Coelho for comment.
Gutierrez also lost a 1998 lawsuit filed by singer Michael Jackson after the journalist accused him of child molestation.
Local news media at the time reported that Gutierrez was ordered to pay Jackson $2.7 million. It is unclear if Gutierrez ever paid any of it. He reportedly was outside of the country Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27462695/
Thought this article was interesting since we had talked in class on Monday about whether damages awarded in other countries should be upheld in the US. The defendant doesn't live in the US but this case takes a look at slander law outside the US. The article doesn't say the reason that the two are getting a divorce but one might wonder if there are any truth to the journalist's allegations or if the rumors led to bad feelings in the marriage. Regardless, the rumors came out in 2001 and the couple married in 2001 so obviously Menem didn't take them to seriously. Also, this journalist has been sued by celebrities in the past so one might wonder when he's going to learn to keep his mouth shut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)