{"id":2062,"date":"2011-10-18T17:13:04","date_gmt":"2011-10-18T17:13:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-march-2011\/"},"modified":"2020-08-20T19:03:36","modified_gmt":"2020-08-20T19:03:36","slug":"medialawletter-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter March 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"pdf\"<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong> Download Publication<\/a><\/span><\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/h3>\n

U.S.: It\u2019s All Over But The Shouting<\/a>
Despite Early Mixed Signals, Eight Justices Vote to Protect Funeral Protests<\/em>
Snyder v. Phelps<\/p>\n

U.S.: Court Limits Two Federal Freedom of Information Act Exemptions<\/a>
In Separate Opinions, Grammar and Ordinary Meaning Rule as High Court Rejects Corporate \u201cPersonal Privacy\u201d and \u201cHigh 2\u201d<\/em>
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc.; Milner v. Department of the Navy<\/p>\n

U.S.: Court to Consider Whether Restoration of Certain Foreign Copyrights Violates Copyright Clause or First Amendment<\/a>
Court Took Case despite Solicitor General\u2019s Objection<\/em>
Golan v. Holder<\/p>\n

LIBEL & PRIVACY<\/h3>\n

N.D. Ill.: Snyder Applied To Dismiss Right of Publicity Claim In Reality TV Case<\/a>
Plaintiff\u2019s Arrest a Matter of Public Concern<\/em>
Best v. Malec<\/p>\n

Mass. App.: Newspaper Articles about Prisoner\u2019s Online Personal Ads Not Libelous<\/a>
Articles Not Actionably False; Plaintiff a Limited Purpose Public Figure<\/em>
LaChance v. Boston Herald, Inc.<\/p>\n

N.Y. Sup.: Court Dismisses Defamation and Privacy Claims Based on Publication of Youth\u2019s Photograph with Article on Gangs<\/a>
Newspaper was not Grossly Irresponsible as Photo had Journalistic Connection<\/em>
Knutt v. Metro International, S.A.<\/p>\n

Tex. App.: CBS Wins Appeal in Defamation Case<\/a>
Broadcast about Doctor Was Substantially True<\/em>
Neely v. Wilson<\/p>\n

Mich.: Michigan Supreme Court Sings Dr. Dre\u2019s Song after Decade of Litigation<\/a>
Rapper Did Not Violate Eavesdropping Statutes by Filming Police<\/em>
Bowens v. Young<\/p>\n

N.Y. Sup.: Snyder v. Washington City Paper<\/a>
Legitimate Defamation or Empty Intimidation Tactic?<\/em><\/p>\n

N.Y. Sup.: Court Dismisses Idea Theft and Slander Claims in Kids Cookbook Dispute<\/a>
Idea for Book Not Novel; Criticism of Plaintiff Protected Opinion<\/em>
Lapine v. Seinfeld, HarperCollins<\/p>\n

2d Cir.: Court Affirms Dismissal of First Amendment Retaliation Claim<\/a>
Per Se Defamation Does Not Satisfy \u201cActual Chilling\u201d Requirement<\/em>
Zherka v. Amicone<\/p>\n

REPORTERS’ PRIVILEGE<\/h3>\n

2d Cir.: Second Circuit Preserves Gonzales Journalist\u2019s Privilege In Face of Sixth Amendment Rights<\/a>
Court Considered Novel Issue of Scope of Journalist\u2019s Cross Examination<\/em>
U.S. v. Treacy<\/p>\n

Colo. Dist.: Court Quashes Subpoena to TV Station for IP Address in Murder Case<\/a>
First Amendment Shielded News Source\u2019s IP Address<\/em>
People of Colorado v. Adan Viveros<\/p>\n

NEWS & UPDATES<\/h3>\n

<\/a>E.D. Va.: Twitter Must Disclose Subscriber Records in Wikileaks Criminal Investigation<\/a>
Request for Records Does Not Raise First or Fourth Amendment Issues<\/em>
In re Application of the U.S. For an Order Pursuant to 18 USC 2703(d)
<\/em><\/p>\n

ACCESS<\/h3>\n

<\/a>D. Ariz.: Court Unseals Search Warrant Materials in Giffords Shooting Case<\/a>
Qualified First Amendment Right of Access<\/em>
United States v. Loughner<\/p>\n

INTERNATIONAL<\/h3>\n

<\/a>France: French Court Dismisses Criminal Libel Case between Academics<\/a>
Using Criminal Proceedings in a Defamation Case Is Not Without Risk<\/em>
France v. Weiler<\/p>\n

ETHICS<\/h3>\n

Newspaper v. Judge = Recusal?<\/a>
It Takes More than Some Bad Press to Force His Honor to Step Aside<\/em><\/p>\n

Tatgenhorst v. WBBM-TV
Cal. App. Appeals Court Calls for Eliminating Appeals from Denials of Anti-SLAPP Motions<\/div>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMediaLawLetter March 2011 - Media Law Resource Center<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MediaLawLetter March 2011 - Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\" Download Publication SUPREME COURT U.S.: It\u2019s All Over But The ShoutingDespite Early Mixed Signals, Eight Justices Vote to Protect Funeral ProtestsSnyder v. Phelps U.S.: Court Limits Two Federal Freedom of Information Act ExemptionsIn Separate Opinions, Grammar and Ordinary Meaning Rule as High Court Rejects Corporate \u201cPersonal Privacy\u201d and \u201cHigh 2\u201dFederal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc.;...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-08-20T19:03:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"16\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"16\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/gif\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/\",\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter March 2011 - Media Law Resource Center\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-18T17:13:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-20T19:03:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"width\":16,\"height\":16,\"caption\":\"pdf\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issues\/publication\/medialawletter\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter March 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/\",\"name\":\"Media Law Resource Center\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"MediaLawLetter March 2011 - Media Law Resource Center","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MediaLawLetter March 2011 - Media Law Resource Center","og_description":" Download Publication SUPREME COURT U.S.: It\u2019s All Over But The ShoutingDespite Early Mixed Signals, Eight Justices Vote to Protect Funeral ProtestsSnyder v. Phelps U.S.: Court Limits Two Federal Freedom of Information Act ExemptionsIn Separate Opinions, Grammar and Ordinary Meaning Rule as High Court Rejects Corporate \u201cPersonal Privacy\u201d and \u201cHigh 2\u201dFederal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc.;...","og_url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/","og_site_name":"Media Law Resource Center","article_modified_time":"2020-08-20T19:03:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":16,"height":16,"url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","type":"image\/gif"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/","name":"MediaLawLetter March 2011 - Media Law Resource Center","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","datePublished":"2011-10-18T17:13:04+00:00","dateModified":"2020-08-20T19:03:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","contentUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","width":16,"height":16,"caption":"pdf"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2011\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"MediaLawLetter","item":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issues\/publication\/medialawletter\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"MediaLawLetter March 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/","name":"Media Law Resource Center","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_issue\/2062"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_issue"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post_issue"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/79"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2062"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issues-publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues-publication?post=2062"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}