Here is another site...Independent Press Councils. I don't think we have anything like this in the United States. Who monitors the press, really? This council has no legal authority, but it does monitor complaints about the media and subscribes to a code of ethics. It is interesting to note how differently the U.S. handles press related issues as compared to other countries.

http://www.aipce.net/whatIsAPressCouncil/

You all have got to read about his commission. It accepts, investigates and attempts to resolve privacy issues. Check out the stories detailing cases that have been reported and those having been resolved. This is really interesting because last semester in one of my Public Relations classes I mentioned that a self-policing Commission or Agency like this to investigate and monitor press conduct was needed in the United States. Didn't know that one really existed in another country.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/index.html

Sullivan case could be applied to Jamaica Law

Media officials and a parliamentary committee were engaged in a heated verbal battle. The two sides were attempting to reach a comprise on whether or not to accept Sullivan versus New York Times principle as it relates to the exposure of of corrupt public officials. The Media Association of Jamaica and the Press Association of Jamaica have asked that the "Sullivan approach be adopted into Jamaican law."

We learned from readings and lecture that under the Sullivan case that damages cannot be awarded to a public official for defamation as it relates to his official conduct and the burden of proving actual malice to the public official before a publication is defamatory.

What I found interesting was that Jamaica is just now debating over this issue.

To read full article see

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20090627/lead/lead3.html

Bernard Madoff gets maximum 150 years in prison

The 71 year old former CEO chairman of Nasdaq pleaded guilty to fraud and other charges, was sentence to 150 years in jail. Bernard Madoff was sentenced to prison for his mulibillion dollar fraud scheme. The U.S. District Judge Chin sentenced him today. The defense attorney wanted a 12 years sentence, considering his age and that would meet life. But the prosecutors wanted the maximum. The federal department recommended 50 years. The judge called the fraud "staggering" and said it had went on for over 20 years. Mentioning the breach of trust was massive. 

It is amazing how some things come to light. This guy must have thought after 20 years there is no way I can get caught. I am glad he got the maximum, although this doesn't return the money that was stolen from his victums. The news mentions how he stole from 401's and even caused people to kill themselfs. They were able to stripe Bernard of almost everything, his wife tryed to hide moneys but I think they were able to get that as well. (WEEK 5)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_madoff_scandal;_ylt=Ah3ml.Sco1C9yyC5PppR9NNv24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTJjMm8ybzJiBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC91c19tYWRvZmZfc2NhbmRhbARjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNiZXJuYXJkbWFkb2Y-

Hasselbeck sued for plagiarism

The View co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck was sued this week for allegedly copying sections of another woman's diet book. Susan Hassett says she mailed Hasselbeck a copy of her book, "Living with Celiac's Disease" - which she self-published in 2008 - for Hasselbeck to discuss on The View. However, Hassett says portions of her book can be found verbatim in Hasselbeck's book "The G-Free Diet: A Gluten-Free Survival Guide."

What is interesting to me about this case is that Hasset self-published her book. I'm guessing it doesn't matter who published the book, it's a published work and not just an idea Hasset had and sent to Hasselbeck. At the time of this article, Hasselbeck hadn't responded to the lawsuit, so I'm curious to see how she responds and how this case unfolds.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN238084120090623

Appeals Court Backs Prison for E-Mail Obscenity

This article relates really well to what we were talking about last class in regards to obscenity and the First Amendment. The article talks about a Virginia man, named Dwight Whorely, who under court findings violated criminal statues regulating obscenity. Whorely, who the article also states is an apparent pedophile, was in violation for writing out his sexual fantasies involving children, and e-mailing them to like-minded internet friends and being in possession of obscene Japanese manga. The latter charge is in violation of the recently-enacted Protect Act, which outlaws obscene cartoons depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The article goes on to explain that the case has gained much attention from the Supreme Court, particularly Judge Roger Gregory. He is looking to take up the case and reverse the outcomes, saying that this case is "convicting a man for the victimless crime of privately communicating his personal fantasies to other consenting adults." He goes on to state that the Supreme Court ruling that made it is illegal for Americans to traffic obscene materials that they possess through interstate commerce, which today includes the internet, has not kept up with technology and should be changed. I am very surprised that a Supreme Court judge would give this case a second look and would want to try to change the outcome. I understand that because of today's vast and growing technologies there are many factors that play into these rulings but when it revolves around any type of child pornography it shouldn't matter if the e-mails were consensual or not.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/email-obscenity/#more-6339

FTC to Regulate Bloggers' Product Reviews

In what is said to be "the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online," the FTC is drawing up guidelines regarding how bloggers review products. According to the source below, the rules are expected to go into effect sometime late this summer. If someone is found to be in violation of the new regulations, the FTC can go after any individual blogger or company that makes the product being reviewed. I scan the Internet for product reviews almost every time I have to make a significant purchase, just to possibly avoid buying a brand that's bad news or in an attempt to find an especially good product. The FTC's issue is that some people are reviewing products online that they are getting (sometimes big) compensation for without disclosing that information. The article quoted a study that indicated some bloggers are getting as much as $3000 for just posting 200 words about a product, not to mention free vacations and other pricey perks. These regulations would also cover Twitter and any other media that someone uses to do a product review.

While I'm not a big fan of any attempts at Internet regulation in general, I can at least see the point behind someone being forced to confess that they received an all-expenses-paid trip to the resort they just raved about on their blog. One part of the regulation that seems sketchy to me, however, is that they will also have rules regarding your average blogger linking to the websites of products they mention, which is pretty much standard in the blog world. As you can imagine, the article includes quotes from bloggers who are not exactly happy about the news. Read more about this here.