{"id":2072,"date":"2010-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-january-2010\/"},"modified":"2020-10-12T21:37:52","modified_gmt":"2020-10-12T21:37:52","slug":"medialawletter-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter January 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

SUPREME COURT<\/h3>\n

U.S.:  Citizens United: Campaign Cataclysm or Politics as Usual?<\/a>
1st Amendment Bars Categorical Distinctions Based on Corporate Identity<\/em>
Citizens United v. FEC<\/p>\n

U.S.: Supreme Court Addresses Right of Access to Voir Dire<\/a>
Courts Must Independently Consider Alternatives to Closing Court Proceedings<\/em>
Presley v. Georgia<\/p>\n

U.S.: Court To Hear First Amendment Challenge to State Public Records Act<\/a>
Case Involves Disclosure of Petition Signers<\/em>
Doe v. Reed<\/p>\n

U.S.: Deeply Split Supreme Court Bars Cameras in Prop. 8 Same-Sex Marriage Trial<\/a>
An Analysis In Favor of Camera Access<\/em>
Hollingsworth v. Perry<\/p>\n

MLRC<\/h3>\n

<\/a>MLRC\/Southwestern Law School 7th Annual Entertainment and Media Law Conference<\/a><\/p>\n

LIBEL & PRIVACY<\/h3>\n

<\/a>Mass.: Fair Report Privilege Applicable To Reports Of Confidential Government Actions Based On Anonymous Sources<\/a><\/a><\/a>
Privilege Applies Even if Based on Confidential Sources<\/em>
Howell v. Enterprise Publishing Company, LLC<\/p>\n

Tex. App.: Texas Weekly Newspaper Loses Battle To Protect Confidential Sources And Avoid Libel Trial<\/a>
Newspaper Needs Help Raising Money for Imminent Trial<\/em>
Klentzman and Carter Publications, Inc. d\/b\/a The West Fort Bend Star, Inc. v. Wade Brady<\/p>\n

N.J. App.: Truth is a Defense to Defamation Claim Despite Expungement<\/a>
Case of First Impression in New Jersey<\/em>
G.D. v. Kenny et al.<\/p>\n

Cal. App.: Summary Judgment for Newspaper Affirmed on Appeal<\/a>
Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion Not Law of the Case on Summary Judgment<\/em>
Portner v. Sullivan<\/p>\n

4th Cir.: Court Affirms Consumer Website\u2019s Sec. 230 Immunity in Defamation Case<\/a>
Website Did Not Create Consumer Complaints<\/em>
Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.<\/p>\n

Pa. Comm.: Court Dismisses Libel Lawsuit Arising From Satire in Legal Newspaper<\/a>
No Evidence of Actual Malice<\/em>
Leber v. Young<\/p>\n

S.D. W. Va: Rigorous Standard of Review for Libel-by-Implication Claims<\/a>
Defendant Must Intend or Endorse Implication<\/em>
Tomblin v. WCHS-TV8<\/p>\n

Cal. App.: Damage Award in Michael Jackson Illegal Videotape Case Overturned<\/a>
$20 Million Award Excessive<\/em>
Geragos v. Borer<\/p>\n

ACCESS<\/h3>\n

Fla. App.: Reporter Can Blog Live From Trial<\/a>
Court Quashed Trial Court Order Baring Use of Laptop to Live Blog<\/em>
Morris Publishing Co., LLC v. State of Florida<\/p>\n

Ill.: Opposite Outcomes in Two High Profile Illinois Access Cases<\/a>
Different Approaches to Pretrial Publicity in Criminal Cases<\/em>
People v. R. Kelly; People v. Peterson<\/p>\n

REPORTERS PRIVILEGE<\/h3>\n

Kan.: Court Orders Reporter to Disclose Confidential Source<\/a>
State Supreme Court Issues Emergency Stay Pending Appeal<\/em>
GateHouse Media Kansas Holdings II, Inc. v. The Hon. Daniel L. Love<\/p>\n

INTERNATIONAL<\/h3>\n

<\/a>UK: Other Side of the Pond: Lord Justice Jackson Libel Report Produces Important Changes For Defendants<\/a>
Dramatic Changes Proposed for Conditional Fee Arrangements<\/em><\/p>\n

France: French Court Rules That Google Books Violates French Law<\/a>
Digitizing and Availability in France Violates IP Law<\/em>
Editions la Martini\u00e8re v. Google, Inc., Google France<\/p>\n

UK: Court Refuses to Enforce US Copyright Judgment or Hear US Copyright Infringement<\/a>
ClaimCopyright Enforcement Analyzed in \u201cStormtrooper\u201d Helmet Case<\/em>
Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth<\/p>\n

ETHICS<\/h3>\n

<\/a>The \u201cProspective Client\u201d Under Model Rule 1.18 and Motions to Disqualify<\/a>
Case Law on Rule 1.18<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMediaLawLetter January 2010 - 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-january-2010\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MediaLawLetter January 2010 - Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\" Download Publication SUPREME COURT U.S.:  Citizens United: Campaign Cataclysm or Politics as Usual?1st Amendment Bars Categorical Distinctions Based on Corporate IdentityCitizens United v. FEC U.S.: Supreme Court Addresses Right of Access to Voir DireCourts Must Independently Consider Alternatives to Closing Court ProceedingsPresley v. Georgia U.S.: Court To Hear First Amendment Challenge to State Public Records...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-10-12T21:37:52+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-january-2010\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/\",\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter January 2010 - Media Law Resource Center\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-01T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-12T21:37:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/#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-january-2010\/#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 January 2010\"}]},{\"@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 January 2010 - 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-january-2010\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MediaLawLetter January 2010 - Media Law Resource Center","og_description":" Download Publication SUPREME COURT U.S.:  Citizens United: Campaign Cataclysm or Politics as Usual?1st Amendment Bars Categorical Distinctions Based on Corporate IdentityCitizens United v. FEC U.S.: Supreme Court Addresses Right of Access to Voir DireCourts Must Independently Consider Alternatives to Closing Court ProceedingsPresley v. Georgia U.S.: Court To Hear First Amendment Challenge to State Public Records...","og_url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/","og_site_name":"Media Law Resource Center","article_modified_time":"2020-10-12T21:37:52+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-january-2010\/","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/","name":"MediaLawLetter January 2010 - Media Law Resource Center","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","datePublished":"2010-01-01T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-12T21:37:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2010\/#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-january-2010\/#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 January 2010"}]},{"@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\/2072"}],"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=2072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issues-publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues-publication?post=2072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}