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.
Not a member yet?
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.
If the operative quote of the last 20 months was “You have to unmute yourself,” the most oft spoken words at the Conference were, “This is so much better than Zoom.”
A federal court partially reinstated Devin Nunes’s defamation lawsuit over an Esquire article, determining that some libel-by-implication claims were actionable, and that a post-publication tweet, after the reporter had received Nunes’s denial, could evidence actual malice.
The court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Joseph Fox was a limited purpose public figure who failed to introduce any evidence of actual malice, that the statements in the article were substantially true, and that one of the statements was not actionable under the Illinois innocent construction rule.
The court entered final summary judgment in favor of the station and reporter Bob Norman, finding, among other things, that what they had reported was true in all material respects.
A federal judge sided with Maine ‘s two largest newspapers in a libel lawsuit filed four years ago by a former VA doctor.
Although upholding the lower court’s decision, the Illinois Appellate Court arguably crafted a new framework to determine whether a forum selection clause applied to tort claims.
A coalition of 16 news media organizations has now litigated the release of more than 100 exhibits of video evidence submitted in the prosecutions of the participants in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
The Court held that the right of judicial appeal of such decisions under the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”) rests only with the “political subdivision” or the “requester.”
This opinion is significant among Eleventh Circuit case law because it discusses in detail the issues of access, substantial similarity, and independent creation despite finding that each issue separately afforded grounds for summary judgment.
The question before the Court was whether Somberg, an attorney, was entitled under the First Amendment to obtain photo-audio-video records of courtroom proceedings streamed outside the courtroom.
In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Vaught,the court reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging an Arkansas “ag-gag” law, which allows commercial facilities to sue parties for conducting undercover investigations into farm animal welfare and recover up to $5,000 per day in damages.
In a decision with far-reaching ramifications for social media engagement in Australia, the country's top court ruled that media companies may be liable for allegedly defamatory comments left by readers on their Facebook posts.
An address honoring the recently retired attorney on the final day of MLRC’s 2021 Media Law Conference in Virginia.
An address honoring the late Kurt Wimmer, longtime media attorney and former MLRC board member, at the bi-annual Media Law Conference in Virginia.