During the 2008 Presidential Election, several Wal-Mart employees around the country admitted that their supervisors enforced them to vote for Obama or they would lose their jobs.
In addition to these outrageous reports, many employees claimed that their supervisors made them chant "Pro-Obama" songs before their shifts began.
Wal-Mart claims that these allegations were false and inaccurate.
In addition, even if these allegations were true, how could a supervisor ensure the employee voted for the candidate? The supervisor does NOT accompany to the employee to the voting poll boothes!
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14121.cfm
Friday, December 26, 2008
Banning Harry Potter in Schools
Harry Potter has become one of the most popular mythological figures for children in the world of fictional literature for the 21st Century. In addition, Harry Potter is one of the most controversial figures in children's literature. Many Christians believe that Harry Potter is inappropriate literature, because there are several elements of witchcraft revealed in the text.
There are several activist movements against banning Harry Potter books in schools.
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin157.shtml
There are several activist movements against banning Harry Potter books in schools.
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin157.shtml
More challenges in privacy for the Palins
Governor Sarah Palin has often commented to the news that she is interested in running for President in 2012. However, due to more challenges and news released to the media, Gov. Palin may face even more difficulties than she faced while running for VP in 2008.
Due to the privacy act, since Gov. Palin is a public figure, everything is revealed...there are no secrets.
Recent media just reported that her eldest daughter, Bristol Palin's boyfriend's mother, Sherry Johnston was arrested for numerous drug charges, including possession & trafficking. Unfortunately, having ties to drug dealers, even if the ties are insignificant will definitely way heavy on Gov. Palin's chances of winning the White House in 2012.
Due to the privacy act, since Gov. Palin is a public figure, everything is revealed...there are no secrets.
Recent media just reported that her eldest daughter, Bristol Palin's boyfriend's mother, Sherry Johnston was arrested for numerous drug charges, including possession & trafficking. Unfortunately, having ties to drug dealers, even if the ties are insignificant will definitely way heavy on Gov. Palin's chances of winning the White House in 2012.
Pepsi's New Label Design
In early December, Pepsi introduced a new label design. According to Pepsi N.A. President Dawn Hudson, Pepsi wanted to present a more youthful and contemporary look.
http://www.beveragedaily.com/Products/Pepsi-Cola-Updates-label-design
"Pepsi is about a youthful attitude, boldness and excitement and this look brings those qualities to life," said Hudson. "Package graphics are the face of our brand and this more modern design embodies Pepsi's youthful personality."
The Pepsi icon is one of the world's most recognizable icons. By editing the icon to look more modern, including a more modern font, I believe the new icon is confusing and less recognizable. Instead, I think Pepsi should have stayed with their old icon & font and capitalize on the traditional look. Competitor, Coca-Cola uses the traditional logo and icon and it shows in their popularity and sales that sometimes the old is better than the new.
http://www.beveragedaily.com/Products/Pepsi-Cola-Updates-label-design
Sex Offender List:: National Sex Offender List
From one of the class presentations, our class learned about the website: http://www.familywatchdog.us/
This website is a helpful & informative website to decipher where sex offenders live and work relevant to the community. I visited the website and was very surprised by the large number of sex offenders living & working in my community, especially since my community, in St. Charles County has been listed as one of the top 50 towns/cities to live in the country.
I do not think this website is a violation of the privacy act, because it is essential for the community's knowledge to know the backgrounds of the people they live amongst. Especially for families with children, I think this website is very beneficial to preventing further problems in the community.
This website is a helpful & informative website to decipher where sex offenders live and work relevant to the community. I visited the website and was very surprised by the large number of sex offenders living & working in my community, especially since my community, in St. Charles County has been listed as one of the top 50 towns/cities to live in the country.
I do not think this website is a violation of the privacy act, because it is essential for the community's knowledge to know the backgrounds of the people they live amongst. Especially for families with children, I think this website is very beneficial to preventing further problems in the community.
Does the Privacy Law apply during the holidays? Not for President-elect Obama
The media exploded on last Monday, when President-elect Obama revealed that he planned to vacation in home-state of Hawaii for the Christmas holiday. Commentators ridiculed every aspect of the Obama's planned vacation, from the size/type of jet used to travel, the amount of luggage planned to take, the intended destination resort, etc. Unfortunately, even during the holidays politicians, celebrities, and other public figures may not escape from paparazzi in a public avenue.
Hopefully, the Obama's Christmas holiday was not completely ruined...
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20081223_Beachgoers_turn_paparazzi_at_Obamas_vacation_rental.html
Hopefully, the Obama's Christmas holiday was not completely ruined...
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20081223_Beachgoers_turn_paparazzi_at_Obamas_vacation_rental.html
XM and MP3 Players Infringement Case
Last Friday, XM Satellite's motion to dismiss was denied for Atlantic v. XM Satellite. This copyright infringement case was introduced to courts by record labels on XM and MP3 players. XM Satellite tried to dismiss the case, because under Sec. #1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act, MP3 player is exempt from infringement claims.
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device [DARD], a digital audio recording medium, … or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog recordings."
However, the court decided that the Audio Home Recording Act does not excuse XM Satellite from infringement claims due to the operation of the satellite subscription music service program combined with the MP3 player.
"[U]nder the AHRA, XM is protected from suit based on actions taken in its capacity as a distributor of audio recording devices, but it is not immunized from suit based on its conduct as a satellite radio broadcaster, or from suit based on its actions as an XM + MP3 content provider."
Friday, December 19, 2008
New strategy to halt music sharing.
I found an interesting story on yahoo news that the music industry finally admits that music-swapping lawsuits are a waste of time. There's just too many people doing it and the lawsuits that have happened are not enough to deter people from stopping.
The new strategy: If the music industry finds out that you're swapping music files online, it will send an e-mail to your ISP, which will in turn forward the message to you. Probably with a little "P.S." asking you to stop. If you don't stop, your service provider probably won't sue you, but it might slow down your broadband connection, or cut off your service altogether.
I guess time will tell if this will deter people from music-sharing. Certainly the previous and current lawsuits have not!
The new strategy: If the music industry finds out that you're swapping music files online, it will send an e-mail to your ISP, which will in turn forward the message to you. Probably with a little "P.S." asking you to stop. If you don't stop, your service provider probably won't sue you, but it might slow down your broadband connection, or cut off your service altogether.
I guess time will tell if this will deter people from music-sharing. Certainly the previous and current lawsuits have not!
Libel cases as if Celebs needed the extra cash...
Ok, i believe this might be my last post. It´s been a pleasure sharing the class with you all. This one I am writing from Argentina, it is warm and sunny down here...
This one is again another case of won damages by a celebrity for libelous statements. They got too ridiculous this time. A tabloid was claiming that Teri Hatcher, from Desperate Housewifes was havinig sex in a van regularly and with random men. She has a 7 year old daugfhter and finds these accusations false and irresponsible. Another undisclosed amount has been settled with another celeb, as if they were not getting paid enough millions already...why can´t someone say I am doing that?? thou i dont think the amount of damages would be close...ha.
Anyway, the source was not revealed and the allegations were claimed unbased to be true. easy case, easy cash.
¨But when a story appeared about me, insinuating that I am an irresponsible and neglectful parent, I had to draw the line." said Teri.
If something i have learned from these cases is that most of the time celebs show that much can be said about themselves if harmless to family, but the limits are crossed when their families might be affected.
Good for them!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178938,00.html
C ya all, thanks.
This one is again another case of won damages by a celebrity for libelous statements. They got too ridiculous this time. A tabloid was claiming that Teri Hatcher, from Desperate Housewifes was havinig sex in a van regularly and with random men. She has a 7 year old daugfhter and finds these accusations false and irresponsible. Another undisclosed amount has been settled with another celeb, as if they were not getting paid enough millions already...why can´t someone say I am doing that?? thou i dont think the amount of damages would be close...ha.
Anyway, the source was not revealed and the allegations were claimed unbased to be true. easy case, easy cash.
¨But when a story appeared about me, insinuating that I am an irresponsible and neglectful parent, I had to draw the line." said Teri.
If something i have learned from these cases is that most of the time celebs show that much can be said about themselves if harmless to family, but the limits are crossed when their families might be affected.
Good for them!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178938,00.html
C ya all, thanks.
World of Warcraft has been stolen?
http://www.wowinsider.com/2008/12/02/chinese-mmo-rips-of-world-of-warcraft-others/3
Ok, this is an interesting one. Going back to our first few classes and copyright infringement. This kind of law dates from decades ago and i wonder if when developed it was ever expected to cover the rights of a virtual imaginary world created for a video game. This is now what is considered works of art also, as so, they enjoy benefits of copyright for their owners or creators. In this case a Chinese MMO creator has been accused of ¨stealing¨ parts of the world designed by and for the famous video game WOW. Most elements are easy to prove in a case like this, like the material proof of acces to it and definition of both. But, it could as well make the opposite argument.
Many media outlets nowadays reflect ¨worlds¨ or scenarios whisch share things in common, as consumers before creators we are influenced by the same movies, previously existing videogames, fantasy books, etc. Who is to say that WOW was not stolen from Lord Of the Rings, and those worlds could even date from predecesors of Star Wars and such.
I think maybe a factor that could be taken into account with the analysis of these modern type of cases is the fact that there might be a ¨natural¨evolution in the process of ideas. Mass media has made it so we have all access to all the media outthere. Ideas have an origin, many times, even if not intentionally, the origin might be the same.
Aha,! wonder if that´d be strong enought to convince the jury in this case? maybe the Chinese company can pay me a few bucks if they use this idea for a defense! or I´ll sue!
Ok, this is an interesting one. Going back to our first few classes and copyright infringement. This kind of law dates from decades ago and i wonder if when developed it was ever expected to cover the rights of a virtual imaginary world created for a video game. This is now what is considered works of art also, as so, they enjoy benefits of copyright for their owners or creators. In this case a Chinese MMO creator has been accused of ¨stealing¨ parts of the world designed by and for the famous video game WOW. Most elements are easy to prove in a case like this, like the material proof of acces to it and definition of both. But, it could as well make the opposite argument.
Many media outlets nowadays reflect ¨worlds¨ or scenarios whisch share things in common, as consumers before creators we are influenced by the same movies, previously existing videogames, fantasy books, etc. Who is to say that WOW was not stolen from Lord Of the Rings, and those worlds could even date from predecesors of Star Wars and such.
I think maybe a factor that could be taken into account with the analysis of these modern type of cases is the fact that there might be a ¨natural¨evolution in the process of ideas. Mass media has made it so we have all access to all the media outthere. Ideas have an origin, many times, even if not intentionally, the origin might be the same.
Aha,! wonder if that´d be strong enought to convince the jury in this case? maybe the Chinese company can pay me a few bucks if they use this idea for a defense! or I´ll sue!
Tobacco and false advertising again...
I found this article about a case on a group of Maine smokers who sued Phillip Morris over false advertisements. The disputes over the existance of such things as a ¨light¨cigarette has been going on for decades, but it seems that this time the Supreme Court might be trying to send a strong message, by assuring the labels at the time do no protect them from these cliams now. Now, the issue that concerns me, since it is more related to our content in class, is the fact that what the group will celebrate is the öpportunity¨to sue. Playing devil´s advocate a little bit, i wonder the effect of reading this type of headline by the general public, who will not immerse themselves in the details. This type of advertising might be creating negative opinions and perceptions as a decision on the case is not yet, and will not be reached for a while. Many of teh writers covering these cases a show very clear and unobjective opinions on this. If the issue is covered on TV, many journalists can show with their faces what party they think is the problem. Is the Media responsible for this effect? Do tobacco companies have any right to sue for that? for libel? for false advertising?
here is one link:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467126,00.html
here is one link:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467126,00.html
St. Peter's Bar Faces Copyright Lawsuit
This sure make copyrights seem like a complicated thing. It seems the the owner of a venue has to pay for the rights to use songs in karaoke and performances and such. Although not juke boxes; those are paid by the juke box company. I would think the bands would have to pay the copyright for a song they performed but the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) says that it is up to the venue. The fines faced by bar owner Marty Megl could range from $750 to $30000 for each of four songs the ASCAP alleged were played in Megl's bar that date back to 2003. That kind of fine could get pretty steep for a small business owner. Megl "admits he did not purchase a license but says the responsibility should rest elsewhere, such as with the bands he hires." I don't see why the bands aren't the ones having to pay. They are the ones performing the songs. And I didn't even know you had to have a license to play karaoke music either but I guess it makes sense since bars usually pay people to come in and run the karaoke. I would think that would lie with the karaoke company also.
Lil Wayne Being Sued for Copyright Infringement
He may be at the top of his game but that doesn't mean that he's out of reach. This guy better watch out or he'll end up falling down really fast. He was sued in July for copyright infringement and now his legal team is trying to get an extension on another infringement case that started back in May. And from the sounds of things he pretty much admitted to taking the song. His label couldn't reach an agreement with the plaintiff Karma Ann Swanepoel to use her song Once, but it was still used in Lil Wayne's song Feel Like Dying. I guess he thought she wouldn't notice.
Read for yourself:
The First Amendment Extends to Cyberspace
This article talks about a case pending in Madison County, IL for a newspaper protecting the identities of people who made comments on one the news articles on the paper's websites. According to the article "prosecutors have not demonstrated how testimony from the anonymous commenters would enhance their case." Lucky for these commenters Illinois has a shield law so the paper does not have to reveal their identities except in extreme circumstances. Although prosecutors maintain that the commenters were not sources for the newspaper so I guess that means they shouldn't be protected under the shield law. Still right to free speech is still protected and if these people are just going to be harassed by authorities for commenting about an article on murdered 5 year old then where's the free speech in that?
Black Sabbath Suing for Copyright Infringement
I think Tony Iommi has a good case here. Of course this article does not go too in depth, but from the looks of things Live Nation is probably going to lose. The article states that Live Nation Inc bought Signature Networks, merchandising company, in 2007. Sabbath had a contract with Signature that expired in 2006, but Live Nation continued to produce merchandise using Black Sabbath images and logos. Even after Iommi sent letters asking them to stop, the company kept on doing it. Now Iommi is suing Live Nation for 3 times the profit they made. He might not get the full amount he's asking for but things are not looking so good for Live Nation Inc right now.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Who knew I'd learn so much from watching The View?
So Tuesday morning when I turned on the tv I just happened to catch the last half of that commercial for Airborne. I about laughed because if it weren't for the night before and having that presentation on Airborne I wouldn't have thought anything of it. I didn't see the whole thing but I did catch the part about how the creator of Airborne bought her company back because she didn't like how it was being run.
After the commercial break and The View came back on (mind you this is not something I watch but it was what was on when I turned on the tv and they were talking about bring on Samuel L. Jackson so I stuck around). After that they brought out Melissa Etheridge and that Republican host is on there, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, immediately goes all politics and gets Melissa Etheridge talking about the Presidential election and Prop 8. In case you don't know about Prop 8, it was a proposition on the ballot in the November election in California to ban gay marriage in California and it passed. Since then there have been protests and rallies across the country speaking out against Prop 8.
As you can imagine, a Republican host and a Democratic guest, they sort of had it out until the host that was sitting in between them nicely said Melissa wasn't there to talk about Prop 8 but to talk about her new CD.
After watching that I thought of the Fairness Doctrine presentation we saw in class. There were two people with opposing view points on a controversial topic and if you click on the link below you can watch for yourself that nothing really got accomplished. In some cases the Fairness Doctrine might work but in a lot of cases that I think of this is pretty much how most the scenarios would play out. Just a lot of talking and nothing getting done.
To get to the video I'm actually talking about you'll have to scroll down the page to the second one.
Ryan Seacrest may have committed copyright infringement
Ryan Seacrest (famous host of American Idol) has produced a new show called, "Momma's Boy'." The show premiered on Tuesday night on NBC and is about three single men looking for their potential brides and their mothers get a say. According to the lawsuit filed by a Turkish reality show, they claim that the NBC show “willfully appropriated” the format of “The Perfect Bride,” which aired in Turkey in 2004. The "Perfect Bride," also features three single men looking for their brides and their mothers having an important say about the outcome. The plaintiffs tried to prevent the show Momma Boys from airing on Tuesday, but a judge ruled against them. NBC is now trying to dismiss the copyright suit for the show and the Turkish group is still trying to sue for copyright infringement. Given everything that we have learned in class, the Turkish group may have a chance to win this claim, especially since their show aired four years ago and NBC had access to it.
You can view the full article and voice your opinion: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28258149/
You can view the full article and voice your opinion: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28258149/
South Korea Actress claims invasion of privacy for adultery
I found this very interesting article about a woman in South Korea who was found guilty of adultery and sentenced to 8 months in prison. So, how the story relates to class is that earlier this year, this woman filed an petition to have the law ruled unconstitutional due to an invasion of privacy. In Korea, adultery is a crime and not one that is always carried out. The article stated that the number of adultery cases in Korea has declined in recent years from 12,760 in 2000 to 8,070 in 2006. There are many opponents of the law that claim that the law in unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy. If you were to relate the adultery law to the United States, then I feel that it would be deemed unconstitutional. Due to the differences in our constitution and our bill of rights and even the Griswold v. Connecticut case about the ban of abortion pills.
You can view the entire article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28275377/.
You can view the entire article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28275377/.
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy Wins Nude Photo Lawsuit
I found it somewhat refreshing to read the article below in which France's first lady was awarded damages after a fashion line manufactured tote bags with her naked image on them and sold them for a profit. Why refreshing? Because after being awarded $57,500, lawyers for the first lady noted that the money would be donated to charity. Now that's one way to go about spreading the wealth!!
Thursday, December 18th
France's first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy has been awarded $57,500 in damages after she sued a fashion company for adorning a canvas shopping bag with a 1993 nude photo of her.
"The unauthorized use of the image of Carla Bruni caused her moral and economic damage," ruled a court on the French Indian Ocean island of La Reunion, reports Reuters.
Lawyers for Bruni-Sarkozy have suggested her monetary award would be given to charity.
Peter Mertes, founder and manager of Pardon – the fashion line that manufactured and marketed the $4 carrier bags – vowed to appeal Thursday's court decision, because the sum awarded seemed too large for what he considers "a small blunder."
In court, Mertes had said that 10,000 bags have been removed from retail stores and that "we plan to burn them all."
The photo, showing the former supermodel standing up without a stitch, was taken by fashion lensman Michel Comte in 1993 for an anti-AIDS campaign.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20247655,00.html
Thursday, December 18th
France's first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy has been awarded $57,500 in damages after she sued a fashion company for adorning a canvas shopping bag with a 1993 nude photo of her.
"The unauthorized use of the image of Carla Bruni caused her moral and economic damage," ruled a court on the French Indian Ocean island of La Reunion, reports Reuters.
Lawyers for Bruni-Sarkozy have suggested her monetary award would be given to charity.
Peter Mertes, founder and manager of Pardon – the fashion line that manufactured and marketed the $4 carrier bags – vowed to appeal Thursday's court decision, because the sum awarded seemed too large for what he considers "a small blunder."
In court, Mertes had said that 10,000 bags have been removed from retail stores and that "we plan to burn them all."
The photo, showing the former supermodel standing up without a stitch, was taken by fashion lensman Michel Comte in 1993 for an anti-AIDS campaign.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20247655,00.html
Couple accuse United Airlines of overserving husband, causing him to beat wife
I heard about this on the radio this morning on my drive into work and thought it was worth sharing. It doesn't really relate to a lot of what we discussed in class, but I found it interesting due to the fact that the article mentions that "the lawsuit is highly unusual and will likely hinge on whether Chicago-based United, in effect, operated a flying bar that's subject to the same legal liabilities as earthbound drinking establishments". It is hard to believe the things that people will actually sue others for in today's world - and I think that this case is definately one of those that makes you think, "is that really happening?"
Chicago Tribune
Dec. 17, 2008
This is no bar bet, it's a lawsuit. Can you get drunk on a flight, then sue the airline for giving you the booze?
A husband and wife are suing United Airlines for "negligently" overserving alcohol during a flight from Osaka, Japan, to San Francisco, saying the carrier's drinks fueled the domestic violence involving the two shortly after their plane landed.
Fortified with Burgundy wine allegedly supplied at 20-minute intervals by United crew members during the December 2006 trip, Yoichi Shimamoto became so inebriated "that he could not manage himself," according to a lawsuit filed Dec. 5 in U.S. District Court in Tampa.
Shimamoto was arrested, accused of disorderly conduct and battery after he struck his wife, Ayisha, six times, injuring her face and upper lip as they were heading through U.S. Customs in San Francisco, the complaint said.
At issue: whether laws that hold bars and restaurants responsible for harm caused by intoxicated patrons apply when the bartender and drinker are flying at 40,000 feet across international territory.
"United's first defense will be there's no tort action like this in international airspace," said James Speta, professor at Northwestern University Law School.
Although Yoichi Shimamoto was charged and sentenced to 18 months' probation, the couple contend that United Airlines ultimately was responsible for his violent outburst, according to the lawsuit.
United's "conduct was egregious because it knew or should have known that over-serving a passenger alcohol on an international flight would have negative consequences," the complaint said. United's "conduct was deliberate, reckless, intentional and done with disregard for plaintiffs and all passengers."
Shimamoto, a native of Japan, was prevented from returning to his home country while his case wound through the San Mateo County courts in northern California.
The Shimamotos want United to pick up the $100,000 tab for Yoichi Shimamoto's bail, and defense and Immigration attorneys' fees, as well as the costs they incurred to have his probationary sentence transferred to Florida, where his wife had a home.
They also want the airline to pay for pain, suffering, loss of income and "any other relief that is just and proper."
Responded United spokeswoman Jean Medina: "We believe that a lawsuit that suggests that we are somehow responsible for the consequences of a passenger's physical assault on his own wife is without any merit whatsoever."
Airlines are frequently sued for the acts of drunken passengers, typically by flight attendants or other passengers who suffered harm from an unruly traveler during a flight.
What makes this case a rarity, legal experts said, is that it was brought by a person drinking the airline's alcohol. By filing the lawsuit, the Shimamotos also risk having their private lives exposed by the airline's attorneys."
The idea that the server should have stopped serving is often accepted when the injury is to a third person, such as in a drunk-driving situation," Speta said. "Generally, the courts have not been receptive to people saying, 'I asked for the drink and you gave it to me.'"
But crafting United's defense will be tricky, legal experts said, because the case involves conflicting international and state law.
Under the Dram Shop Act, which is in place in California, Florida and most states, commercial suppliers of alcohol may be held liable for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons, such as those
Ayisha Shimamoto suffered. The threat of such lawsuits has prompted many bars to adopt a policy of not serving anyone who is visibly impaired.Ayisha Shimamoto's claim that she was harmed as a result of the carrier's negligence, one element of the couple's complaint, would be a likely slam-dunk if United's conduct in question had taken place in a bar, rather than on an international flight, legal experts said.
Because United's alleged over-serving occurred on an airplane crossing the Pacific Ocean, a legal no-man's land, it may be subject to protocols spelled out under the Warsaw Convention, said Bruce Ottley, professor at DePaul College of Law.
The Montreal Protocol of the international treaty limits an airline's liability to damages that took place onboard the aircraft, or as passengers were embarking or disembarking, Ottley said. That is problematic for the Shimamotos because the battery in their case occurred in an area controlled by the U.S. government, not onboard the United jet.
"The airline is liable for serving him alcohol that caused him to get intoxicated," Ottley said. "This occurred out in the middle of the Pacific where U.S. law doesn't apply."
Carl Hayes, a Tampa lawyer representing the Shimamotos, declined to comment on their lawsuit.
Chicago Tribune
Dec. 17, 2008
This is no bar bet, it's a lawsuit. Can you get drunk on a flight, then sue the airline for giving you the booze?
A husband and wife are suing United Airlines for "negligently" overserving alcohol during a flight from Osaka, Japan, to San Francisco, saying the carrier's drinks fueled the domestic violence involving the two shortly after their plane landed.
Fortified with Burgundy wine allegedly supplied at 20-minute intervals by United crew members during the December 2006 trip, Yoichi Shimamoto became so inebriated "that he could not manage himself," according to a lawsuit filed Dec. 5 in U.S. District Court in Tampa.
Shimamoto was arrested, accused of disorderly conduct and battery after he struck his wife, Ayisha, six times, injuring her face and upper lip as they were heading through U.S. Customs in San Francisco, the complaint said.
At issue: whether laws that hold bars and restaurants responsible for harm caused by intoxicated patrons apply when the bartender and drinker are flying at 40,000 feet across international territory.
"United's first defense will be there's no tort action like this in international airspace," said James Speta, professor at Northwestern University Law School.
Although Yoichi Shimamoto was charged and sentenced to 18 months' probation, the couple contend that United Airlines ultimately was responsible for his violent outburst, according to the lawsuit.
United's "conduct was egregious because it knew or should have known that over-serving a passenger alcohol on an international flight would have negative consequences," the complaint said. United's "conduct was deliberate, reckless, intentional and done with disregard for plaintiffs and all passengers."
Shimamoto, a native of Japan, was prevented from returning to his home country while his case wound through the San Mateo County courts in northern California.
The Shimamotos want United to pick up the $100,000 tab for Yoichi Shimamoto's bail, and defense and Immigration attorneys' fees, as well as the costs they incurred to have his probationary sentence transferred to Florida, where his wife had a home.
They also want the airline to pay for pain, suffering, loss of income and "any other relief that is just and proper."
Responded United spokeswoman Jean Medina: "We believe that a lawsuit that suggests that we are somehow responsible for the consequences of a passenger's physical assault on his own wife is without any merit whatsoever."
Airlines are frequently sued for the acts of drunken passengers, typically by flight attendants or other passengers who suffered harm from an unruly traveler during a flight.
What makes this case a rarity, legal experts said, is that it was brought by a person drinking the airline's alcohol. By filing the lawsuit, the Shimamotos also risk having their private lives exposed by the airline's attorneys."
The idea that the server should have stopped serving is often accepted when the injury is to a third person, such as in a drunk-driving situation," Speta said. "Generally, the courts have not been receptive to people saying, 'I asked for the drink and you gave it to me.'"
But crafting United's defense will be tricky, legal experts said, because the case involves conflicting international and state law.
Under the Dram Shop Act, which is in place in California, Florida and most states, commercial suppliers of alcohol may be held liable for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons, such as those
Ayisha Shimamoto suffered. The threat of such lawsuits has prompted many bars to adopt a policy of not serving anyone who is visibly impaired.Ayisha Shimamoto's claim that she was harmed as a result of the carrier's negligence, one element of the couple's complaint, would be a likely slam-dunk if United's conduct in question had taken place in a bar, rather than on an international flight, legal experts said.
Because United's alleged over-serving occurred on an airplane crossing the Pacific Ocean, a legal no-man's land, it may be subject to protocols spelled out under the Warsaw Convention, said Bruce Ottley, professor at DePaul College of Law.
The Montreal Protocol of the international treaty limits an airline's liability to damages that took place onboard the aircraft, or as passengers were embarking or disembarking, Ottley said. That is problematic for the Shimamotos because the battery in their case occurred in an area controlled by the U.S. government, not onboard the United jet.
"The airline is liable for serving him alcohol that caused him to get intoxicated," Ottley said. "This occurred out in the middle of the Pacific where U.S. law doesn't apply."
Carl Hayes, a Tampa lawyer representing the Shimamotos, declined to comment on their lawsuit.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
High School Newspaper vs. the Superintendent
I thought this story was right up our alley.
A school newspaper in Fairbault, Minnesota was going to publish a story about a middle school teacher who has been accused of inappropriate communication with one of their students.
The superintendent wanted to review the article before it was published and the school editor refused and would only let an attorney read it. Therefore, the superintendent shut down the newspaper for the time being.
The students think they have a right and the advisor of the newspaper, Kelly Zwaggerman thinks the students are right, stating that the story is public information and a public employee.
In my point of view, and from what I have learned from our class...I believe that the superintendent has every right to both see and shut down the newspaper. The article is about a very touchy issue and it could very well disrupt the learning process. Even if the story is "public information" and about a "public employee," the information from the story (that I reviewed for this) does not claim anything that the teacher actually did or does it say he/she was charged with anything. Therefore, the story could also cause severe speculations, which will cause more trouble than it is worth and also could end up being a libel case.
I think kids need to take a step back and realize that they are not professional writers. Go back to talking about cafeteria food and vandalism at the school.
FARIBAULT, Minn. - Faribault School District Superintendent Bob Stepaniak shut down the high school's student newspaper on Monday, after the student editors refused to allow the him review an article before publication.
The article in question was about the investigation into a middle school teacher who had been subject of a complaint about inappropriate communication with a student. The teacher has not been charged, but has been on paid administrative leave since September.
The newspaper's student editor Christen Hildebrandt offered to present the article to the district's attorneys, instead of to the administration, but Stepaniak refused and said in an e-mail: "We are at loggerheads and therefore I am shutting down the Echo (hopefully temporarily) until this issue is resolved."
Both the students and the superintendent claim they are on solid legal ground.
Stepaniak said the issue is about the fundamental question of whether a district's administration has the right to review articles prior to publication.
He pointed to a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, which upheld the right of administrators in a suburban St. Louis, Mo., school district to censor school newspaper articles about teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children.
"The issue here is clearly whether district administration can look at an article before publication. That's what it boils down to," Stepaniak said. "I'm very hesitant to give up that right or say we do not control the Echo as a student activity, even through there's a natural hesitation to oversee it."
Echo faculty advisor Kelly Zwaggerman points to other legal cases, in which the Supreme Court came out in favor of the students. In 2004, the Supreme Court reviewed the Dean vs. Utica Community Schools case and ruled the high school principal's decision to delete articles from the school publication was "unreasonable" and "unconstitutional."
"Simply put, this is public information about a public employee," Zwaggerman said. "Whether it's a police officer in town or someone else who's a public employee, the community has a right to know."
Hildebrandt said he and his fellow student editors refused to allow prior review of articles; Stepaniak said the presses won't print the Echo again without an agreement that such a thing is permissible.
Hildebrandt said the Echo is taking its case to the school board at its Thursday meeting.
"We're going to state that (Stepaniak) does not have the authority to do what he's doing, that the school board is the actual publisher of the Echo," he said. "The argument as that just because something might be called 'inappropriate' is not enough to stop publication of an article."
Zwaggerman said she believes Stepaniak's decision will have far-reaching negative consequences.
Stepaniak said he hopes the shutdown is temporary.
"Simply put, this is public information about a public employee," Zwaggerman said. "Whether it's a police officer in town or someone else who's a public employee, the community has a right to know."
Hildebrandt said he and his fellow student editors refused to allow prior review of articles; Stepaniak said the presses won't print the Echo again without an agreement that such a thing is permissible.
Hildebrandt said the Echo is taking its case to the school board at its Thursday meeting.
"We're going to state that (Stepaniak) does not have the authority to do what he's doing, that the school board is the actual publisher of the Echo," he said. "The argument as that just because something might be called 'inappropriate' is not enough to stop publication of an article."
Zwaggerman said she believes Stepaniak's decision will have far-reaching negative consequences.
Stepaniak said he hopes the shutdown is temporary.
A school newspaper in Fairbault, Minnesota was going to publish a story about a middle school teacher who has been accused of inappropriate communication with one of their students.
The superintendent wanted to review the article before it was published and the school editor refused and would only let an attorney read it. Therefore, the superintendent shut down the newspaper for the time being.
The students think they have a right and the advisor of the newspaper, Kelly Zwaggerman thinks the students are right, stating that the story is public information and a public employee.
In my point of view, and from what I have learned from our class...I believe that the superintendent has every right to both see and shut down the newspaper. The article is about a very touchy issue and it could very well disrupt the learning process. Even if the story is "public information" and about a "public employee," the information from the story (that I reviewed for this) does not claim anything that the teacher actually did or does it say he/she was charged with anything. Therefore, the story could also cause severe speculations, which will cause more trouble than it is worth and also could end up being a libel case.
I think kids need to take a step back and realize that they are not professional writers. Go back to talking about cafeteria food and vandalism at the school.
FARIBAULT, Minn. - Faribault School District Superintendent Bob Stepaniak shut down the high school's student newspaper on Monday, after the student editors refused to allow the him review an article before publication.
The article in question was about the investigation into a middle school teacher who had been subject of a complaint about inappropriate communication with a student. The teacher has not been charged, but has been on paid administrative leave since September.
The newspaper's student editor Christen Hildebrandt offered to present the article to the district's attorneys, instead of to the administration, but Stepaniak refused and said in an e-mail: "We are at loggerheads and therefore I am shutting down the Echo (hopefully temporarily) until this issue is resolved."
Both the students and the superintendent claim they are on solid legal ground.
Stepaniak said the issue is about the fundamental question of whether a district's administration has the right to review articles prior to publication.
He pointed to a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, which upheld the right of administrators in a suburban St. Louis, Mo., school district to censor school newspaper articles about teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children.
"The issue here is clearly whether district administration can look at an article before publication. That's what it boils down to," Stepaniak said. "I'm very hesitant to give up that right or say we do not control the Echo as a student activity, even through there's a natural hesitation to oversee it."
Echo faculty advisor Kelly Zwaggerman points to other legal cases, in which the Supreme Court came out in favor of the students. In 2004, the Supreme Court reviewed the Dean vs. Utica Community Schools case and ruled the high school principal's decision to delete articles from the school publication was "unreasonable" and "unconstitutional."
"Simply put, this is public information about a public employee," Zwaggerman said. "Whether it's a police officer in town or someone else who's a public employee, the community has a right to know."
Hildebrandt said he and his fellow student editors refused to allow prior review of articles; Stepaniak said the presses won't print the Echo again without an agreement that such a thing is permissible.
Hildebrandt said the Echo is taking its case to the school board at its Thursday meeting.
"We're going to state that (Stepaniak) does not have the authority to do what he's doing, that the school board is the actual publisher of the Echo," he said. "The argument as that just because something might be called 'inappropriate' is not enough to stop publication of an article."
Zwaggerman said she believes Stepaniak's decision will have far-reaching negative consequences.
Stepaniak said he hopes the shutdown is temporary.
"Simply put, this is public information about a public employee," Zwaggerman said. "Whether it's a police officer in town or someone else who's a public employee, the community has a right to know."
Hildebrandt said he and his fellow student editors refused to allow prior review of articles; Stepaniak said the presses won't print the Echo again without an agreement that such a thing is permissible.
Hildebrandt said the Echo is taking its case to the school board at its Thursday meeting.
"We're going to state that (Stepaniak) does not have the authority to do what he's doing, that the school board is the actual publisher of the Echo," he said. "The argument as that just because something might be called 'inappropriate' is not enough to stop publication of an article."
Zwaggerman said she believes Stepaniak's decision will have far-reaching negative consequences.
Stepaniak said he hopes the shutdown is temporary.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Blackberry vs. BlackJack Phone by Samsung
I had not heard about this previously, but thought it was interesting. Samsung released a new cellular phone earlier this year called the BlackJack. The phone was distributed originally by AT&T (then dba Cingular). The maker and distrbuter of the popular line of Blackberry smartphones is Research in Motion. RIM filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement against Samsung in Federal court claiming the name violates TM held by them. The plaintiff claims the use of the name BlackJack "constitutes false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark dilution". Another issue that RIM used to streghten the case was the fact that it is a competing product also in the smartphone industry and it would take advantage of previous marketing efforts by Blackberry by using a confusing name...
One more issue was the similarity and use of the querty keyboard, a full keyboard with which it is easy to type and text message.
I think this is interesting because it represents another case where infringement might just be defended because of the evolution of modern products. In this case the similarity of the names is small and there is no obvious intention to take advantage of the Blackberry name, if anything Samsung is as establliched in the mobile phone business as BB. Another thing to notice: the claim on similarities of the features of the phone, it being a smartphone, the full keyboard, etc.. is non-substantiated and is a product of the logical evolutionof the markets and the products. This is more and more an issue, where companies claim they are being copied, but maybe it is just the fact that wanting t serv ice the market's needs in the best way possible two manufacturers arrive to a similar product. The consumer wants certain features and functions, and the competitors are just supplying them...
It will be interesting to see how this kind of dispute continues to evolve in markets that get more and more competitive.
A link to an article on this:
http://www.smartphoneblast.com/articles/2006/12/20061211-RIM-Sues-Samsung-over.html
One more issue was the similarity and use of the querty keyboard, a full keyboard with which it is easy to type and text message.
I think this is interesting because it represents another case where infringement might just be defended because of the evolution of modern products. In this case the similarity of the names is small and there is no obvious intention to take advantage of the Blackberry name, if anything Samsung is as establliched in the mobile phone business as BB. Another thing to notice: the claim on similarities of the features of the phone, it being a smartphone, the full keyboard, etc.. is non-substantiated and is a product of the logical evolutionof the markets and the products. This is more and more an issue, where companies claim they are being copied, but maybe it is just the fact that wanting t serv ice the market's needs in the best way possible two manufacturers arrive to a similar product. The consumer wants certain features and functions, and the competitors are just supplying them...
It will be interesting to see how this kind of dispute continues to evolve in markets that get more and more competitive.
A link to an article on this:
http://www.smartphoneblast.com/articles/2006/12/20061211-RIM-Sues-Samsung-over.html
6 Cases of Shamelessly False Advertising
I found this blog while searching for false advertising cases and wanted to share it with all of you. It's called MentalFloss.com. A blog that was posted on July 30, 2008 looks at 6 cases of false advertising (one of which we discussed last night during our presentations - Airborne).
Here's a list of all six:
1. Listerine as a Cure-All
2. Lydia Pickham's Vegatable Compound (Great for Boozy Housewives!)
3. Crystal-Clear Amoco Gasoline: Good, Clean Fun
4. Dr. Koch's Cure All
5. Airborne
6. The Trick Wedding - Straight from Mickey Blue Eyes
Basically, each of these products (or doings) resulted in some kind of false advertising lawsuit. You can read the full details of each case on the blog at http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/17036.
Here's a list of all six:
1. Listerine as a Cure-All
2. Lydia Pickham's Vegatable Compound (Great for Boozy Housewives!)
3. Crystal-Clear Amoco Gasoline: Good, Clean Fun
4. Dr. Koch's Cure All
5. Airborne
6. The Trick Wedding - Straight from Mickey Blue Eyes
Basically, each of these products (or doings) resulted in some kind of false advertising lawsuit. You can read the full details of each case on the blog at http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/17036.
Supreme Court Overturns False Light Case
Dec. 5, 2008
I came across this case which involves a Florida Supreme Court ruling that recently helped expand the protection of the First Amendment for churches, nonprofit groups, individuals and the media after failing to recognize false light invasion of privacy. I thought this was timely for our class in that we discussed nonprofit groups and media last night (during Melissa Joy's presentation).
In the 5-0 ruling of the Supreme Court case between Jews for Jesus and Edith Rapp, the Court overturned the previous decision of a lower appellate court and referred the case back to an appeals court. Barry Silver, Edith Rapp's attorney, was pleased with the court's decision to send the case back to a lower court.
"I'm very happy with the Supreme Court's decision," Silver said.
He said his goal is to seek a remedy for people like Rapp.
The case began in 2002, after Rapp, a Jewish woman from Delray Beach, had a dispute with stepson Bruce Rapp, who was working for Jews for Jesus.
Bruce Rapp wrote an article for the organization's newsletter in which he allegedly implied Edith Rapp had become a believer in Jesus. In the article, Bruce Rapp claimed his stepmother began to cry when he shared a Christian tale after his father's death.
Edith Rapp claimed false light invasion of privacy and defamation, on the grounds that the article inflicted emotional distress.
The case was dismissed in trial court and was sent to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
"We filed under two counts," Silver said. "In the [lower] appellate court, we won for false light and lost defamation. In the Supreme Court, they reversed the decision."
The Supreme Court recognized that the false light tort addresses all of the same concerns a defamation plaintiff would have. The difference rests in the legal procedure applied to both torts.
For false light, a plaintiff must prove the article would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person," whereas a defamation plaintiff must prove injury to his or her reputation.
False light's "highly offensive" standard becomes a risky debate because the standard is so imprecise.
Following past Colorado and Texas Supreme Courts rulings, the Florida Supreme Court determined false light is too vague of a claim and could ultimately have an alarming effect on the media.
David Hudson Jr., a First Amendment expert with the First Amendment Center, said the ruling puts Florida in the minority of most states.
"Some could classify [the Supreme Court's decision] as a victory for the press," Hudson said. "Most courts recognize the false light tort. Florida is in the minority."
Hudson said the ruling certainly expands the protection of the First Amendment.
To sustain an argument for defamation, the plaintiff must show damage to his or her reputation.
For those who practice Judaism, the implication of someone accepting Jesus could be very damaging.
Sam Kauffman is the assistant executive director of Central Florida Hillel, a popular Jewish organization for college students. Kauffman understands the severity of implying a Jewish person believes in Jesus.
"Jews for Jesus look and act like Jews but believe in Jesus," Kauffman said. "Jesus does not play a role in Judaism. In the Jewish community [Jews for Jesus] is seen as a Christian fundamentalism group."
He stressed the repercussions one might feel if they were seen to have left the Jewish community."
It could definitely hurt someone who could be seen as leaving the Jewish community and could definitely hurt someone's reputation," Kauffman said.
In the same situation, Kauffman said the emotional stress would affect him greatly."
I believe this [situation] would affect me greater [than Ms. Rapp]," Kauffman said. "It would affect my marriage, my relationship with my parents and my working relationships, because this is my career."
Kauffman continued to call the article slanderous.
"Just because you have the freedom of speech does not mean you can lie about someone," Silver said. "[The Court's decision] is good for us. It is a remedy to what we are seeking."
The case is currently being sent back to an appeals court to reconsider the defamation claim to decide if Edith Rapp's reputation was damaged in the eyes of "a substantial and respectable minority of the community."
Silver said he is happy the case is being sent back to trial.
"I think we should have a very free and open press," Silver said. "But no one has the right to lie about someone for kicks or revenge.
"Someone once said, 'Take my purse and you have nothing, take my good name and you take everything,' and that's how we see it."
http://media.www.centralfloridafuture.com/media/storage/paper174/news/2008/12/05/News/Supreme.Court.Overturns.False.Light.Case-3571295.shtml
I came across this case which involves a Florida Supreme Court ruling that recently helped expand the protection of the First Amendment for churches, nonprofit groups, individuals and the media after failing to recognize false light invasion of privacy. I thought this was timely for our class in that we discussed nonprofit groups and media last night (during Melissa Joy's presentation).
In the 5-0 ruling of the Supreme Court case between Jews for Jesus and Edith Rapp, the Court overturned the previous decision of a lower appellate court and referred the case back to an appeals court. Barry Silver, Edith Rapp's attorney, was pleased with the court's decision to send the case back to a lower court.
"I'm very happy with the Supreme Court's decision," Silver said.
He said his goal is to seek a remedy for people like Rapp.
The case began in 2002, after Rapp, a Jewish woman from Delray Beach, had a dispute with stepson Bruce Rapp, who was working for Jews for Jesus.
Bruce Rapp wrote an article for the organization's newsletter in which he allegedly implied Edith Rapp had become a believer in Jesus. In the article, Bruce Rapp claimed his stepmother began to cry when he shared a Christian tale after his father's death.
Edith Rapp claimed false light invasion of privacy and defamation, on the grounds that the article inflicted emotional distress.
The case was dismissed in trial court and was sent to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
"We filed under two counts," Silver said. "In the [lower] appellate court, we won for false light and lost defamation. In the Supreme Court, they reversed the decision."
The Supreme Court recognized that the false light tort addresses all of the same concerns a defamation plaintiff would have. The difference rests in the legal procedure applied to both torts.
For false light, a plaintiff must prove the article would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person," whereas a defamation plaintiff must prove injury to his or her reputation.
False light's "highly offensive" standard becomes a risky debate because the standard is so imprecise.
Following past Colorado and Texas Supreme Courts rulings, the Florida Supreme Court determined false light is too vague of a claim and could ultimately have an alarming effect on the media.
David Hudson Jr., a First Amendment expert with the First Amendment Center, said the ruling puts Florida in the minority of most states.
"Some could classify [the Supreme Court's decision] as a victory for the press," Hudson said. "Most courts recognize the false light tort. Florida is in the minority."
Hudson said the ruling certainly expands the protection of the First Amendment.
To sustain an argument for defamation, the plaintiff must show damage to his or her reputation.
For those who practice Judaism, the implication of someone accepting Jesus could be very damaging.
Sam Kauffman is the assistant executive director of Central Florida Hillel, a popular Jewish organization for college students. Kauffman understands the severity of implying a Jewish person believes in Jesus.
"Jews for Jesus look and act like Jews but believe in Jesus," Kauffman said. "Jesus does not play a role in Judaism. In the Jewish community [Jews for Jesus] is seen as a Christian fundamentalism group."
He stressed the repercussions one might feel if they were seen to have left the Jewish community."
It could definitely hurt someone who could be seen as leaving the Jewish community and could definitely hurt someone's reputation," Kauffman said.
In the same situation, Kauffman said the emotional stress would affect him greatly."
I believe this [situation] would affect me greater [than Ms. Rapp]," Kauffman said. "It would affect my marriage, my relationship with my parents and my working relationships, because this is my career."
Kauffman continued to call the article slanderous.
"Just because you have the freedom of speech does not mean you can lie about someone," Silver said. "[The Court's decision] is good for us. It is a remedy to what we are seeking."
The case is currently being sent back to an appeals court to reconsider the defamation claim to decide if Edith Rapp's reputation was damaged in the eyes of "a substantial and respectable minority of the community."
Silver said he is happy the case is being sent back to trial.
"I think we should have a very free and open press," Silver said. "But no one has the right to lie about someone for kicks or revenge.
"Someone once said, 'Take my purse and you have nothing, take my good name and you take everything,' and that's how we see it."
http://media.www.centralfloridafuture.com/media/storage/paper174/news/2008/12/05/News/Supreme.Court.Overturns.False.Light.Case-3571295.shtml
Appropriation Around the World
Here's a case regarding appropriation in Zanzibar. I think it is always interesting to see how other countries and their laws are dealing with the same or similar laws in the U.S.
Sept. 22, 2007
Zanzibar Gapco-farmers land appropriation case...
A civil case has been instituted in the Zanzibar Land tribunal involving the Director of Land and Registration, Salum Simba who is alleged to issue a farmers` land to fuel investors illegally.
The case also implicates the President of Zanzibar, Amani Abeid Karume.
The complainant, Ramadhan Mohammed Koja, alleges that he was told by the investors that the fuel company, Gapco, built a petrol station on his farm after being permitted by the Isles President.
The hearing of the case has been scheduled for next Tuesday at the Land tribunal before Judge Maalim Silima.
GAPCO Manager who is also involved in the case, is alleged to have taken the farmer's land located at Chwaka Village in Unguja Kati District where he built the petrol station.
It is reported that Ramadhan inherited the land from his parents who were using it for farming activities.
According to the plaint, it was alleged that on August 26, 2002, the director surveyed the farm and aportioned it to the Asian investors, who in turn built the petrol station, without consulting the owner.
The plaint alleged that, before construction of the station started, the victim tried to seek justice from various authorities, including the accused, but in vain, hence resorted to file the case against them.
The plaint also claimed that, the plaintiff sought the areas where the building permit was issued, including the State House of Zanzibar and Kati District commissioner`s office.
According to the plaint, after being briefed by the Gapco management that the President graced the issuing of the land and that he had 30 per cent stakes, Ramadhan decided to write to him on October 16, last year asking the President also to consider him in the stakes (30 per cent).
`With sentiments, I am writing to you asking for part of the shares you are getting from a petrol station at Chwaka, putting into consideration that I had been earning my living through farming on that land,` he told the President in his letter.
According to the plaint, Ramadhan also has asked the court to confirm that he was the genuine owner of the land after inheriting it from his parents.
He has also asked the court to order the GAPCO manager to demolish the petrol station and compensate him 30 per cent of the income the company has generated since it started operations.
He also has asked the court to cancel the title deed of the plot and pay all the costs the plaintiff incurred in running the case.
Copies of the case have been sent to the Revolutionary Council Secretary General, Ramadhan Muombwa, Isles Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Water, Works, Energy and Lands, Attorney General, Idd Pandu Hassan and Zanzibar High Court Registrar.
http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2007/09/22/98908.html
Sept. 22, 2007
Zanzibar Gapco-farmers land appropriation case...
A civil case has been instituted in the Zanzibar Land tribunal involving the Director of Land and Registration, Salum Simba who is alleged to issue a farmers` land to fuel investors illegally.
The case also implicates the President of Zanzibar, Amani Abeid Karume.
The complainant, Ramadhan Mohammed Koja, alleges that he was told by the investors that the fuel company, Gapco, built a petrol station on his farm after being permitted by the Isles President.
The hearing of the case has been scheduled for next Tuesday at the Land tribunal before Judge Maalim Silima.
GAPCO Manager who is also involved in the case, is alleged to have taken the farmer's land located at Chwaka Village in Unguja Kati District where he built the petrol station.
It is reported that Ramadhan inherited the land from his parents who were using it for farming activities.
According to the plaint, it was alleged that on August 26, 2002, the director surveyed the farm and aportioned it to the Asian investors, who in turn built the petrol station, without consulting the owner.
The plaint alleged that, before construction of the station started, the victim tried to seek justice from various authorities, including the accused, but in vain, hence resorted to file the case against them.
The plaint also claimed that, the plaintiff sought the areas where the building permit was issued, including the State House of Zanzibar and Kati District commissioner`s office.
According to the plaint, after being briefed by the Gapco management that the President graced the issuing of the land and that he had 30 per cent stakes, Ramadhan decided to write to him on October 16, last year asking the President also to consider him in the stakes (30 per cent).
`With sentiments, I am writing to you asking for part of the shares you are getting from a petrol station at Chwaka, putting into consideration that I had been earning my living through farming on that land,` he told the President in his letter.
According to the plaint, Ramadhan also has asked the court to confirm that he was the genuine owner of the land after inheriting it from his parents.
He has also asked the court to order the GAPCO manager to demolish the petrol station and compensate him 30 per cent of the income the company has generated since it started operations.
He also has asked the court to cancel the title deed of the plot and pay all the costs the plaintiff incurred in running the case.
Copies of the case have been sent to the Revolutionary Council Secretary General, Ramadhan Muombwa, Isles Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Water, Works, Energy and Lands, Attorney General, Idd Pandu Hassan and Zanzibar High Court Registrar.
http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2007/09/22/98908.html
Monday, December 15, 2008
Clone Computers and the use of Mac's Operating System
I found this article to be very interesting. I'm not quite sure what sort of case Mac would have against the other computer companies. I'm sure they would like to keep a lock on the market. If people are able to start using Mac OSX on less expensive computers Apple, I feel, will lose a lot of its brand equity. Not to mention they might starting losing some significant market share. I feel like these clones are diluting the Mac brand however I'm not sure if anything illegal has gone on. Here is a link to the whole article: http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/hackers-start-u.html
Invasion of Privacy-Motel Room Taping
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28086479/
This story comes as corrupt politics are in the very recent news. This particular story is about Former City Council President, Craig Callaway in Atlantic City, NJ. He was sentenced December 4th for his role in setting up a sexual encounter and taping it for blackmail purposes of council rival, Eugene Robinson. It turns out that Callaway is no stranger to illegal activity. He is currently serving a 40 month sentence for bribery and has had many questionable activities in past elections. He was found guilty in the heist to set up Robinson and conspiracy to commit invasion of privacy and has to serve 3 years for that, which will overlap with the prior 40 month sentence.
The story goes that one he plead guilty to the bribery case, he had one more thing to do. He and co-conspirators paid a prostitute to lure Robinson to the motel and perform a sex act. They taped it and then said they would leak it to the public if he did not resign. Robinson instead called the authorities. He maintains that the sex was consensual and the money he gave her was for.....sodas....
This one is funny to me even though it is a very serious crime. Both men are wrong for doing everything that they did. For Callaway, according to the story it is no surprise that he would pull a stunt like this. But, for Robinson to go ahead and admit to the public that he was there with the prostitute, but that the money for sodas is just a joke. Either way, it was proven as a case of invasion of privacy because the acts were taped without knowledge.
This story comes as corrupt politics are in the very recent news. This particular story is about Former City Council President, Craig Callaway in Atlantic City, NJ. He was sentenced December 4th for his role in setting up a sexual encounter and taping it for blackmail purposes of council rival, Eugene Robinson. It turns out that Callaway is no stranger to illegal activity. He is currently serving a 40 month sentence for bribery and has had many questionable activities in past elections. He was found guilty in the heist to set up Robinson and conspiracy to commit invasion of privacy and has to serve 3 years for that, which will overlap with the prior 40 month sentence.
The story goes that one he plead guilty to the bribery case, he had one more thing to do. He and co-conspirators paid a prostitute to lure Robinson to the motel and perform a sex act. They taped it and then said they would leak it to the public if he did not resign. Robinson instead called the authorities. He maintains that the sex was consensual and the money he gave her was for.....sodas....
This one is funny to me even though it is a very serious crime. Both men are wrong for doing everything that they did. For Callaway, according to the story it is no surprise that he would pull a stunt like this. But, for Robinson to go ahead and admit to the public that he was there with the prostitute, but that the money for sodas is just a joke. Either way, it was proven as a case of invasion of privacy because the acts were taped without knowledge.
Mom vs. Daughter
This is a story about an author who published a very successful book about her childhood abuse, both mental and physical by her mother. The only problem? Her mom says the entier thing is false and is suing her daughter for libel. The author is a British lawyer named Constance Briscoe. She and her lawyer say that it was put in the biography section of the bookstores for the right reasons. It is not fiction. Her mom's lawyers say that there was never a complaint to a teacher, social services or anybody that could help her daughter when she was a child, therefore, there must not have been anything wrong.
I found this story interesting because it shows just how personal libel can be. If her daughter is lying about the abuse just to make a buck, that just goes to show how sensationalizing and fabricating things may help sell, but is completely unethical and illegal. There has been quite a few authors in recent years who have come under fire for almost the same allegations. They all say that their books are memoirs, when they are actually fiction.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27786378/
I found this story interesting because it shows just how personal libel can be. If her daughter is lying about the abuse just to make a buck, that just goes to show how sensationalizing and fabricating things may help sell, but is completely unethical and illegal. There has been quite a few authors in recent years who have come under fire for almost the same allegations. They all say that their books are memoirs, when they are actually fiction.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27786378/
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Airborne settles lawsuit for $23.3 million
This comes from an article cnn.com on March 4 2008. Although a bit old I thought relevant since the cold season is upon us. :)
Airborne, the herbal supplement company, paid $23.3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought against the company for false advertising. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit advocacy group, said the company will refund money to consumers who bought Airborne's product. It will pay for advertisements in major publications instructing consumers on how to get their money refunded.
CSPI Senior nutritionist David Schardt said, "There's no credible evidence that what's in Airborne can prevent colds or protect you from a germy environment. Airborne is basically on overpriced, run-of-the-mill vitamin pill that's been cleverly, but deceptively, marketed."
Advertisements stopped mentioning the study and cold-curing claims and instead made claims that it helped boost the body's immune systems.
Airborne, the herbal supplement company, paid $23.3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought against the company for false advertising. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit advocacy group, said the company will refund money to consumers who bought Airborne's product. It will pay for advertisements in major publications instructing consumers on how to get their money refunded.
CSPI Senior nutritionist David Schardt said, "There's no credible evidence that what's in Airborne can prevent colds or protect you from a germy environment. Airborne is basically on overpriced, run-of-the-mill vitamin pill that's been cleverly, but deceptively, marketed."
Advertisements stopped mentioning the study and cold-curing claims and instead made claims that it helped boost the body's immune systems.
Cybersquatting Against the Law?
From an article on msn.com on Dec 12--Cybersquatting, the practice of buying up a domain in order to profit from a trademarked name, is prohibited under the 1999 Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act as well as a set of international guidelines called the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy.
To sue someone for cybersquatting, you have to show that they acted in "bad faith," which means they deliberately registered a certain domain in order to profit off your name. There may be added protection for domains that are named after celebrities. Famous people have a right of publicity that prohibits anyone else from profiting off their names or likeness.
However, the First Amendment makes it legal to grab even a famous person's domain name in some situations. The article gave an interesting example--You might not get hillaryclinton.com, but you could register Ilovehillaryclinton.com if you're planning to use it for nonprofit political speech. As long as you're not profiting off a person or company by misrepresenting them, you're probably OK.
To sue someone for cybersquatting, you have to show that they acted in "bad faith," which means they deliberately registered a certain domain in order to profit off your name. There may be added protection for domains that are named after celebrities. Famous people have a right of publicity that prohibits anyone else from profiting off their names or likeness.
However, the First Amendment makes it legal to grab even a famous person's domain name in some situations. The article gave an interesting example--You might not get hillaryclinton.com, but you could register Ilovehillaryclinton.com if you're planning to use it for nonprofit political speech. As long as you're not profiting off a person or company by misrepresenting them, you're probably OK.
Man faces criminal charge in libel case.
From an article in LA Times on Dec 4, 2008--J.P. Weichel is accused of writing defamatory comments about his former girlfriend on a Craigslist forum. Weichel, from Colorado, allegedly posted comments about his ex girlfriend on the Craigslist “rants and raves” forum, accusing her of child abuse, welfare fraud, and making crude comments about her sex life.
The woman said the postings were defamatory. But unlike the majority of libel cases, which are tried in civil court, local authorities have charged Weichel with a crime.
Colorado is one of a few states with a criminal law against libel. The statute dates to the 19th century and is rarely used. However, several lawyers said the case should be handled in civil court. The lawyers said, "Bringing the government into the dispute is a troubling infringement on free speech."
Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado,said “Being a jerk isn’t necessarily grounds for felony prosecution." Gregory Lisby, a communications professor at Georgia State University, has tracked criminal libel prosecutions. He said the states that retained such statues had simply not updated laws from English common law. His research shows that criminal libel cases have dropped, but the Internet could reverse that. People don’t realize that scornful postings or e-mails can make them liable for defamation charges.
“More and more people view the online world as a free-rant place,” Lisby said. “They think it’s par for the course, but they’re setting themselves up for lawsuits” or prosecution.
The woman said the postings were defamatory. But unlike the majority of libel cases, which are tried in civil court, local authorities have charged Weichel with a crime.
Colorado is one of a few states with a criminal law against libel. The statute dates to the 19th century and is rarely used. However, several lawyers said the case should be handled in civil court. The lawyers said, "Bringing the government into the dispute is a troubling infringement on free speech."
Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado,said “Being a jerk isn’t necessarily grounds for felony prosecution." Gregory Lisby, a communications professor at Georgia State University, has tracked criminal libel prosecutions. He said the states that retained such statues had simply not updated laws from English common law. His research shows that criminal libel cases have dropped, but the Internet could reverse that. People don’t realize that scornful postings or e-mails can make them liable for defamation charges.
“More and more people view the online world as a free-rant place,” Lisby said. “They think it’s par for the course, but they’re setting themselves up for lawsuits” or prosecution.
Plan Parenthood sued for libel
A Planned Parenthood clinic in Illinois is being sued for libel and slander by the Pro-Life Action League. The League responded to an open letter that Planned Parenthood sent to the Chicago Daily Herald which stated that the League "had a history of advocating violent behavior," in regards to a new clinic that opened in Aurora.
Judge Upholds Counts of Libel against Planned Parenthood in Scheidler Case
GENEVA, IL, December 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Late yesterday afternoon, Judge Judith Brawka of Kane County Circuit Court upheld two counts of slander and libel, alleged by Eric Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League, in a lawsuit filed in 2007, holding that those counts should not be dismissed as a matter of law.
The court’s decision overruled an objection by defendants, Planned Parenthood of Illinois and its Chief Executive Officer Stephen Trombley, that the alleged defamatory, libelous and slanderous statements were immune from suit under Illinois’ newly enacted Citizen Participation Act.
The counts were based on an open letter which Planned Parenthood placed in the Chicago Daily Herald on September 7, 2007, stating that pro-life activists opposing Planned Parenthood’s new factory-sized abortion facility in Aurora had a history of advocating violent behavior. Stephen Trombley had also made statements to the press in the lobby of the federal courthouse in Chicago to the same effect.
Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League have insisted that they have no history of violent misbehavior nor of advocating violence and that such claims were already rejected in the 22-year-old nationwide federal class-action lawsuit, NOW vs. Scheidler, which they won in the US Supreme Court not once but twice, in 2003 and again in 2006. Planned Parenthood was a member of the class of abortion clinics that participated in that lawsuit, and they lost.
The plaintiffs expect to proceed to litigate the two counts that were sustained all the way to final judgment against Planned Parenthood. As for other counts of their libel case that were dismissed, they intend to appeal Judge Brawka’s ruling against those counts under the Citizen Participation Act as soon as possible. That Act immunizes from suit any efforts to obtain favorable government action, but only if in furtherance of a lawful exercise First Amendment rights. Judge Brakwa on the other hand dismissed several other libel counts on the rationale that even malicious lies were immunized from suit if intended to persuade government officials. This overbroad reading of the Act is what plaintiffs intend to appeal.
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Society, who is representing the plaintiffs in the litigation, said that yesterday’s ruling is “very welcome and signals that at some point in this case Planned Parenthood is going to have to come to grips with the fact that they lied. Those lies constituted defamatory torts for which Planned Parenthood and Mr. Trombley must be held to account to the plaintiffs, whose good name was illegally trashed for no reason and with malice aforethought.”
“The Citizen Participation Act,” continued Brejcha, “also called the Anti-SLAPP Act, is not a license to lie with impunity and ruin someone’s good name for malicious reasons.”
Judge Upholds Counts of Libel against Planned Parenthood in Scheidler Case
GENEVA, IL, December 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Late yesterday afternoon, Judge Judith Brawka of Kane County Circuit Court upheld two counts of slander and libel, alleged by Eric Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League, in a lawsuit filed in 2007, holding that those counts should not be dismissed as a matter of law.
The court’s decision overruled an objection by defendants, Planned Parenthood of Illinois and its Chief Executive Officer Stephen Trombley, that the alleged defamatory, libelous and slanderous statements were immune from suit under Illinois’ newly enacted Citizen Participation Act.
The counts were based on an open letter which Planned Parenthood placed in the Chicago Daily Herald on September 7, 2007, stating that pro-life activists opposing Planned Parenthood’s new factory-sized abortion facility in Aurora had a history of advocating violent behavior. Stephen Trombley had also made statements to the press in the lobby of the federal courthouse in Chicago to the same effect.
Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League have insisted that they have no history of violent misbehavior nor of advocating violence and that such claims were already rejected in the 22-year-old nationwide federal class-action lawsuit, NOW vs. Scheidler, which they won in the US Supreme Court not once but twice, in 2003 and again in 2006. Planned Parenthood was a member of the class of abortion clinics that participated in that lawsuit, and they lost.
The plaintiffs expect to proceed to litigate the two counts that were sustained all the way to final judgment against Planned Parenthood. As for other counts of their libel case that were dismissed, they intend to appeal Judge Brawka’s ruling against those counts under the Citizen Participation Act as soon as possible. That Act immunizes from suit any efforts to obtain favorable government action, but only if in furtherance of a lawful exercise First Amendment rights. Judge Brakwa on the other hand dismissed several other libel counts on the rationale that even malicious lies were immunized from suit if intended to persuade government officials. This overbroad reading of the Act is what plaintiffs intend to appeal.
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Society, who is representing the plaintiffs in the litigation, said that yesterday’s ruling is “very welcome and signals that at some point in this case Planned Parenthood is going to have to come to grips with the fact that they lied. Those lies constituted defamatory torts for which Planned Parenthood and Mr. Trombley must be held to account to the plaintiffs, whose good name was illegally trashed for no reason and with malice aforethought.”
“The Citizen Participation Act,” continued Brejcha, “also called the Anti-SLAPP Act, is not a license to lie with impunity and ruin someone’s good name for malicious reasons.”
Elton John loses libel case
Elton John lost a court case after saying he was defamed by a British newspaper.
The story said that Elton used a foundation he is a part of merely as a way of self-promotion. The story held a satirical take on it, which offended Elton.
Michael Tugendhat, high court justice said that irony "is a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used ... . The attribution is literally false but no reasonable reader could be misled by it."
I could only assume that in America we would treat it as if it were a parody.
LONDON, Dec. 13 (UPI) --
Elton John was not defamed by a British newspaper that offered a satirical take of the rock singer, a High Court judge has ruled.
High Court Justice Michael Tugendhat found that while The Guardian did offer a satirical column about the Crocodile Rock singer, the article did not amount to libel and the court's ruling was not subject to appeal, the newspaper reported Saturday.
Marina Hyde's July literary offering, A peek at the diary of Sir Elton John, prompted the knighted British singer to file his libel suit against the publication.
The singer alleged the article questioned his commitment to the Elton John Aids Foundation and accused him of using related events as self-promotion opportunities.
But Tugendhat wrote his judgment that the article and its featured attribution were clearly not meant to inflict harm, but rather use irony to entertain.
The transparently false attribution is irony, Tugendhat said. Irony is a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used ... . The attribution is literally false but no reasonable reader could be misled by it. Copyright 2008 by United Press InternationalAll Rights Reserved.
The story said that Elton used a foundation he is a part of merely as a way of self-promotion. The story held a satirical take on it, which offended Elton.
Michael Tugendhat, high court justice said that irony "is a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used ... . The attribution is literally false but no reasonable reader could be misled by it."
I could only assume that in America we would treat it as if it were a parody.
LONDON, Dec. 13 (UPI) --
Elton John was not defamed by a British newspaper that offered a satirical take of the rock singer, a High Court judge has ruled.
High Court Justice Michael Tugendhat found that while The Guardian did offer a satirical column about the Crocodile Rock singer, the article did not amount to libel and the court's ruling was not subject to appeal, the newspaper reported Saturday.
Marina Hyde's July literary offering, A peek at the diary of Sir Elton John, prompted the knighted British singer to file his libel suit against the publication.
The singer alleged the article questioned his commitment to the Elton John Aids Foundation and accused him of using related events as self-promotion opportunities.
But Tugendhat wrote his judgment that the article and its featured attribution were clearly not meant to inflict harm, but rather use irony to entertain.
The transparently false attribution is irony, Tugendhat said. Irony is a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used ... . The attribution is literally false but no reasonable reader could be misled by it. Copyright 2008 by United Press InternationalAll Rights Reserved.
Kids These Days....
So, this one is particularly short, but oh my...
Parents of a 14 year-old, high school freshman want to sue her school for discrimination and invasion of privacy because the young girl sent her boyfriend a top less photo via her cell phone and it got spread around the school.
She has been suspended for 5 days as were students who were caught with the picture on their cell phones.
I don't really think the parents have a good case, although the girl probably didn't think her boyfriend would pass the picture along. I'm thinking that the photo was a big class disturbance and the school had a right to step in.
I think the girl should take it as a lesson learned. But, that's just my opinion.
GRAND BLANC, Mich. — A 14-year-old Flint-area high school freshman and others have been suspended after a topless photo of the girl circulated through the school.
The teen took the photo, sent it to her boyfriend and now is in the middle of a five-day suspension from Grand Blanc High School.
Seven students were suspended this week for having the photo on their cell phones.
Her parents are considering a lawsuit against the school district for sex discrimination and invasion of privacy.
Principal Jennifer Hammond denies treating anyone differently on the basis of gender.
Parents of a 14 year-old, high school freshman want to sue her school for discrimination and invasion of privacy because the young girl sent her boyfriend a top less photo via her cell phone and it got spread around the school.
She has been suspended for 5 days as were students who were caught with the picture on their cell phones.
I don't really think the parents have a good case, although the girl probably didn't think her boyfriend would pass the picture along. I'm thinking that the photo was a big class disturbance and the school had a right to step in.
I think the girl should take it as a lesson learned. But, that's just my opinion.
GRAND BLANC, Mich. — A 14-year-old Flint-area high school freshman and others have been suspended after a topless photo of the girl circulated through the school.
The teen took the photo, sent it to her boyfriend and now is in the middle of a five-day suspension from Grand Blanc High School.
Seven students were suspended this week for having the photo on their cell phones.
Her parents are considering a lawsuit against the school district for sex discrimination and invasion of privacy.
Principal Jennifer Hammond denies treating anyone differently on the basis of gender.
Religion Ruling
This was a small blurb in the Nation Digest in Friday's paper:
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday barring South Carolina from marketing and making license plates that feature the image of a cross with the words "I Believe."
Sure this might go against the separation of church and state but it doesn't sound to me like they are going to be the regular license plates since it is stated that they would be "marketed." My guess is that it is one variation you can get when you get one of those personalized plates like Missouri Conservation one or the Help Prevent Child Abuse one. If that is the case I don't see why these plates would be denied. The state isn't forcing anyone to use the plates and the people that would use them are paying for it. I personally would not have one but that doesn't mean someone else shouldn't have one. I wouldn't be surprised if this TRO gets lifted soon because of someone claiming 1st Amendment infringement on the right to freedom of religion. But then again I guess that means they would have to make license plates to represent each religion.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/11/oleg-teterin-russian-entr_n_150438.html
This is a humorous story I found about a Oleg Teterin, president of the mobile ad company Superfone who just registered the trademark for the emoticon, ;-). He said that he won't go after individual users (email or messages), but this is more aimed at companies that want to use the symbol in advertisements or anything that involves making a profit off of the trademarked symbol. However, there are those that say that Teterin was not the first to try to trademark the symbol. And a man who comments in the story, is a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, and says that he was the first to use the symbol in an computer message 25 years ago.
I think attempting to trademark this symbol is ridiculous. This symbol has been around for years and there are far too many people using this regularly. And because he trademarked that particular emoticon, he also says that any similar ones are also covered. I am also not sure of what type of company that is professional would try to use this emoticon to profit from...
This is a humorous story I found about a Oleg Teterin, president of the mobile ad company Superfone who just registered the trademark for the emoticon, ;-). He said that he won't go after individual users (email or messages), but this is more aimed at companies that want to use the symbol in advertisements or anything that involves making a profit off of the trademarked symbol. However, there are those that say that Teterin was not the first to try to trademark the symbol. And a man who comments in the story, is a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, and says that he was the first to use the symbol in an computer message 25 years ago.
I think attempting to trademark this symbol is ridiculous. This symbol has been around for years and there are far too many people using this regularly. And because he trademarked that particular emoticon, he also says that any similar ones are also covered. I am also not sure of what type of company that is professional would try to use this emoticon to profit from...
http://www.newser.com/story/45245/bruni-files-suit-over-nude-pic-on-bag.html
This is a story about the First Lady in France. She is suing the clothing company, Pardon! for putting a naked picture of her on its shopping bags. Pardon! is defending this saying that Bruni is a lady in the public eye. Bruni is seeking $167,000 which, if she wins, will go to charity.
To me, the number of stories I find of celebrities suing for any sort of invasion of privacy is overwhelming. On one level, I feel bad for these celebrities that they are in the public eye as much as they are and I am totally guilty of reading celebrity blogs and watching any celebrity news, but at the same time, I feel like it is a price they pay. They can afford anything in the world, and the biggest problem they have is that people want to take their pictures. In this case, I think that Bruni should win because they are exploiting her image for their own gain. But, some may consider that the ultimate compliment...
This is a story about the First Lady in France. She is suing the clothing company, Pardon! for putting a naked picture of her on its shopping bags. Pardon! is defending this saying that Bruni is a lady in the public eye. Bruni is seeking $167,000 which, if she wins, will go to charity.
To me, the number of stories I find of celebrities suing for any sort of invasion of privacy is overwhelming. On one level, I feel bad for these celebrities that they are in the public eye as much as they are and I am totally guilty of reading celebrity blogs and watching any celebrity news, but at the same time, I feel like it is a price they pay. They can afford anything in the world, and the biggest problem they have is that people want to take their pictures. In this case, I think that Bruni should win because they are exploiting her image for their own gain. But, some may consider that the ultimate compliment...
This is yet another story of a celebrity that is suing for breach of privacy. At least this time she is giving the money she is awarded to charity.
Since the divorce of Madonna and Guy Ritchie, there has been added interest in their marriage. Wedding photos that were published in OK! Magazine of their wedding in 2000 were never authorized by Madonna to publish. They were stolen out of their home. She did win the case and Madonna is asking for a whopping $6 million.
http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2008/12/more_money_for_madonna.php
Since the divorce of Madonna and Guy Ritchie, there has been added interest in their marriage. Wedding photos that were published in OK! Magazine of their wedding in 2000 were never authorized by Madonna to publish. They were stolen out of their home. She did win the case and Madonna is asking for a whopping $6 million.
http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2008/12/more_money_for_madonna.php
Friday, December 12, 2008
Libel is also "Too Thin".
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060721/ai_n16673403
I'm amazed that The Inquirer is still in business at all, but here goes a story on another Libel Lawsuit lost by them. This one was brought up by Kate Hudson. The artcle's headline on said issue of the magazine read "Goldie tells Kate: Eat something! And she listens!"...wow is that not an eye grabber at the checkout of your local Target store! Actually, after being adviced by her lawers Hudson filed the suit in the UK, the magazine has a UK edition there and local laws made it more probable for her to win. First the plaintiff argumented the element that she had always showed that type of figure and it had been previously admired by the magazine. Her lawer said of her having unhealthy habits:
"...allegations were completely untrue and embarrassing and offensive to the actress, who was concerned about the impact on her career."
As we have studied, the law has special differentiated regulations for public figures such as celebrities. In some cases the most extreme things can be said and celebs wont do anything because it favors them as free publicity. But others they have no doubt in sueing.
"To be called unbelievably skinny is everybody's flashpoint. Magazines cross that line and they're going to get sued. It's a judgement call you're not allowed to make."
This case resembles the one seen on our final exam, but in this case the physycal feature which seems to be put under scrutiny is "thinness" rather than "busty young women".
But from the description of the case it seemed like a pretty straght forward case, the fact that it was her physycal aspect wqhich was easily proved to be healthy made them be false accusations, setting grounds for Libel. I guess at least there is one positive in this: most of the times celeb mags acuse women of being "too fat" or "overweight" rather than too skinny, and that sends a bad message to the young who consume the media. In this case it is shown that neither extreme is good and even the coolest Hollywood stars dont want to be seen as unhealthy due to weight issues.
I'm amazed that The Inquirer is still in business at all, but here goes a story on another Libel Lawsuit lost by them. This one was brought up by Kate Hudson. The artcle's headline on said issue of the magazine read "Goldie tells Kate: Eat something! And she listens!"...wow is that not an eye grabber at the checkout of your local Target store! Actually, after being adviced by her lawers Hudson filed the suit in the UK, the magazine has a UK edition there and local laws made it more probable for her to win. First the plaintiff argumented the element that she had always showed that type of figure and it had been previously admired by the magazine. Her lawer said of her having unhealthy habits:
"...allegations were completely untrue and embarrassing and offensive to the actress, who was concerned about the impact on her career."
As we have studied, the law has special differentiated regulations for public figures such as celebrities. In some cases the most extreme things can be said and celebs wont do anything because it favors them as free publicity. But others they have no doubt in sueing.
"To be called unbelievably skinny is everybody's flashpoint. Magazines cross that line and they're going to get sued. It's a judgement call you're not allowed to make."
This case resembles the one seen on our final exam, but in this case the physycal feature which seems to be put under scrutiny is "thinness" rather than "busty young women".
But from the description of the case it seemed like a pretty straght forward case, the fact that it was her physycal aspect wqhich was easily proved to be healthy made them be false accusations, setting grounds for Libel. I guess at least there is one positive in this: most of the times celeb mags acuse women of being "too fat" or "overweight" rather than too skinny, and that sends a bad message to the young who consume the media. In this case it is shown that neither extreme is good and even the coolest Hollywood stars dont want to be seen as unhealthy due to weight issues.
Blagojevich case and wiretapping privacy
By now, we've all hopefully heard about the recent scandal with democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Last i heard he has not been indicted yet, but he has at least been charged with a complaint from an FBI affidavit. It looks like the case against him is pretty strong and a sentence is soon to come, making the scandal even bigger. "Blago" is accussed of attempting to "sell" the Senate seat that will be left vacant when Barack Obama takes office in January. As the governor he has the power to appoint someone to replace the seat. In hearings from phone conversations he talks about sums of money of up to a million dollars "assigning" a value to the selection. Very few would argue that, if proven guilty, he should pay a big price for his wrongdoing; but the method used to gather this suspicions is still under scrutiny.
Leaving aside the fact that in this particular case political interests play a huge part, privacy groups have been against this practice for a long time, here is the main argument:
"Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between them upon any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of one man's telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping."
On the other side of the dabate, the argument seems to be that if no illegal activity is done, there is nothing to fear about:
"Personally, if the Feds wiretapped my phone, I would not have any problems with it because I don't engage in illegal activity. In fact, after some time, they would stop tapping me because they wouldn't get any useful information from me" says a comment in a blog.
As students of Media Law and Privacy and freedom of speech, we observe another case in which both arguments collide again. The law is stablished and must be respected, even when many might not agree with it.
As we have learned if it wasn't the government making an effort to wiretapp someones phone to listen to private conversations, we could easily determine an invation of privacy. But special circumstances, which sometimes take the form of National Security, and the fact that is public servants or officials using this method is the argument that supports the right in these cases. The debate is open, but something is for sure, just like Blagojevich was supposed to watch for the public's interests and didn't, so could a government official who missuses these practices. The implications could be huge. As in most cases, the system does not cause the damage, but rather the people who exploit it do.
PS: dont know if it's necessary, but here are some links to the case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/politics/10Illinois.html?_r=1
or
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28195524/
Leaving aside the fact that in this particular case political interests play a huge part, privacy groups have been against this practice for a long time, here is the main argument:
"Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between them upon any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of one man's telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping."
On the other side of the dabate, the argument seems to be that if no illegal activity is done, there is nothing to fear about:
"Personally, if the Feds wiretapped my phone, I would not have any problems with it because I don't engage in illegal activity. In fact, after some time, they would stop tapping me because they wouldn't get any useful information from me" says a comment in a blog.
As students of Media Law and Privacy and freedom of speech, we observe another case in which both arguments collide again. The law is stablished and must be respected, even when many might not agree with it.
As we have learned if it wasn't the government making an effort to wiretapp someones phone to listen to private conversations, we could easily determine an invation of privacy. But special circumstances, which sometimes take the form of National Security, and the fact that is public servants or officials using this method is the argument that supports the right in these cases. The debate is open, but something is for sure, just like Blagojevich was supposed to watch for the public's interests and didn't, so could a government official who missuses these practices. The implications could be huge. As in most cases, the system does not cause the damage, but rather the people who exploit it do.
PS: dont know if it's necessary, but here are some links to the case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/politics/10Illinois.html?_r=1
or
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28195524/
Jermaine Dupri Suing Atlanta Night Club
After reading this article it is very apparent that Jermain Dupri has a strong case against the defendant. It amazes me that even after Dupri's manager declined the appearance at the club because Dupri would be out of the country, the entertainment group still promoted the event using his name and under the false impression that he would be at the event. I feel there are a lot of cases that arise like this because people assume they will just get away with it and no one will really care. Obviously this isn't the case with this particular suit. Here is a link to the article: http://livesteez.com/news/news_detail/1567
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Anti-Piracy Suit Gets Challenged
I'm not really sure why music companies keep fighting this issue. Digital file sharing is here and it's not going away. Instead of suing offenders they need to try to find a way to make digital file sharing work to their advantage instead of working against it. Making an example out of this out this guy is not going to deter anyone. This sort of thing only makes the music companies look like money hungary bullies. The other things...I'm not really sure why iTunes is illegal. I guess I haven't fully read the license agreement. But I'm pretty sure when you purchase media from there you're only allowed to use it on up to 5 different devices i.e. CDs, ipods, computers, etc. This issue may be because you can copy CDs onto iTunes and burn CDs with that music and the program makes it very simple to be able to distribute music although I haven't figured out how to burn a movie I purchase from iTunes onto a DVD, or even if it can be done at all.
Anyway, enough of a tangent, here is the article: http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2008/december2008/antipiracy.cfm
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Satriani sues Coldplay for Copyright Infringement
Guitar legend, Joe Satriani, has sued the British group, Coldplay for copyright infrigement claiming their single, Viva La Vida, uses "substantial original portions" of Satriani's "If I Could Fly" from 2004. He seeks damages for any and all profits.
Check out the U Tube video and see what you think...
http://www.youtube.com/index?e=7000
Check out the U Tube video and see what you think...
http://www.youtube.com/index?e=7000
No Who-ville in Louisville
I found a story on STLtoday.com, from the Associated Press (11-25-08), that the city of Louisville received a cease and desist order from Dr. Seuss Enterprises for their plans to use Dr. Seuss village and characters as part of its annual Christmas display.
The city had planned to use "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" as their theme for the annual Light Up Louisville celebration. The display required complete costumes characters from the Dr. Seuss classics. The cease-and-desist letter from DLA Piper, who represents Dr. Seuss Enterprises, said the "Who--ville" name and image, as well as the characters, are copyrighted and couldn't be used without permission.
The city complied with the demanding letter to halt any use of the characters. They were also planning to call their display, "LouWhoVille" but renamed it to "Lou-ville". Lame! I'm surprised no one thought they may run into trouble with using the characters. I suppose they know better now!
The city had planned to use "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" as their theme for the annual Light Up Louisville celebration. The display required complete costumes characters from the Dr. Seuss classics. The cease-and-desist letter from DLA Piper, who represents Dr. Seuss Enterprises, said the "Who--ville" name and image, as well as the characters, are copyrighted and couldn't be used without permission.
The city complied with the demanding letter to halt any use of the characters. They were also planning to call their display, "LouWhoVille" but renamed it to "Lou-ville". Lame! I'm surprised no one thought they may run into trouble with using the characters. I suppose they know better now!
Third Circuit Court Rules Against Temple University for Speech Code
I have mixed emotions about this. The complaint was about Temple University's speech code saying that it was unconstitutional because it prohibited "generalized sexist remarks and behavior". I'm guessing most colleges and universities have something similar. I must say I haven't read Webster's policy on this but I'm sure they also have some sort of speech code with similar restrictions. I don't like hearing sexist remarks but then again prohibiting them would go against freedom of speech. I do feel that during class discussions there shouldn't be restrictions on students expressing their views as long as everyone has the chance to do so.
Check out the full article: http://thefire.org/index/php/article/9573.html?PHPSESSID=b274d893711aeb9f270cca830b3f1898#
New President means a new FCC.
I found this article to be rather interesting. It calls for the new FCC Chair (which Obama has yet to appoint) to remain stagnate in regards to regulating the broadcast industry. Because of the current state of the economy, the industry, etc. many feel that more regulation would be a burden to many broadcasters.
I also think it is interesting that a lot, if not all of this regulation is swayed by what political party has the reigns at the time. I sometimes forget that so many things are affected by the changing of the guard.
Here is the link to the article: http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/12/10/new-fcc-chair-needs-push-less-broadcast-regulation
I also think it is interesting that a lot, if not all of this regulation is swayed by what political party has the reigns at the time. I sometimes forget that so many things are affected by the changing of the guard.
Here is the link to the article: http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/12/10/new-fcc-chair-needs-push-less-broadcast-regulation
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Possible Limits to be Placed on Drug Advertisements
There has always been a large debate on whether Drug Companies should advertise their products. In fact as we have read one of the first cases that played a significant role in shaping advertising law dealt with advertising prescription drug prices. (Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Consumer Council) This article discusses regulating advertisements for newer drugs because of the risks/side effects that companies may still be unaware of. The key I think to getting this type of regulation passed is brought up in the article: "if officials decided it was necessary to protect the public health." I think this is a strong platform for supporters of the regulation to stand on. From this they could make a case within the commercial speech doctrine based on this platform. Because truthful advertising can be regulated as long as certain criteria are met.
The Article:
By Lisa Richwine
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A key Democrat made a renewed call on Monday for giving regulators the power to ban advertisements to consumers when a new medicine first reaches the market and risks are not fully known.
Rep. Henry Waxman listed the idea as one of many he would like to pursue as chairman of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee after a new Congress convenes in January and starts to tackle a range of health-care issues.
"It is in these first few years of a drug's life that drug companies often aggressively market their products and engage in direct-to-consumer advertising. This increases the number of consumers exposed to safety risks of new products long before those risks are truly understood," Waxman said at a conference sponsored by The Prescription Project, a group critical of industry marketing.
The California Democrat supported congressional efforts in 2007 to allow the Food and Drug Administration to ban television commercials for a new medicine for up to three years if officials decided it was necessary to protect the public health. The ban would not apply to all drugs, but officials would decide case by case if limits were needed.
Here is the full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4B77LU20081208
The Article:
By Lisa Richwine
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A key Democrat made a renewed call on Monday for giving regulators the power to ban advertisements to consumers when a new medicine first reaches the market and risks are not fully known.
Rep. Henry Waxman listed the idea as one of many he would like to pursue as chairman of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee after a new Congress convenes in January and starts to tackle a range of health-care issues.
"It is in these first few years of a drug's life that drug companies often aggressively market their products and engage in direct-to-consumer advertising. This increases the number of consumers exposed to safety risks of new products long before those risks are truly understood," Waxman said at a conference sponsored by The Prescription Project, a group critical of industry marketing.
The California Democrat supported congressional efforts in 2007 to allow the Food and Drug Administration to ban television commercials for a new medicine for up to three years if officials decided it was necessary to protect the public health. The ban would not apply to all drugs, but officials would decide case by case if limits were needed.
Here is the full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4B77LU20081208
Monday, December 8, 2008
Taco Bell vs. 50 Cent
This is actually kind of humorous. Curtis Jackson, better known as rapper 50 Cent has sued Taco Bell for trademark infringement. This happened after Taco Bell asked him to change his name for one day to help market their value menu. Taco Bell also offered to give the charity of his choice $10,000, if he went along with it. Obviously 50 Cent was not thrilled with this attempt from Taco Bell and apparently does not understand why it would be helpful...I'm kind of with him on that, but sueing because of it is a little much.
NEW YORK — Rapper 50 Cent is facing a challenge to his street cred _ from Taco Bell.
Lawyers for the fast-food chain are calling his federal lawsuit, filed in Manhattan, another attempt to "burnish his gangsta rapper persona by distorting beyond all recognition a bona fide, good faith offer."
The squabble is over a fake letter sent out by Taco Bell Corp. asking 50 Cent to change his name for one day to 79 Cent, 89 Cent or 99 Cent to help publicize its value menu.
In return, the company offered to donate $10,000 to the charity of his choice.
The rapper, whose real name is Curtis Jackson, has sued for trademark infringement.
Jackson's attorney, Peter Raymond, says he wonders why Taco Bell would use his client's name in an ad campaign.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov20/0,4670,People50Cent,00.html
NEW YORK — Rapper 50 Cent is facing a challenge to his street cred _ from Taco Bell.
Lawyers for the fast-food chain are calling his federal lawsuit, filed in Manhattan, another attempt to "burnish his gangsta rapper persona by distorting beyond all recognition a bona fide, good faith offer."
The squabble is over a fake letter sent out by Taco Bell Corp. asking 50 Cent to change his name for one day to 79 Cent, 89 Cent or 99 Cent to help publicize its value menu.
In return, the company offered to donate $10,000 to the charity of his choice.
The rapper, whose real name is Curtis Jackson, has sued for trademark infringement.
Jackson's attorney, Peter Raymond, says he wonders why Taco Bell would use his client's name in an ad campaign.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov20/0,4670,People50Cent,00.html
Mother sues daughter in libel case
The mother of Constance Briscoe( an author in London), Carmen Briscoe-Mitchell is charging her daughter with libel. The case came about after Constance had a book called "Ugly" published. The book goes over her childhood, with several stories of abuse, ridicule and abandonment from her mother and step father. Carmen claims that the stories are complete fabrications and that she raised a very happy family. The kicker in this case is that the daughter being sued is a lawyer. Although, I'm not sure how libel cases are treated in London, but the story also brings up similar cases from the U.S. like "Running With Scissors," the case was settle out of court when the author changed the genre to a book instead of a memoir.
LONDON — Another best-selling memoir, another battle over the line between truth and fiction.
A British lawyer who wrote a popular book recounting a childhood of emotional and physical abuse is being sued for libel by her mother, who says the claims are fantasy.
Constance Briscoe defends the veracity of her book, "Ugly" _ the nickname she says her mother threw at her as a child. Her lawyer told London's High Court on Tuesday that the book contained some errors but was "quite properly put in the biography section of the bookshop, not the fiction section."
With its harrowing, inspirational and ostensibly true story, "Ugly" has sold more than half a million copies in Britain since it was published in 2006. It was followed by a sequel, "Beyond Ugly."
The child of Jamaican immigrants, Briscoe, 51, grew up in a poor part of London but went on to become a lawyer and one of the first black women in Britain to be appointed a recorder, or part-time judge.
In "Ugly," Briscoe alleges that her mother regularly beat and starved her before abandoning her when she was 13.
The book claims Briscoe's stepfather once stubbed a cigarette out on her hand, and says that as a teenager Briscoe needed surgery on her breasts because of trauma caused by her mother's assaults.
Her mother, Carmen Briscoe-Mitchell, 74, says these and other harrowing incidents are fiction. She is seeking damages from Briscoe and her publisher, Hodder and Stoughton.
Briscoe-Mitchell's lawyer, William Panton, told the court the allegations of abuse were "nonsense" and said that as a child Briscoe had not complained to police, social services or teachers.
"There were opportunities to complain about ill-treatment _ if that ill-treatment had in fact taken place," he said.
Briscoe-Mitchell wept on the witness stand Tuesday as she refuted her daughter's account. "It was a happy family, a very happy family," she said.
"My children were my pride and joy."
Briscoe's lawyer, Andrew Caldecott, showed jurors medical forms, tax records and other documents he said backed up Briscoe's claims that she was the victim of "sustained cruelty."
"If the book is from pillar to post a work of fiction, it is a quite extraordinarily wicked thing to do, or a mad thing to do," Caldecott said.
"We say it is a book which has its share of errors, but it was quite properly put in the biography section of the bookshop, not the fiction section."
The court case is expected to last two weeks.
Heart-rending "misery memoirs" are a booming genre in publishing, and this is not the first time an autobiography's truth has been questioned.
American writer Augusten Burroughs was sued by the family depicted in "Running With Scissors," his 2002 book about a bizarre and chaotic upbringing. The case was settled out of court, with Burroughs and his publisher agreeing to call the work a "book" instead of "memoirs."
U.S. author James Frey faced condemnation in 2006 when his best-selling addiction memoir "A Million Little Pieces" was shown to have been substantially fabricated.
Earlier this year Ishmael Beah, author of a best-selling memoir about his time as a boy soldier in Sierra Leone, denied claims that he exaggerated his war service.
One of the most notorious cases involved Belgian-born, U.S.-based writer Misha Defonseca's 1997 book, "Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years," an extraordinary story of a child's survival during the Holocaust that was translated into 18 languages and made into a French feature film. Earlier this year Defonseca admitted that she had never lived with wolves to escape the Nazis, as the book claims, had not walked 3,000 miles across Europe in search of her parents _ and isn't even Jewish.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov18/0,4670,EUBritainDisputedMemoir,00.html
LONDON — Another best-selling memoir, another battle over the line between truth and fiction.
A British lawyer who wrote a popular book recounting a childhood of emotional and physical abuse is being sued for libel by her mother, who says the claims are fantasy.
Constance Briscoe defends the veracity of her book, "Ugly" _ the nickname she says her mother threw at her as a child. Her lawyer told London's High Court on Tuesday that the book contained some errors but was "quite properly put in the biography section of the bookshop, not the fiction section."
With its harrowing, inspirational and ostensibly true story, "Ugly" has sold more than half a million copies in Britain since it was published in 2006. It was followed by a sequel, "Beyond Ugly."
The child of Jamaican immigrants, Briscoe, 51, grew up in a poor part of London but went on to become a lawyer and one of the first black women in Britain to be appointed a recorder, or part-time judge.
In "Ugly," Briscoe alleges that her mother regularly beat and starved her before abandoning her when she was 13.
The book claims Briscoe's stepfather once stubbed a cigarette out on her hand, and says that as a teenager Briscoe needed surgery on her breasts because of trauma caused by her mother's assaults.
Her mother, Carmen Briscoe-Mitchell, 74, says these and other harrowing incidents are fiction. She is seeking damages from Briscoe and her publisher, Hodder and Stoughton.
Briscoe-Mitchell's lawyer, William Panton, told the court the allegations of abuse were "nonsense" and said that as a child Briscoe had not complained to police, social services or teachers.
"There were opportunities to complain about ill-treatment _ if that ill-treatment had in fact taken place," he said.
Briscoe-Mitchell wept on the witness stand Tuesday as she refuted her daughter's account. "It was a happy family, a very happy family," she said.
"My children were my pride and joy."
Briscoe's lawyer, Andrew Caldecott, showed jurors medical forms, tax records and other documents he said backed up Briscoe's claims that she was the victim of "sustained cruelty."
"If the book is from pillar to post a work of fiction, it is a quite extraordinarily wicked thing to do, or a mad thing to do," Caldecott said.
"We say it is a book which has its share of errors, but it was quite properly put in the biography section of the bookshop, not the fiction section."
The court case is expected to last two weeks.
Heart-rending "misery memoirs" are a booming genre in publishing, and this is not the first time an autobiography's truth has been questioned.
American writer Augusten Burroughs was sued by the family depicted in "Running With Scissors," his 2002 book about a bizarre and chaotic upbringing. The case was settled out of court, with Burroughs and his publisher agreeing to call the work a "book" instead of "memoirs."
U.S. author James Frey faced condemnation in 2006 when his best-selling addiction memoir "A Million Little Pieces" was shown to have been substantially fabricated.
Earlier this year Ishmael Beah, author of a best-selling memoir about his time as a boy soldier in Sierra Leone, denied claims that he exaggerated his war service.
One of the most notorious cases involved Belgian-born, U.S.-based writer Misha Defonseca's 1997 book, "Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years," an extraordinary story of a child's survival during the Holocaust that was translated into 18 languages and made into a French feature film. Earlier this year Defonseca admitted that she had never lived with wolves to escape the Nazis, as the book claims, had not walked 3,000 miles across Europe in search of her parents _ and isn't even Jewish.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov18/0,4670,EUBritainDisputedMemoir,00.html
Husband charged with libel
Sorry to Amanda who posted this before me, I hadn't realized.
I found this pretty interesting. A mad from Colorado was charged with two separate counts of criminal libel after making lude comments about a former lover on Craigslist. He stated that his former wife was having relations with an attorney in order to get free legal services. I was surprised to find out from this story that someone charged with counts like these can spend up to 18 months in jail.
FORT COLLINS, Colo. — A man accused of making unflattering online comments about his former lover and her attorney on Craigslist has been charged with two counts of criminal libel.
"It's not a charge you see a lot of," Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrahamson said of the 1800s-era state law that can put people in jail for the content of their speech or writing.
Abrahamson charged J.P. Weichel, 40, of Loveland, in October over posts he allegedly made on Craigslist's "Rants and Rave" section.
The case began when a woman told Loveland police in December 2007 about postings made about her between November and December 2007. Court records show posts that suggested she traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney and mentioned a visit from child services because of an injury to her child.
Police obtained search warrants for records from Web sites including Craigslist before identifying Weichel as the suspect. Weichel shares a child with the woman.
Weichel, confronted by detectives at his workplace in August, said he was "just venting," according to court records.
No phone listing could be found for Weichel, and his attorney, Michael Liggett of Fort Collins, didn't immediately return a message left Monday by The Associated Press.
Libel is commonly seen as a civil case. Denver attorney Steve Zansberg, who specializes in First Amendment law, said prosecutors seeking criminal libel cases could have a "chilling" effect on free speech in Colorado, particularly over the Internet.
Abrahamson wasn't so sure. He said it is up to police departments to pursue cases.
Zansberg contends the law is outdated, is unclear about stating opinions and is written in such a way that dead people could be victims of criminal libel.
The statute allows prosecution for speech "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or to "expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule." Criminal libel carries a punishment of up to 18 months in prison.
I found this pretty interesting. A mad from Colorado was charged with two separate counts of criminal libel after making lude comments about a former lover on Craigslist. He stated that his former wife was having relations with an attorney in order to get free legal services. I was surprised to find out from this story that someone charged with counts like these can spend up to 18 months in jail.
FORT COLLINS, Colo. — A man accused of making unflattering online comments about his former lover and her attorney on Craigslist has been charged with two counts of criminal libel.
"It's not a charge you see a lot of," Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrahamson said of the 1800s-era state law that can put people in jail for the content of their speech or writing.
Abrahamson charged J.P. Weichel, 40, of Loveland, in October over posts he allegedly made on Craigslist's "Rants and Rave" section.
The case began when a woman told Loveland police in December 2007 about postings made about her between November and December 2007. Court records show posts that suggested she traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney and mentioned a visit from child services because of an injury to her child.
Police obtained search warrants for records from Web sites including Craigslist before identifying Weichel as the suspect. Weichel shares a child with the woman.
Weichel, confronted by detectives at his workplace in August, said he was "just venting," according to court records.
No phone listing could be found for Weichel, and his attorney, Michael Liggett of Fort Collins, didn't immediately return a message left Monday by The Associated Press.
Libel is commonly seen as a civil case. Denver attorney Steve Zansberg, who specializes in First Amendment law, said prosecutors seeking criminal libel cases could have a "chilling" effect on free speech in Colorado, particularly over the Internet.
Abrahamson wasn't so sure. He said it is up to police departments to pursue cases.
Zansberg contends the law is outdated, is unclear about stating opinions and is written in such a way that dead people could be victims of criminal libel.
The statute allows prosecution for speech "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or to "expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule." Criminal libel carries a punishment of up to 18 months in prison.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Colorado Man Faces Criminal Charge in Libel Case
J.P. Weichel decided he needed to vent about his ex-girlfriend on Craigslist's "rant and raves" forum. The two are locked in a visitation dispute over their daughter. Weichel's posts included accusations of "child abuse and welfare fraud and making crude comments about her sex life."
Instead of trying this case in civil court like most libel cases are, Colorado is one of a few states that still prosecute libel as a crime. This statute dates back to the 19th Century and has not yet been changed. "This is what the Legislature of the state of Colorado has determined is criminal," Abrahamson said. "We're obligated to enforce the laws in the state of Colorado." Larry Abrahamson is the Larimer County District Attorney who "filed two criminal charges against Weichel on Oct. 21. The state's libel law carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in jail."
This seems a little extreme for a guy that is upset at his ex, but seriously this guy is 40 years old. Show some maturity. If he needed to vent he should've gone out for a drink with the guys instead of choosing a forum that was read by his ex's friends. Especially since the accusations he was making could get her into a lot of trouble. It may have been his intent to get her in trouble with the law and that would make him look better to the court but without facts to back up his claims he just looks like and idiot and will probably have 18 months to sit and stew about it.
Here is the full story: http//www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-craigslist-libel4-2008dec04,0,2332954.story
Friday, December 5, 2008
Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks is getting sued for defamation.
I happened to hear this story on the way to work this morning. Maines has been know for saying some controversial things over the past few years. This however has seem to gotten her into a little bit more trouble. I also think the plaintiff, Hobbs has a very good case against her.
"The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Hobbs claims he suffered loss of income, injury to his reputation and emotional distress.
Maines attended a Dec. 19 rally in Little Rock, where she claimed Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley — known to sympathizers as the "West Memphis Three" — were innocent and that supposed new evidence pointed to Hobbs. Her comments echoed a Nov. 26, 2007, letter that was still on the Dixie Chicks' Web site on Thursday, in which she claimed that new DNA testing of hair from the crime scene linked Hobbs to the killings and that his behavior after the slayings indicated his guilt. The lawsuit says the claim is false.
Hobbs told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a Feb. 1 interview that his reputation was in tatters and he wanted to clear his name.
"I want people to know I haven't done nothing wrong," Hobbs said. "I want them to hear it from me."" (Associated Press)
You can read the full article on MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28061353/
"The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Hobbs claims he suffered loss of income, injury to his reputation and emotional distress.
Maines attended a Dec. 19 rally in Little Rock, where she claimed Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley — known to sympathizers as the "West Memphis Three" — were innocent and that supposed new evidence pointed to Hobbs. Her comments echoed a Nov. 26, 2007, letter that was still on the Dixie Chicks' Web site on Thursday, in which she claimed that new DNA testing of hair from the crime scene linked Hobbs to the killings and that his behavior after the slayings indicated his guilt. The lawsuit says the claim is false.
Hobbs told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a Feb. 1 interview that his reputation was in tatters and he wanted to clear his name.
"I want people to know I haven't done nothing wrong," Hobbs said. "I want them to hear it from me."" (Associated Press)
You can read the full article on MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28061353/
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Bratz infringing on Barbie's Copyright
MGA has been selling dolls to little girls for years called Bratz dolls. About 4 years ago Mattel filed a suit against MGA to stop making a distributing the dolls since Brazt creater Carter Bryant was a Mattel employee when he created the dolls. Mattel suit for copyright infringment and breach of contract and MGA was ordered to stop making the dolls and afer the holidays, to remove them from shelves. The cute Bratz dolls were hurting Mattel's sale of the classic girls doll, Barbie since they rolled out in 2001. Last year, sales of Barbie dolls was down 16 percent while MGA was making hundreds of millions. The Bratz line stemmed from four original dolls and was expanded to include forty pout lipped beauties. A jury found that all 40 dolls were incorporated in the copyright infringment.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=161685&catid=71
http://www.ksdk.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=161685&catid=71
Advertisements at fault for Death?
Advertising 'Specifically' Designed to Attract Large Crowds
By Jack Neff
Published: December 03, 2008
BATAVIA, Ohio (AdAge.com) -- Security should have been better, but advertising also helped kill a temporary worker at Wal-Mart, according to a lawsuit filed by the estate and relatives of the 34-year-old man trampled by a pre-dawn Black Friday crowd at a Valley Stream, N.Y., store. At least one local police official and one retail marketing consultant also argue that Black Friday marketing and merchandising practices need to change in the wake of the incident.
A complaint filed today in New York State Supreme Court in the Bronx on behalf of survivors of the fallen worker, Jdimytai Damour, claims that besides failing to provide adequate security, Wal-Mart "engaged in specific marketing and advertising techniques to specifically attract a large crowd and create an environment of frenzy and mayhem," according to published reports.
I thought this was a very interesting case. I'm not sure what case can be made with regards to the advertising itself. I think the fault would lie more with the security personel, the actually store location, etc.
Here is the link to the entire article: http://adage.com/article?article_id=132999
By Jack Neff
Published: December 03, 2008
BATAVIA, Ohio (AdAge.com) -- Security should have been better, but advertising also helped kill a temporary worker at Wal-Mart, according to a lawsuit filed by the estate and relatives of the 34-year-old man trampled by a pre-dawn Black Friday crowd at a Valley Stream, N.Y., store. At least one local police official and one retail marketing consultant also argue that Black Friday marketing and merchandising practices need to change in the wake of the incident.
A complaint filed today in New York State Supreme Court in the Bronx on behalf of survivors of the fallen worker, Jdimytai Damour, claims that besides failing to provide adequate security, Wal-Mart "engaged in specific marketing and advertising techniques to specifically attract a large crowd and create an environment of frenzy and mayhem," according to published reports.
I thought this was a very interesting case. I'm not sure what case can be made with regards to the advertising itself. I think the fault would lie more with the security personel, the actually store location, etc.
Here is the link to the entire article: http://adage.com/article?article_id=132999
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Student looses Degree over Myspace Pic
Social networking sites have created new means of socializing and communicating, but also for info gathering. A Student, Stacey Snyder, was a student teacher in PA and was days away from her graduation, when she was expelled for picture on her myspace.com profile. The picture showed Stacey in a shoulder shot, drinking from a plastic cup wearing a pirate hat. The title of her page was " Drunken Pirate".
On the grounds of supporting and encouraging underage drinking, her university declined her recognition of a degree. She then sued for violating her first amendment rights. The courts verdict denined her suit.
I think they are reaching here. Read for yourself:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/12/court_rules_against_teacher_in.html?nav=rss_blog
On the grounds of supporting and encouraging underage drinking, her university declined her recognition of a degree. She then sued for violating her first amendment rights. The courts verdict denined her suit.
I think they are reaching here. Read for yourself:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/12/court_rules_against_teacher_in.html?nav=rss_blog
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Guns N' Roses Upset over Dr. Pepper PR Stunt
This article caught my attention because we had actually been discussing this promotion recently in my other class. Just so happens that it has become a legal issue as well.
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- That Axl Rose kept Guns N' Roses fans waiting 17 years for "Chinese Democracy" didn't seem to bother the corn-rowed rocker all that much. But when Dr Pepper was unable to deliver a free can of soda to everyone in the country upon the album's release, that was more than Axl and his lawyers could stand.
Axl Rose's lawyer has fired off a letter to Dr Pepper. Click on the image to read the missive.Last week the singer's lawyer pounced on the soft-drink marketer, claiming it failed to deliver on its promise to give out the free sodas, turning what began as a great public-relations stunt into a public-relations mess for Dr Pepper. Ketchum is Dr Pepper's PR agency of record. Lawyer fires off letter Alan Gutman, the lawyer representing Axl and Guns N' Roses, sent a scolding letter (which cited Advertising Age's coverage of the campaign), to Larry Young, president-CEO of the Dr Pepper Snapple Group. The letter stated that Dr Pepper's campaign had exploited the singer's reputation and the "eagerly awaited" album, and stated that payment would be sought for the unauthorized use of the Guns N' Roses brand.
Here is the link to the full article: http://adage.com/article?article_id=132925
There appear to be a few issues surrounding this ordeal. The biggest one I feel is that Dr. Pepper had never entered into a contract with the band. Doing so would have eliminated the problem in the first place. As stated above there is alos the unauthorized use of the bands brand and Axl's name. Which they could claim under the appropriation of likeness. Dr. Pepper also might have another issue with regards to misleading advertising, since they were unable to make good on their promise of providing everyone a free beverage.
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- That Axl Rose kept Guns N' Roses fans waiting 17 years for "Chinese Democracy" didn't seem to bother the corn-rowed rocker all that much. But when Dr Pepper was unable to deliver a free can of soda to everyone in the country upon the album's release, that was more than Axl and his lawyers could stand.
Axl Rose's lawyer has fired off a letter to Dr Pepper. Click on the image to read the missive.Last week the singer's lawyer pounced on the soft-drink marketer, claiming it failed to deliver on its promise to give out the free sodas, turning what began as a great public-relations stunt into a public-relations mess for Dr Pepper. Ketchum is Dr Pepper's PR agency of record. Lawyer fires off letter Alan Gutman, the lawyer representing Axl and Guns N' Roses, sent a scolding letter (which cited Advertising Age's coverage of the campaign), to Larry Young, president-CEO of the Dr Pepper Snapple Group. The letter stated that Dr Pepper's campaign had exploited the singer's reputation and the "eagerly awaited" album, and stated that payment would be sought for the unauthorized use of the Guns N' Roses brand.
Here is the link to the full article: http://adage.com/article?article_id=132925
There appear to be a few issues surrounding this ordeal. The biggest one I feel is that Dr. Pepper had never entered into a contract with the band. Doing so would have eliminated the problem in the first place. As stated above there is alos the unauthorized use of the bands brand and Axl's name. Which they could claim under the appropriation of likeness. Dr. Pepper also might have another issue with regards to misleading advertising, since they were unable to make good on their promise of providing everyone a free beverage.
Reporter Held in Contempt in Anthrax Case
After discussing Contempt of Court in class and also reviewing the one specific case in which a reporter was held for Contempt of Court , I researched some recent cases and found an article in the New York Times regarding a for reporter for USA Today, Ms. Toni Locy, and the case that led to her being fined (after being held in contempt by Judge Walton) beginning at $500 a day for seven days, then escalating to $1,000 a day for seven days, then $5,000 a day for seven days. The judge said that he would then consider other options, which lawyers said could include jail time
This case stems from a reporter's decision to refuse to name her confidential sources when reporting about a former Army scientist’s possible role in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Ms. Locy, along with another journalist, were being pressed to reveal their sources by Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a onetime bioterrorism expert for the Army, who was suing the federal government, saying his reputation was ruined by leaks to the news media from law enforcement officials linking him to the attacks.
This is two cases in one really. Not only are we talking about Contempt of Court on the behalf of the reporters, but this case also brings up the issue of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill's reputation. As the judge put it, “There’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with it,” the judge said, yet the public notoriety has “destroyed his life.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20anthrax.html
This case stems from a reporter's decision to refuse to name her confidential sources when reporting about a former Army scientist’s possible role in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Ms. Locy, along with another journalist, were being pressed to reveal their sources by Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a onetime bioterrorism expert for the Army, who was suing the federal government, saying his reputation was ruined by leaks to the news media from law enforcement officials linking him to the attacks.
This is two cases in one really. Not only are we talking about Contempt of Court on the behalf of the reporters, but this case also brings up the issue of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill's reputation. As the judge put it, “There’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with it,” the judge said, yet the public notoriety has “destroyed his life.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20anthrax.html
Monday, December 1, 2008
Gaging the attorneys and media
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/26/caylee.anthony.gag.order/index.html?iref=newssearch
This case is not a media law case; however, it does represent the types of rules and regulations that was brought up in class. For example the prosecution in the State of Florida vs Casey Anthony requested that the judge issue a gag order on the Casey Anthony’s defense team. The case is the highly publicized case of the 22 year old woman charged with killing her 3-year old daughter. The daughter was reported as missing, but she has not been found. The prosecution has a strong case suggesting that Anthony has killed her daughter.
The prosecution contends that the defense team and Anthony family’s lust for “limelight” may sabotage the potential jury pool. The judge stated that the media frenzy will not stop because of the gag order; therefore denying one to be issued. The judge stated that speaking to the media doesn’t rise to the level of being a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. The judge did state to the attorneys and media that “Florida bar rules prohibit "extra-judicial comments" that are likely to prejudice the trial. He stressed that "patently false statements" made with the intent to pollute the jury pool will be referred to the Florida bar for disciplinary action.” He reminded the media that a little girl is missing and to be cognizant of that fact. I think this was a wise ruling because sometimes media attention can’t be avoided. Hopefully the jurors can do the right thing and make a fair decision on the case without media bias.
This case is not a media law case; however, it does represent the types of rules and regulations that was brought up in class. For example the prosecution in the State of Florida vs Casey Anthony requested that the judge issue a gag order on the Casey Anthony’s defense team. The case is the highly publicized case of the 22 year old woman charged with killing her 3-year old daughter. The daughter was reported as missing, but she has not been found. The prosecution has a strong case suggesting that Anthony has killed her daughter.
The prosecution contends that the defense team and Anthony family’s lust for “limelight” may sabotage the potential jury pool. The judge stated that the media frenzy will not stop because of the gag order; therefore denying one to be issued. The judge stated that speaking to the media doesn’t rise to the level of being a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. The judge did state to the attorneys and media that “Florida bar rules prohibit "extra-judicial comments" that are likely to prejudice the trial. He stressed that "patently false statements" made with the intent to pollute the jury pool will be referred to the Florida bar for disciplinary action.” He reminded the media that a little girl is missing and to be cognizant of that fact. I think this was a wise ruling because sometimes media attention can’t be avoided. Hopefully the jurors can do the right thing and make a fair decision on the case without media bias.
More than an obscenity case
http://www.nysun.com/national/porn-stash-puts-obscenity-case-judge-in-awkward/79862/
More than an obscenity case.
I was first interested in this case because it had to do with obscenity. But, then I began thinking about the test and wondered maybe Judge Alex Kozinski have a case against the journalist that published the story about what was on his computer. Seems to me that this could be a case for libel and publication of private embarrassing fact. Of course, the judge would have to prove that he is not a public figure. But, I didn’t think appellate judges were ones that was voted on by the public. I know it depends on the state.
The case
Judge Alex Kozinski is an appeals court judge in California who is residing on an obscenity case. How ironic? Apparently the Los Angeles Times posted online that the judge has been maintaining a public stash of online fetish pornography. The site posted the story, detailing everything that was on his computer. The Judge stated in an interview about the story that he was unaware that the site could be accessed by the public, but defended some of the pictures as being “funny.” The judge stated that he did not use court computers. However, analysts are encouraging the judge to recuse himself from the obscenity case. Do you think this should affect his job and would this bias his opinion. I don’t think his opinion would be biased against anyone. He is supposed to base his opinion on the facts in the case. How do we know what people are viewing on their own time and should it be our business to know?
More than an obscenity case.
I was first interested in this case because it had to do with obscenity. But, then I began thinking about the test and wondered maybe Judge Alex Kozinski have a case against the journalist that published the story about what was on his computer. Seems to me that this could be a case for libel and publication of private embarrassing fact. Of course, the judge would have to prove that he is not a public figure. But, I didn’t think appellate judges were ones that was voted on by the public. I know it depends on the state.
The case
Judge Alex Kozinski is an appeals court judge in California who is residing on an obscenity case. How ironic? Apparently the Los Angeles Times posted online that the judge has been maintaining a public stash of online fetish pornography. The site posted the story, detailing everything that was on his computer. The Judge stated in an interview about the story that he was unaware that the site could be accessed by the public, but defended some of the pictures as being “funny.” The judge stated that he did not use court computers. However, analysts are encouraging the judge to recuse himself from the obscenity case. Do you think this should affect his job and would this bias his opinion. I don’t think his opinion would be biased against anyone. He is supposed to base his opinion on the facts in the case. How do we know what people are viewing on their own time and should it be our business to know?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)