MediaLawLetter June 2021
Fifty years has not definitively resolved the impact and import of the Pentagon Papers case. Was it a monumental victory for the press? Was it a loss, since for the first time the courts imposed a prior restraint on a newspaper? Or was it an inconsequential one-off, since it hasn’t been a precedent for many subsequent cases?
Journalists may face less risk for commonplace investigative computer reporting techniques thanks to a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the statute does not violate the First Amendment, and thus the state may prosecute a person for sharing intimate sexual photos of another when the defendant was not involved in the depicted encounter.
The unanimous decision provides much-needed guidance to creators of content about real people and events, making clear that a docudrama about a newsworthy subject cannot give rise to a Section 51 claim unless it misleads viewers into believing that it is entirely accurate.
Utah Court: Calling a Person Racist or Attributing Racist Statements to Him Not Actionable in DefamationVictoria R. Luman
In dismissing the claims, the court ruled that characterizing a statement as racist is a non-actionable opinion protected by the First Amendment.
As the panel wrote, the defendants are not trying to hold Snap liable as a publisher under Section 230. Rather, Snap is liable for a negligently designed product as a manufacturer — a completely different role.
Thomas believed that her removal and subsequent exclusion from the List was retribution, motivated by the City government’s disapproval of her coverage.
As Harry And Meghan Become a Hybrid Royal /Celebrity Couple, What If Any Is Their Impact on Celebrity Reporting?Amber Melville-Brown
The employment of a PR velvet glove around an iron legal fist appears to be the couple’s strategy for elbowing third party reporters and snappers out of the way as they take control of their own images.