{"id":2323,"date":"2004-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-february-2004\/"},"modified":"2020-10-12T21:37:35","modified_gmt":"2020-10-12T21:37:35","slug":"medialawletter-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter February 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

MLRC<\/h3>\n

Bulletin: MLRC 2004 Report on Trials and Damages
Trials Against Media Defendants<\/p>\n

Legislative: Legislative Affairs Update: Congress Considers Indecency Bills
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act; Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act; Congressional Research Accessibility Act<\/em><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/h3>\n

S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Sammy \u201cThe Bull\u201d Gravano
Application of forfeiture statutes to book proceeds<\/em>
State v. Gravano<\/p>\n

S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects 9\/11 Access Appeal
Deportation proceedings were closed<\/em>
US v. Bellahouel<\/p>\n

LIBEL & PRIVACY<\/h3>\n

W.D. Mo.: Judge Issues, Then Rescinds, Prior Restraint in Libel Case
Following the lifting of the order, TV station identified man caught in Internet sex sting<\/em>
John Doe v. KCTV-5<\/p>\n

Ind. Cir. Ct.: Indiana Mayor Wins Libel Trial Against Local Newspaper
Jury awards $235,000 in compensatory damages and punitives for publication of political ad<\/em>
Shepard v. The Daily Clintonian<\/p>\n

Mo. Cir. Ct.: Substantial Truth and Fair Report Support Summary Judgment in Doctor\u2019s Suit
Court follows rule that language must be evaluated in context<\/em>
Marylou Davis, M.D. v. KMOV-TV and Multimedia KSDK, Inc.<\/p>\n

Cal. App.: California Appeals Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Libel Suit Against San Diego Union-Tribune
Court finds statement concerning a person\u2019s motivation is generally a matter of opinion<\/em>
Atiga v. San Diego Union-Tribune<\/p>\n

Ohio App.: Ohio Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Newspaper
Jury could find quotes were fabricated<\/em>
Murray v. Beacon Journal Publishing Company<\/p>\n

La. Dist. Ct.: Louisiana Court Dismisses Lawsuit by Mardi Gras Reveler
Judge suggests person riding float at Mardi Gras parade assumes risk of publicity<\/em>
Johnson v. John Wiley & Sons Publishers, et al.<\/p>\n

N.D. Tex.: No Jurisdiction Over German Publishers in Texas
Court finds Europe, not Texas, was the \u201cgeographic focus\u201d of articles<\/em>
Fielding v. Hubert Burda Media, Inc.<\/p>\n

N.Y.A.D.: Flynn on The Hot Seat in \u201cMulberry Street\u201d
Libel and fraud claims continue over professor\u2019s research project<\/em>
164 Mulberry St. Corp. v. Columbia University<\/p>\n

N.M.: Court Rules that One Scholar\u2019s Criticism of Another is Not Defamatory
Court deems comments, in context of academic community, to be understood as non-defamatory<\/em>
Fikes v. Furst<\/p>\n

E.D. Tex.: Scott O\u2019Grady Misappropriation\/Lanham Act Case Settles During Trial
Air force pilot shot down in Bosnia sued Discovery Channel under Lanham Act<\/em><\/p>\n

N.J. App.: Plaintiff Must Plead Actual Malice with Specificity to Defeat Fair Report Privilege
Court says allowing case to continue on a mere allegation of actual malice violates free speech<\/em>
Darakjian v. Hanna<\/p>\n

W.D. Pa.: Bare Allegation that Corporate Officer was Responsible for Content of Broadcast
Is Sufficient to Overcome Fraudulent Joinder Argument<\/em>
Joyce v. NextMedia Operating, Inc., et al.<\/p>\n

Ill. Cir. Ct.: Newspaper Is Immune from Liability for Publishing Name of Juvenile Sex Offender
Juvenile Court Act conferred immunity for secondary release of legally obtained information<\/em>
Doe v. Kankakee Daily Journal Company<\/p>\n

Tex. App.: Court Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment in Public Official Libel Case
Record presented fact issues of actual malice and substantial truth<\/em>
The Hearst Corporation, et al. v. Jack Skeen, Jr. et al.<\/p>\n

Mass. Super.: Trial Court Rules that Single Publication Rule Applies to Internet Publication
Decision continues trend seen last month in Georgia and Mississippi decisions<\/em>
Abate v. Maine Antique Digest<\/p>\n

REPORTER\u2019S PRIVILEGE<\/h3>\n

Ala.: Judge Seeks Guidance from Alabama Supreme Court in Reporter\u2019s Privilege Case
Federal district judge asks state supreme court whether shield law protects magazine reporters<\/em>
Price v. Time, Inc. and Don Yaeger<\/p>\n

N.J.: Super. Rare Rejection of Reporter\u2019s Privilege by New Jersey Court
Court orders reporter to reveal source for article in criminal case after other witnesses testify<\/em>
State v. Daly<\/p>\n

ACCESS\/NEWSGATHERING<\/h3>\n

11th Cir.: Appeal Heard in Morris v. PGA: Are There Property Rights in Real Time Golf Scores?
Outcome will significantly impact the ability of news agencies to timely report facts via Internet<\/em>
Morris v. PGA Tour<\/p>\n

2d Cir.: Closure of Voir Dire in Martha Stewart Trial Was Error
Substantial media coverage of the case was not enough to warrant wholesale closure<\/em>
In re ABC Inc., et al.<\/p>\n

Cal. Super.: News Organizations Battle for Access to Michael Jackson Proceedings and Records
Coalition of major media entities fight on several fronts to ensure maximum public access<\/em>
People v. Michael Jackson<\/p>\n

Cal. App.: California Appellate Court Upholds \u2018No Cameras\u2019 Ruling in Peterson Trial
Final order entered barring television coverage<\/em>
People v Peterson<\/p>\n

Tex.: Texas Attorney General Rules that State Access Law Limits HIPAA Privacy Rule
Government bodies using HIPAA as a shield must reconsider disclosure<\/em><\/p>\n

Ala.: Court Rules that a Public Corporation is Subject to State\u2019s Open Records Law
Unanimous decision applies open records law to a public corporation for the first time<\/em>
Water Works and Sewer Bd. of the City of Talladega v. Consolidated Publishing, Inc.<\/p>\n

N.J. Super.: Judge Orders Release of Malpractice Payment Notices
Assignment judge orders State to provide notices to local newspaper<\/em>
North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. State of New Jersey<\/p>\n

D.C. Cir.: Court Rejects First Amendment Right to Accompany Troops in Battle
Court found no basis for claim that military must accommodate press corps at war<\/em>
Flynt v. Rumsfeld<\/p>\n

Cal.: Univ. of California Regents Ordered to Disclose Meeting Transcripts and Investment Info
Regents exhaust appellate options; high court upholds lower court rulings forcing disclosure<\/em>
Coalition of University Employees v. Regents of University of California<\/p>\n

COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK<\/h3>\n

California: Playboy and Netscape Settle Web Trademark Case
Settlement cuts short opportunity for Ninth Circuit to consider important trademark issue<\/em><\/p>\n

INTERNET<\/h3>\n

9th Cir.: DMCA Safe Harbors May Require Careful – If Not Strict – Compliance
Court held jury could find AOL failed to implement policy against repeat infringers<\/em>
Ellison v. Robertson and America Online Inc.<\/p>\n

Cal. App.: Update: Court Affirms Narrow Sec. 230 Interpretation on Rehearing
Court held that defendants with knowledge of defamatory content not entitled to immunity<\/em>
Barrett v. Rosenthal<\/p>\n

Cal. App.: Summary Judgment for eBAY Under Sec. 230 Affirmed
Argument that defendant not covered because it does not offer Internet connection rejected<\/em>
Grace v. eBAY, Inc.<\/p>\n

Canada: Canadian Court Takes Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Case Against Washington Post
Raises prospect of plaintiffs commencing actions abroad to take advantage of lax libel laws<\/em>
Bangoura v. The Washington Post<\/p>\n

INTERNATIONAL<\/h3>\n

Canada: Non-Media Libel Case Cites Place of Publication for Jurisdiction
Ontario Superior Court will hear defamation claim against NY investment company<\/em>
Trizec Properties, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.<\/p>\n

Canada: Canadian Developments in Seizure of Reporter\u2019s Materials
Anti-terror law under Constitutional scrutiny; Ontario court applies reporter\u2019s privilege<\/em><\/p>\n

U.K.: Don King\u2019s Libel Suit Against NY Lawyer Can Go Forward in London
Jurisdiction based on King\u2019s general notoriety and internet \u201cpublication\u201d in England<\/em>
Don King v. Lenox Lewis, Lion Promotions and Judd Bernstein<\/p>\n

Canada: Alberta Court Awards Damages in Stock Chat Room Libel Case
Trial court awards $75,000 to company over series of e-mails<\/em>
Vaquero Energy Ltd. v. Weir<\/p>\n

U.K.: Wall Street Journal Wins Harrods Libel Case
Jury returns verdict in favor of Journal in case over article likening Harrods to Enron<\/em>
Harrods Ltd. v. Dow Jones & Co.<\/p>\n

Europe: Right of Reply in Europe – A Bold Resolution or a Resolution Re-bowled
Council of Europe is finalizing a draft recommendation that covers online publications<\/em><\/p>\n

ECHR: Austrian Journalist Wins Appeal to ECHR over Defamation Conviction
Court rules journalist\u2019s description of politician as a \u201ccloset Nazi\u201d was protected opinion<\/em>
Scharsach v. Austria<\/p>\n

NEWS & UPDATES<\/h3>\n

10th Cir.: 10th Circuit Upholds Do-Not-Call Registry
Court holds that registry is a valid commercial speech restriction<\/em>
Mainstream Marketing Systems, Inc. v. FTC<\/p>\n

D. Md.: UPDATE: Lawsuit Testing Limits of SEC\u2019s Power Over Publishers Continues
District court denies motion to dismiss lawsuit against financial\/investment publisher<\/em>
SEC v. Agora, Inc., et al.<\/p>\n

D. Neb.: Malicious Prosecution Claim Against Newspaper Publisher Survives Summary Judgment
Court found that the publisher misled prosecutors<\/em>
Lynch v. Omaha World-Herald<\/p>\n

S.D. Fla.: Criminal Statute Prohibiting Disclosure of Complaints about Police Held Constitutional
Court rules against newspaper editor arrested for publishing report on police misconduct<\/em>
Cooper v. Dillon<\/p>\n

FCC: FCC Fines News Station & Radio Broadcaster for Indecency
Regulators slam broadcasters with cumulative penalty; Congress looks to increase fines<\/em>
Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc; Young Broadcasting of San Francisco, Inc.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMediaLawLetter February 2004 - 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-february-2004\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MediaLawLetter February 2004 - Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\" Download Publication MLRC Bulletin: MLRC 2004 Report on Trials and DamagesTrials Against Media Defendants Legislative: Legislative Affairs Update: Congress Considers Indecency BillsBroadcast Decency Enforcement Act; Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act; Congressional Research Accessibility Act SUPREME COURT S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Sammy \u201cThe Bull\u201d GravanoApplication of forfeiture statutes to book proceedsState v....\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-10-12T21:37:35+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/\",\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter February 2004 - Media Law Resource Center\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-01T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-12T21:37:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/#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-february-2004\/#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 February 2004\"}]},{\"@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 February 2004 - 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-february-2004\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MediaLawLetter February 2004 - Media Law Resource Center","og_description":" Download Publication MLRC Bulletin: MLRC 2004 Report on Trials and DamagesTrials Against Media Defendants Legislative: Legislative Affairs Update: Congress Considers Indecency BillsBroadcast Decency Enforcement Act; Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act; Congressional Research Accessibility Act SUPREME COURT S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Sammy \u201cThe Bull\u201d GravanoApplication of forfeiture statutes to book proceedsState v....","og_url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/","og_site_name":"Media Law Resource Center","article_modified_time":"2020-10-12T21:37:35+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/","name":"MediaLawLetter February 2004 - Media Law Resource Center","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","datePublished":"2004-01-01T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-12T21:37:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-february-2004\/#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-february-2004\/#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 February 2004"}]},{"@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\/2323"}],"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=2323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issues-publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues-publication?post=2323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}