{"id":5371,"date":"2014-10-31T20:30:33","date_gmt":"2014-10-31T20:30:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-october-2014\/"},"modified":"2020-08-20T19:01:16","modified_gmt":"2020-08-20T19:01:16","slug":"medialawletter-october-2014","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter October 2014"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

MLRC<\/h3>\n

From the Executive Director’s Desk<\/a>
European Court Press Spokesmen Model Deserves Serious Consideration<\/em><\/p>\n

A VIEW FROM THE INSIDE<\/h3>\n

Responding To Take-Down Requests<\/a>
Requests Tend to Fall into Several Recurring Categories<\/em><\/p>\n

LIBEL & PRIVACY<\/h3>\n

Ill. App.: Court Affirms Summary Judgment for CBS on Former Journalist’s Defamation, Privacy Claims
<\/a>Reporter a Public Figure; No Expectation of Privacy in Source’s Backyard<\/em>
Jacobson v. CBS Broadcasting Inc.<\/p>\n

N.J. Super., N.Y. Sup.: Dismissals in Two States Over Police-Supplied Photos of Wrong Suspects<\/a>
Fair Report Privilege Protects Press<\/em>
Newbill v. Walgreens; Acadio Rodriguez v. Daily News, LP<\/p>\n

W.D. Pa.: Libel and Privacy Claims Over Photo Error Dismissed<\/a>
Claims Barred by Single Publication Rule<\/em>
Ghrist v. CBS Broadcasting<\/p>\n

N.Y. App.: Court Affirms Dismissal of Libel Claims Brought by Brooklyn Judge<\/a>
NY Court of Appeals Denies Leave to Appeal<\/em>
Martin v. Daily News, L.P.<\/p>\n

N.D. Fla.: Alleged Cyberbully Loses Defamation Lawsuit Over Arrest Report<\/a>
TV Station’s Reports About Teen’s Arrest Were Privileged<\/em>
Jeter v. McKeithen<\/p>\n

D. Me.: The End of the Line for Defamation Claims by Railroad and Its CEO Against Trade Newsletter<\/a>
Statements Either Not Defamatory or Materially Accurate<\/em>
Pan Am Systems Inc. v. Hardenbergh<\/p>\n

Wash.: State’s Highest Court to Decide Constitutionality of Anti-SLAPP Statute<\/a>
Plaintiffs Challenging Burden of Proof and Stay of Discovery as Unconstitutional<\/em>
Davis v. Cox<\/p>\n

Tex. App.: KTRK Awarded Over $250,000 in Fees and Mandatory Sanctions Under Anti-SLAPP Law<\/a>
Second Largest Attorneys’ Fees Award<\/em>
Robinson v. The Walt Disney Comp.<\/p>\n

E.D. Pa.: Pennsylvania Federal Court Dismisses Libel Claims<\/a>
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Defamatory Meaning<\/em>
Bukstel v. DealFlow Media, Inc.<\/p>\n

Miss. App. Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Book Authors<\/a>
Former FBI Agent Sued Over “Kings of Tort” Book<\/em>
Neilson v. Dawson<\/p>\n

INTERNET<\/h3>\n

California’s New Consumer Comment Law Leaves Questions and Potential Loopholes<\/a>
Law Responds to Efforts Requiring Consumers Waive Right to Comment on Business Goods and Services<\/em>
Assembly Bill No. 2365<\/p>\n

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY<\/h3>\n

S.D.N.Y.: TVEYES Not Dimmed By Claims of Infringement for Complete Copying<\/a>
Media Monitoring Service Held to Be Fair Use<\/em>
Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc.<\/p>\n

S.D.N.Y.: Dow Jones Awarded $5 Million in Hot-News Misappropriation Case<\/a>
Defendant Was Copying and Pasting from Dow Jones’s Journalists<\/em>
Dow Jones & Co v. Real-Time Analysis & News Ltd.<\/p>\n

ACCESS<\/h3>\n

Ind.: Death Certificates Are Public Records Under Indiana’s Records Law<\/a>
Public Interest in Access Outweighs Privacy Right<\/em>
Evansville Courier & Press v. Vanderburgh County Health Department<\/p>\n

Tex. App.: Texas Courts Analyze Access to Juvenile Court Proceedings<\/a>
In re Fort Worth Star-Telegram; In Re A.J.S.<\/p>\n

FIRST AMENDMENT<\/h3>\n

U.S.: Supreme Court to Decide “True Threats” Case Involving Online Speech<\/a>
Is Proof of Subjective Intent Required to Convict?<\/em>
Elonis v. U.S.<\/p>\n

E.D. Ky.: Libertarian Senate Candidate Not Entitled to Participate in TV Debate<\/a>
“First Amendment Is Not a Rule of Quantity at Any Cost”<\/em>
Libertarian National Committee v. Holiday<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMediaLawLetter October 2014 - 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-october-2014\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MediaLawLetter October 2014 - Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\" Download Publication MLRC From the Executive Director’s DeskEuropean Court Press Spokesmen Model Deserves Serious Consideration A VIEW FROM THE INSIDE Responding To Take-Down RequestsRequests Tend to Fall into Several Recurring Categories LIBEL & PRIVACY Ill. App.: Court Affirms Summary Judgment for CBS on Former Journalist’s Defamation, Privacy ClaimsReporter a Public Figure; No Expectation of Privacy...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-08-20T19:01:16+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-october-2014\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/\",\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter October 2014 - Media Law Resource Center\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-10-31T20:30:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-20T19:01:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/#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-october-2014\/#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 October 2014\"}]},{\"@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 October 2014 - 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-october-2014\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MediaLawLetter October 2014 - Media Law Resource Center","og_description":" Download Publication MLRC From the Executive Director’s DeskEuropean Court Press Spokesmen Model Deserves Serious Consideration A VIEW FROM THE INSIDE Responding To Take-Down RequestsRequests Tend to Fall into Several Recurring Categories LIBEL & PRIVACY Ill. App.: Court Affirms Summary Judgment for CBS on Former Journalist’s Defamation, Privacy ClaimsReporter a Public Figure; No Expectation of Privacy...","og_url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/","og_site_name":"Media Law Resource Center","article_modified_time":"2020-08-20T19:01:16+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-october-2014\/","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/","name":"MediaLawLetter October 2014 - Media Law Resource Center","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","datePublished":"2014-10-31T20:30:33+00:00","dateModified":"2020-08-20T19:01:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-october-2014\/#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-october-2014\/#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 October 2014"}]},{"@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\/5371"}],"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=5371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issues-publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues-publication?post=5371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}