{"id":2219,"date":"2008-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-june-2008\/"},"modified":"2020-10-12T21:37:47","modified_gmt":"2020-10-12T21:37:47","slug":"medialawletter-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2008\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter June 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a> Download Publication<\/a><\/p>\n Ethics Corner: Close Corporation Conflicts 5th Cir.: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of MySpace \u201cSexual Predator\u201d Suit LIBEL & PRIVACY<\/p>\n D. Me.: \u201cParody News\u201d Libel Suit Against Fox News Thrown Out Cal. App.: Court Vacates Discovery Order In SLAPP Suit W.D. Ky.: Kentucky Court Adopts Narrow View of Public Concern S.D. Cal.: Libel and Privacy Suit Over Online Newspaper Archive Dismissed E.D. Va.: Virginia Court Dismisses Libel and Trademark Claims Against Website Vt. Sup.: Vermont Court Applies Section 230 to Dismiss Libel Claim D. Conn.: Court Refuses to Protect Identity of Anonymous Poster in Law Student Libel Case Cal. App.: California Anti-SLAPP Statute Cannot Be Used to Challenge Subpoena M.D. Pa.: Pennsylvania Court Dismisses Defamation Suit Over Online Postings D.D.C.: No Jurisdiction or Defamation Claim Against Ohio Newspaper for D.C. Ex-Con D.S.C.: Fair Report Privilege Protects Report of Candidate\u2019s Arrest Wash. App.: Washington Court of Appeals Strikes Down State\u2019s Criminal Libel Statute 6th Cir.: Sixth Circuit Affirms Defense Verdict in Unusual Strict Liability Case 2d Cir.: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit Over Diet Book D. Md.: Maryland Court Dismisses Defamation Suit Against Fox S.D.N.Y.: \u201cNaked Cowboy\u201d Has No New York Privacy Claim for M&M Ad N.Y. Sup.: Trial Court Quashes Subpoena to Reporter United Kingdom: NY Times and International Herald Tribune Win Dismissal of Libel Suits United Kingdom: English Court of Appeal Upholds JK Rowling\u2019s Son\u2019s Breach of Privacy Claim France: Keyword Advertising in France: Supreme Court Refers Issue to Court of Justice<\/p>\n S.D.N.Y.: Fifteen Seconds of \u201cImagine\u201d in Movie Permitted as Fair Use N.J. Super. Ct.: Court Orders Disclosure of Governor\u2019s Emails to Ex-Girlfriend \/ Union ChiefMLRC<\/h3>\n
No Easy Answers<\/em><\/p>\nINTERNET<\/h3>\n
Website Not Liable For Third Party Content<\/em>
Doe v. MySpace, Inc.,<\/p>\n
No Evidence of Constitutional Malice<\/em>
Levesque v. Doocy<\/p>\n
Newspaper Suing Freelance Journalist Faces Dismissal, Fee Award<\/em>
Paterno v. Superior Court of Orange County<\/p>\n
\u201cTroubleshooter\u201d Broadcasts Not of Public Concern<\/em>
Mackin v. Cosmos Broadcasting, Inc.<\/p>\n
Report About Plaintiff\u2019s Arrest Was True<\/em>
Vanginderen v. Cornell University<\/p>\n
Complaint Over Third Party Content Fails Under Both Theories<\/em>
Nemet Chevrolet v. ConsumerAffairs.com<\/p>\n
Provider of Interactive Computer Services Immune from Publisher Liability<\/em>
Mayhew v. Dunn<\/p>\n
Plaintiff Made \u201cConcrete\u201d Showing of Claim<\/em>
Doe I and Doe II v. Individuals<\/p>\n
Anonymous Bloggers Can\u2019t Recover Attorney\u2019s Fees<\/em>
Tendler v. Jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com<\/p>\n
\u201cImprudent Tirades\u201d Not Defamatory<\/em>
Purcell v. Ewing<\/p>\n
No Personal Jurisdiction; No False Statement<\/em>
Copeland-Jackson v. Oslin<\/p>\n
News Reports Were Fair Summary of Arrest Report<\/em>
Cobin v. Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc.<\/p>\n
State Law Failed to Require Actual Malice; Was Vague and Overbroad<\/em>
Parmelee v. O\u2019Neel<\/p>\n
Defendant Proved Truth and Opinion<\/em>
Lassister v. Lassiter<\/p>\n
Diet Advice and Ideas Fully Protected by First Amendment<\/em>
Gorran v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.<\/p>\n
Rejects Plaintiffs\u2019 \u201cDiscovery Rule\u201d Argument<\/em>
Interphase Garment Solutions, LLC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.<\/p>\n
Can Proceed with Federal False Endorsement Claim<\/em>
Burck v. Mars, Inc.<\/p>\nREPORTERS PRIVILEGE<\/h3>\n
Testimony Was Sought in Medical Malpractice Case<\/em>
In the Matter of Michael Sheehan<\/p>\nINTERNATIONAL<\/h3>\n
\u201cAbuse of Process\u201d for Libel Suits to Go Forward in England<\/em>
Mardas v. New York Times Company<\/p>\n
Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd<\/p>\nCOPYRIGHT<\/h3>\n
Use of Song Clip in Movie Was Transformative<\/em>
Lennon v. Premise Media Corp.<\/p>\nACCESS \/ FREEDOM OF INFORMATION<\/h3>\n
Emails Are Public Records<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n