You are here

media law

AP Report: Restrictions On #Ferguson Airspace Aimed at Media

In an exclusive report, the Associated Press' Jack Gillum and Joan Lowy report that public safety was the ostensible reason for restricting the airspace above Ferguson, Missouri, during large protests following the shooting of a young black man by a white police officer. But the AP, through an Freedom of Information Act request, has exposed recordings in which govermental officials acknowledged the purpose was to keep news helicopters away from the street protests. The recordings "raise serious questions about whether police were trying to suppress aerial images of the demonstrations and the police response by violating the constitutional rights of journalists with tacit assistance by federal officials," the AP further reports.

Justice Department Asked to Review Treatment of Press in #Ferguson

The PEN American Center is calling on the U.S. Justice Department to investigate how the press was treated by law enforcement covering the protests in Ferguson, Mo., following the death of Michael Brown, the St. Louis Business Journal reports. For example, police held reporters in areas away from the events they were covering and they flashed lights to hinder photographers. PEN American Center is asking the Justice Department "to issue new guidelines for U.S. police departments on respect for media freedoms, including the rights accorded to citizen journalists; take disciplinary measures against any officer responsible for violations; and establish a 'clear policy for the policing of public protests that emphasizes respect for the rights to assembly and freedom of the press,'" St. Business Journal further reports.

Grand Jury Subpoena Issued to Reporter Without Judge's Knowledge?

A Pennsylvania judge presiding over an investigating grand jury squelched a subpoena issued to Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter Brad Bumstead, that paper reports. The strangest part of the situation is that the judge says the subpoena--which had his signature on it-- was issued without his knowledge: "Judge William R. Carpenter, who is supervising the grand jury and whose signature appears on the subpoena issued Wednesday night, told the Trib he did not know about the subpoena until he talked with a reporter."

The judge has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate whether information has been leaked by the Attorney General's Office.

Several media-law experts told the Trib that Pennsylvania has a strong law that shields reporters from having to reveal their confidential sources.
 


 

Circuit Court Appeals Reluctant to Protect Online Commenters

Andy Grim, a reporter for the Times-Picayune, reports that the Fifth Circuit appeared reluctant "to weigh in on the issue of First Amendment rights of anonymous online commenters" during oral argument on the issue Thursday. A lower court judge ordered the newspaper to turn over information about a pair of anonymous commenters on its website, Grim said. The defendant thought it could show that federal prosecutors were making comments about her case. A new trial was granted to five police officers convicted in post-Hurricane Katrina shootings.

Circuit Court Appeals Reluctant to Protect Online Commenters

Andy Grim, a reporter for the Times-Picayune, reports that the Fifth Circuit appeared reluctant "to weigh in on the issue of First Amendment rights of anonymous online commenters" during oral argument on the issue Thursday. A lower court judge ordered the newspaper to turn over information about a pair of anonymous commenters on its website, Grim said. The defendant thought it could show that federal prosecutors were making comments about her case. A new trial was granted to five police officers convicted in post-Hurricane Katrina shootings.

Ninth Circuit Weighs Gag Orders on National Security Letters

The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument yesterday on whether it violates the First Amendment for the FBI to gag tech and telecommunications firms from revealing that they have received "national security letters" for customer records, Reuters reports. Tech companies, including Google, Microsoft Corp and Facebook Inc said in court papers "the government may not 'foist a gag order upon the involuntary recipient of an NSL, let alone prohibit the recipient from even reporting periodically the aggregate number of such demands that it receives,'" Reuters further reports.

Motions Debate Access to Evidence of 'Misrepresentation' in Asbestos Case

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Tue, 10/07/2014 - 18:35

I'm writing several times a day about products liability for Law.com/The National Law Journal. Occasionally I cross-post a blog I find particularly interesting.

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and two other related defendants are opposing motions to keep sealed the names of asbestos plaintiffs and the amounts of settlements they have reached with those plaintiffs.

The judge presiding over the Garlock’s bankruptcy proceedings has set up a process to unseal evidence that led him to make findings of alleged misrepresentation by plaintiffs.

Garlock also wants to unseal questionnaires submitted by claimants in its bankruptcy case and submissions made by claimants to trusts formed out of other companies’ asbestos-related bankruptcies.

“A large portion of the asbestos claimants whose names appear in the estimation record have open claims and are therefore the putative creditors (and parties in interest) in this case,” Garlock said. “The [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit] has held that parties should be allowed to litigate anonymously only in ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying a ‘rare dispensation.’”

Claimants’ names are routinely disclosed in asbestos tort litigation and in marketing materials disseminated by the law firms representing them, Garlock said.

In a separate motion , the official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants objected to Garlock’s request to seal some of the bankruptcy filings, including the major expense authorizations that memorialize the reasons Garlock settled mesothelioma cases for the amounts it did and trial evaluation forms completed by Garlock’s outside counsel about cases going to trial.

“Until now, the debtors have been enthusiastic advocates of disclosure, casting themselves as crusaders on the public’s behalf,” the committee said. “Now, without any sense of irony, the debtors maintain that their own documents—critical pieces of the ‘full story’—should remain sealed and shielded from public scrutiny.”

Those documents cannot be shielded by attorney-client or work-product privilege because Garlock had its attorneys testify during the proceeding held to estimate its liability to asbestos plaintiffs about why they settled cases, the committee said.

According to the committee, those “contemporaneous documents” are at odds with why Garlock says it settled its cases.

Last winter, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of North Carolina estimated that Garlock likely owes $125 million to asbestos plaintiffs. He rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Garlock's liability is around $1 billion to $1.3 billion after finding evidence of misrepresentation by plaintiffs' lawyers in several cases that Garlock settled in the past or in which Garlock lost jury verdicts.

According to both sides, the parties agree that there should be redactions of most plaintiffs’ Social Security numbers, birth dates, the identities of minors, account numbers and medical information except that related to asbestos exposure.

Media Coalition Opposes 'Revenge Porn' Law

A coalition of newspapers, photographers and others are seeking to block enforcement of Arizona's law that criminalizes the "sale, publication or display of nude photos or sexual images without the subject’s consent," the National Law Journal reports. Michael Bamberger, a First Amendment lawyer and one of the counsel on the case, told NLJ "this is a supposed revenge-porn statute that does not require revenge. There is no intent requirement, and it covers far more than porn. That’s why it concerns booksellers, publishers, etc."

Forlorn Prospects for Federal Shield Law for Journalists

The likelihood is very low that the U.S. Senate will take up a law that would provide a federal evidentiary privilege to journalists against revealing their sources, writes Rem Rieder in USA Today. While the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill and the House of Representatives also has passed a bill with a shield for journalists, the Senate is not likely to spend a week debating an evidentiary privilege for reporters during its lame-duck session starting November 12, Rieder further writes. "So the shield law, like immigration reform and gun control, looms as yet another casualty of the gridlock that has paralyzed Capitol Hill and turned Congress into a wildly dysfunctional and widely loathed travesty," Rieder concludes.

FAA to Give Approval to Drone Use in Filming

Gregory S. McNeal, a contributor to Forbes, reports that the Federal Aviation Administration is going to approve the use of drones in Hollywood film-making: "In May, seven aerial photo and video production companies asked for regulatory exemptions (known as a 333 exemption) that would allow the film and television industry to use drones with FAA approval. Those seven companies and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), were asked by the FAA to develop the guidelines and safety procedures under which they planned to operate. The FAA reviewed those procedures and is expected to approve the drone-specific rules and standards that will enable Hollywood to be exempt from existing aviation regulations."

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - media law