Defense lawyers for the accused Aurora, Colorado, movie shooter are going to seek access to a reporter's confidential sources all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Reuters reports. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that state's shield law protects Jana Winter from having to reveal her sources in the Colorado criminal case.
(Hat tip to How Appealing, where I first saw this news.)
The first "Twibel" verdict in the United States (or the first defamation verdict involving a tweet) resulted in a defense verdict for Courtney Love. An On the Media segment said the case "could become the social media equivalent of New York Times v. Sullivan," and Gigaom notes "the Love decision is significant because it comes in contrast to legal developments in the U.K., which threaten to chill the use of Twitter in that country. In October, for instance, a U.K. man agreed to pay $25,000 for retweeting a false statement, saying 'From my own experience, I am able to warn others of the dangers of retweeting.'" But Gigaom also noted that the decision leaves unsettled whether tweets should get more protection than other forms of online expression and if it should be accepted that tweets are inherently opinion.
Love tweeted: "@noozjunkie I was fucking devestated [sic] when Rhonda J. Holmes esq. of san diego was bought off @FairNewsSpears perhaps you can get a quote." The legal standards were high in the case because Rhonda Holmes was a limited-purpose public figure. Holmes had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Love knew the message was false or doubted the truth of her tweet.
The Legal Intelligencer's Gina Passarella (my former cubicle-mate!) reports on a Commonwealth Court ruling today that the Pennsylvania Senate must disclose legal bills as well as client names for the attorneys hired by the legislative chamber to represent former state Senator Robert J. Mellow and other Democratic caucus employees. "After already determining attorney-client privilege doesn’t protect from disclosure of client identities or descriptions of legal services provided, the Commonwealth Court has now found that information can’t be protected under the attorney work-product doctrine, grand jury secrecy rules or a criminal investigation exception," The Legal further reports.
New York Times reporter James Risen, who federal prosecutors are seeking to have identify his confidential sources in a criminal case against an alleged CIA leaker, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether he is entitled to reporters privilege, Politico reports. At issue Risen's counsel argued in the petition is if journalists have a a qualified First Amendment privilege regarding confidential sources in criminal trials and if a common law privilege should be recognized for journalists under Federal Rule of Evidence 501.
The D.C. Circuit, 2-1, has struck down the FCC's rules imposing net neutrality, Gigaom reports. The majority said the FCC has the authority to regulate in the area of Internet traffic, but it can't impose requirements that "'contravene express statutory mandates,"' Gigaom reports.
"The upshot of Tuesday’s ruling is that it could open the door for internet giants like Verizon and Time Warner to cut deals with large content providers — say Disney or Netflix — to ensure that their web content was delivered faster and more reliably than other sites," Gigaom further reports.
The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on conflicting interpretations of that state's Freedom of Information Law. Law enforcement representatives are arguing that, once they have released the names and addresses of people who've been arrested, as well as the dates, times and places of their arrests and the offenses with which they were charged, that they can decide what's exempt from disclosure until after criminal cases are done.But 'it appeared that the justices were skeptical of a legal theory that would give prosecutors and police departments complete discretion on how much information they have to release about a criminal case, once they have released the basic 'police blotter' facts of the arrest," The Connecticut Law Tribune reports.
The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on conflicting interpretations of that state's Freedom of Information Law. Law enforcement representatives are arguing that, once they have released the names and addresses of people who've been arrested, as well as the dates, times and places of their arrests and the offenses with which they were charged, that they can decide what's exempt from disclosure until after criminal cases are done.But 'it appeared that the justices were skeptical of a legal theory that would give prosecutors and police departments complete discretion on how much information they have to release about a criminal case, once they have released the basic 'police blotter' facts of the arrest," The Connecticut Law Tribune reports.
The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on conflicting interpretations of that state's Freedom of Information Law. Law enforcement representatives are arguing that, once they have released the names and addresses of people who've been arrested, as well as the dates, times and places of their arrests and the offenses with which they were charged, that they can decide what's exempt from disclosure until after criminal cases are done.But 'it appeared that the justices were skeptical of a legal theory that would give prosecutors and police departments complete discretion on how much information they have to release about a criminal case, once they have released the basic 'police blotter' facts of the arrest," The Connecticut Law Tribune reports.
The Texas Supreme Court took up two cases this week on whether injunctions in defamation cases are constitutional: "Treading the gray area between freedom of speech and permissible government censorship, the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases Thursday that could determine whether state judges may permanently ban people from repeating information found to be false and defamatory," the Austin American-Statesman reports.
I reviewed the oral arguments, and one issue that came up is whether there is a constitutional right to defamatory speech under the Texas Constitution. One of the proponents for the constitutionality of post-judgment injunctions banning someone from repeating false and defamatory statements said that defamatory speech has no constitutional protection. But his opponent argued the Texas Constitution provides more protection than the U.S. Constitution for freedom of speech and that defamatory speech does have constitutional protection in Texas. If there is constitutional protection under state constitutional law , then a post-judgment injunction would be illegal and damages would be the only remedy for the parties who were defamed.
Just Security's Steve Vladeck's writes that last week's decision finding a Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel memo is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act "may have the effect, unintended or otherwise, of insulating virtually all nonpublic OLC memos and opinions from FOIA requests–regardless of their subject-matter or sensitivity." (The opinion regards the FBI's use of exigent National Security Letters.)
Vladeck writes the D.C. Circuit reasoned that the memo was exempt under Exemption 5 for "'inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.'" The court said the memo was not the "working law" of the FBI. Documents developed under a federal agency's working law are not exempt under Exemption 5. The problem is that Office of Legal Counsel's "memos are generally viewed as authoritative guidance to the rest of the Executive Branch when it comes to the scope of the government’s legal authorities–whether or not they are 'adopted' as such," Vladeck concludes.
Lawyer and Legal Journalist
