Author Archive | Samantha Scheller

A UNC Student’s Summer Experience at the Berkman Center’s Digital Media Law Project

By on October 7, 2013 in First Amendment, Internet, Journalism

IMG_4639This summer, I was fortunate enough to intern for the Digital Media Law Project (DMLP) at the Berkman Center in Cambridge, MA. Our office facility — fondly referred to as the “big yellow house” — was home to a large number of Berkman Center projects, of which the DMLP was one.

The Berkman Center is a wonderful place to work, as the house is constantly filled to the brim with scholars in a variety of fields. It seemed that wherever you went, from the front porch to the kitchen, you were welcomed in eavesdropping on a conversation about an interesting new research project or developing body of law. Berkman also houses a number of fascinating software development projects.

My day-to-day life as a DMLP intern was filled with media law — a complex world of legal issues like defamation, copyright, trademark, anti-SLAPP motions, Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, DMCA takedown notices, shield laws for reporters, first amendment issues, and more.

I worked on a number of projects for the DMLP throughout the summer. In my legal threat research, my supervisors, Jeff Hermes and Andy Sellars, encouraged me to delve into complex litigation procedures while analyzing court documents for recent media law cases. Through this research, I gained an understanding of how pervasive media law issues are in our court system and in our lives.

On another project, I researched and wrote detailed legal guides on issues such as how to form a journalism cooperative in Pennsylvania and how to operate under Tennessee’s recording laws. The legal guide work is essential for reporters and citizen journalists who need to understand in non-legalese the legal implications of publishing within their state.

IMG_4737Finally, every two weeks, I was encouraged to develop a blog post on my topic of choice. The DMLP blogs provided me the freedom to delve into specific areas of media law including a patent on podcasts, the federal shield law, and how journalist organizations are using Instagram.

My research at the DMLP wasn’t all that Berkman had to offer. One week, my supervisors, my fellow DMLP interns, and I were invited to attend a Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education course at which our supervisor, Jeff Hermes, was presenting. This experience was certainly one of the highlights of my summer as I was able to hear first-hand about the most recent issues and case law in this field.

Each week, my fellow “Berkterns” and I were invited to attend lunchtime and afternoon seminars on a variety of topics, legal and otherwise, given by scholars at the top of their fields. These presentations were followed by intellectually stimulating discussions which often challenged me to consider new ideas and viewpoints. (Another summer highlight: at one such lunchtime presentation, representatives from Google Glass came by and let us try on Glass(es)! The demo led to a great discussion about the legal, social, and privacy implications of the new technology.)

IMG_6199I would highly recommend an internship at the Digital Media Law Project to anyone interested in studying recent media law cases and understanding the protections needed to prevent chilling effects. I made great friends, had a wonderful time traveling around Boston and Cambridge, and embraced everything the area had to offer. Through the DMLP’s collaborative work environment, I was able to learn so much about media law and witness first-hand how this relatively new area of law is influencing a wide range of people across the country.

0

NPR and AP Limit Use of “Obamacare” Language

By on October 4, 2013 in Internet, Journalism

obamacare-logo_fullAs the government shutdown continues, National Public Radio (NPR) and the Associated Press (AP) have decided to cut back on their usage of the term “Obamacare.”

NPR’s managing editor, Stuart Seidel, issued the editing order last Tuesday, asking that NPR staff members vary their wording when discussing the new health care system, saying that the politically divisive term was no longer neutral.

Meanwhile, the AP is also limiting its use of the term “Obamacare” as well as declining to refer to the health care law as the “Affordable Care Act.” The AP’s deputy managing editor and standards editor, Tom Kent, says the phrase is inherently promotional by its use of the word “affordable.” Alternatively, the AP plans to refer to the act as the “health care overhaul,” “the nation’s new health insurance system,” or simply “the new health care law.”

Such a shift in wording by two of the nation’s largest news outlets may aid Americans who remain unclear about the lack of distinction between Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act, as exhibited on a recent Jimmy Kimmel Live! show segment.

Samantha Scheller is a 2L at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

0

Government Shutdown Affects FOIA Requests

By on October 2, 2013 in Internet, Journalism, Privacy, Transparency

nsaThe government shutdown is having an impact on every “nonessential” federal service, including Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) requests under the NSA.

According to the NSA’s website, all FOIA and PA requests or inquiries submitted to the FOIA/PA office “will not be addressed until the office reopens.” The NSA’s homepage also cites the government shutdown as responsible for its inability to update the NSA website.

Many of the NSA’s other programs will continue to operate during the government shutdown. In a memo released last Friday from the Department of Defense,  the Deputy Secretary said that while a “large number of [] civilian employees [will] be temporarily furloughed[,]” the shutdown will not affect military personnel who will “continue in a normal duty status.”

Samantha Scheller is a 2L at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

0

Senate Judiciary Committee Meets to Discuss Federal Shield Law, S.987

By on September 12, 2013 in Journalism, Privacy

Screen Shot 2013-09-12 at 10.09.00 AM

Natasha Duarte contributed to this post.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet with lawmakers today to discuss the federal reporter shield bill proposed by Senator Schumer (D-NY) in May of this year. Tune in to a live webcast of the meeting beginning at 10:00am.

The Free Flow of Information Act, S.987, includes some protection for reporters who are ordered to divulge confidential sources as part of a federal investigation. The public push for a federal shield law has gained traction over recent months as the public reacted to governmental invasions into journalist organizations like the Associated Press.

Although the bill seems to be a positive step towards granting journalists protection, critics have noted one troublesome section of the bill that limits the definition of who constitutes a “journalist” or a “covered person.” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has proposed an amendment to S.987 that would limit the classification of a journalist to a salaried agent of an organization that “disseminates news or information.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation outlined Feinstein’s proposed amendments to the definition of ”covered person”:

  • A person working as a “salaried employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information;”
  • either (a) meeting the prior definition “for any continuous three-month period within the two years prior to the relevant date” or (b) having “substantially contributed, as an author, editor, photographer, or producer, to a significant number of articles, stories, programs, or publications by an entity . . . within two years prior to the relevant date;” or
  • working as a student journalist “participating in a journalistic publication at an institution of higher education.”

Senator Feinstein cites a need to limit the bill’s protection from including those “who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications” and says she believes the bill should be applied to “real reporters.”

Critics of the proposed amendments have argued that a narrow definition of what it means to be a journalist doesn’t fit the ever-evolving model of reporting. Technological developments over the last two decades have resulted in a shift away from the traditional definition of what it means to be a “journalist.” Reporting is increasingly being done by citizen journalists, bloggers, and independent reporters who are not employed by traditional media outlets.

This model will no doubt continue to evolve along with new technology. Critics of the bill suggest that reporting is an act rather than a status and that those engaged in reporting should be protected from having to reveal their confidential sources regardless of medium, employer, or salary.

0

New York Court Orders Fox News Reporter to Comply With Colorado Subpoena to Appear in Holmes’ Criminal Trial

By on August 24, 2013 in Journalism

Gavel-300x225This week, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed a decision by a lower court that a Fox News reporter must comply with a Colorado subpoena to testify as a witness — and possibly divulge her confidential sources — in the criminal trial against James Holmes, the alleged gunman of the Colorado movie theater shooting.

In July 2012, Jana Winter released an article that claimed Holmes sent a notebook to his psychiatrist that contained details of his planned attack. Holmes’ defense attorneys, concerned that the notebook leak came from a Colorado law enforcement official and that such information may affect their client’s constitutional right to a fair trial, sought sanctions against fourteen law enforcement officials who knew of the notebook. When none of the officials admitted to leaking information to the media, on January 17, 2013, Holmes’ defense attorneys moved to compel Winter to testify and produce notes from the unnamed sources cited in her article. The Supreme Court of New York County enforced the Colorado District Court subpoena and Winter appealed.

Majority Opinion

On Wednesday, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division held 3-2 that Winter is required to testify in Holmes’ criminal case. The opinion, written by Justice Clark, cited the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Cases (CPL 640.10), which requires a witness to testify in another state. The court held that the petitioner complied with its burden of proof under CPL 640.10 when it secured a certificate from an out-of-state Colorado judge showing that Winter’s testimony was “material and necessary” and that the compulsion to testify would not cause Winter undue hardship as the petitioner would pay for her expenses.

The court held that New York’s shield law does not grant Winter protection from the Colorado subpoena to testify in Holmes’ case. The majority opinion held that Winter will be required to testify in Colorado and that she be subject to any testimonial privileges available under Colorado’s shield law rather than those privileges granted under New York’s shield law. The majority held that “the inquiry into admissibility and privilege remains the province of the demanding State [of Colorado] rather than the sending State [of New York].”

As for the substance of Winter’s testimony, the majority decision emphasized the distinction between compelling Winter to testify and compelling her to divulge her confidential sources, saying that the record does not establish with “absolute certainty” that the Colorado District Court will require Winter to disclose her confidential sources.

The majority opinion also ordered that the court record in New York be unsealed, citing a strong public interest in open access to court proceedings.

Dissenting Opinion
Two Justices dissented. The dissenting opinion written by Justice Saxe argued that Winter is protected from appearing in another state where there is a “substantial possibility” that the court will require her to identify her confidential sources. The dissent cited the protection granted to Winter under New York’s state shield law, Civil Rights Law Section 79-h[b].

In response to the majority’s CPL 640.10 discussion, Justice Saxe challenged the majority’s analysis of the “undue hardship” requirement of CPL 640.10. The opinion referenced the initial subpoena for Winter, saying that the January 2013 certificate to compel Winter to testify was ordered to identify who disclosed the notebook contents to the journalist.

Citing New York’s public policy of providing absolute protection for reporters, the dissent argued that the majority is incorrect in its analysis of what constitutes “undue hardship.” The dissent argued that the analysis is not limited to the costs and time of travel and missing work but should also acknowledge that the ordered disclosure of Winter’s confidential sources may affect her career as a journalist. The dissent stated that the majority ignored the “practical reality” of Winter’s situation, and therefore erred in holding that Winter’s testimony would not necessarily require her to divulge confidential sources.

Looking Ahead

The court battle is far from over. On Wednesday, Fox News filed an appeal notice with the New York Court of Appeals. The appeal will ask New York’s highest state court to reject the lower court’s decision that Winter must comply with the Colorado subpoena.

Samantha Scheller is a 2L at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

(Photo courtesy of Flickr user steakpinball pursuant to a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 license.)

0