MLRC is a non-profit membership association for members of the media and their defense lawyers. We provide a wide range of resources on media law and policy issues.
Legal Frontiers in Digital Media 2022
The annual conference on emerging legal issues at the intersection of digital media, freedom of speech, and law.
A practical checklist for attorneys to use when a client seeks advice about potential criminal or civil liability arising out of accessing and/or publishing information where the source (a) was not legally authorized to obtain and/or disclose the information to the press, and (b) insists on being promised confidentiality as a condition for providing the…
The Harvard Law professor discusses his forthcoming book “Liars, Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception” and many other topics in First Amendment law.
Log in to access all content
Not a member yet?
Join MLRC today!
We provide you with essential tools to advance First Amendment and media rights, and a supportive community in which to discuss emerging legal issues and the future of communication.
MediaLawLetter April 2022
Anti-SLAPP Legislation Introduced in Kentucky; Fight for the Videos of the Landmark Prop 8 Trial Again Moves to the Supreme Court; Ninth Circuit Reaffirms CFAA Does Not Prohibit Web Scraping in hiQ v. LinkedIn; MLRC Conferences in the Covid-Era; 10 Questions for Tenaya Rodewald and more
MediaLawLetter March 2022
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of The Most Bizarre Lawsuit Involving The Most Gullible Man in Cambridge; Ninth Circuit’s Dark Horse Opinion Clarifies What Music Is Not Protected by Copyright; Court Affirms Ruling That Twitter’s Lawsuit Over Alleged Retaliation By Texas AG Is Unripe; In Praise of the Neutral Report Privilege; 10 Questions for Adolfo Jimenez…
New York Times v. Sullivan: The Case for Preserving an Essential Precedent
MLRC has asked multiple experts to examine each of the major contentions that undergird the Justices’ calls for Sullivan to be revisited. Collectively, they make an unassailable case that Sullivan’s rendition of the First Amendment-based limitations on libel law was correct when the case was decided and that it remains equally correct today.