EU Holds News Website Liable for Anonymous Comments

By on October 14, 2013 in Internet, Journalism

Screen Shot 2013-10-14 at 3.10.14 PMLast week, the European Union held an Estonian news website liable for anonymous comments posted by third parties on its site.

The EU case concerned a 2006 article published on the Estonian news site Delfi. The article was about changes to a Northern Europe ferry company’s travel routes. Because the route alterations would cause delay and make traveling more expensive, a number of angry commentators left “highly threatening or threatening posts” in response to the article.

The owner of the ferry company sued Delfi for defamation and was awarded €320, or $433 in USD. Delfi, arguing that it was not responsible for the comments, appealed to the EU.

The EU recently upheld the Estonian court’s judgment, holding that the website’s freedom of expression rights, governed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, were not violated by the ruling. The EU court explained that freedom of expression rights may be interfered in order to protect an individual’s reputation so long as the intervention is “proportionate to the circumstances.”

In analyzing whether intervention is proportionate to the circumstances, the EU analyzed four issues: (1) the context of the posts; (2) steps taken to prevent publication of defamatory comments; (3) whether the authors of the posts could be made liable for their posts; and (4) the consequences of holding Delfi liable. In concluding its analysis, the EU court held that the lower court’s ruling was justified and proportionate to interference with Delfi’s Article 10 rights.

Samantha Scheller is a 2L at UNC Law.

(Image courtesy of Flickr user MPD01605 pursuant to a Creative Commons CC BY 2.0 license.)

0

Symposium will contemplate 50 years of press freedom

By on October 11, 2013 in Center for Media Law and Policy, Defamation, First Amendment, Journalism

Almost 50 years ago, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., writing for the Supreme Court, expressed “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

Tomorrow, the UNC First Amendment Law Review will bring together media law experts to reflect on and debate just how free the press has been to cover and criticize public officials since the landmark ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which established the “actual malice” test. Under the test, a public official suing for libel must prove that defamatory content was published with “knowledge of falsity” or “reckless disregard for the truth.”

As a result of “New York Times Actual Malice,” the press and the public are free to criticize government officials’ and public figures’ job performance, scrutinize their personal lives, and even attack their character.

Some think the Court went too far when it held that falsity was not enough to make a speaker liable for defaming a public official. Others say it hasn’t gone far enough and should protect the publication of any false content when reporting on matters of public controversy.

The First Amendment Law Review Symposium will consist of two panels of First Amendment and media law scholars including:

  • Vincent Blasi, Corliss Lamont Professor of Civil Liberties at Columbia Law School
  • Bruce Brown, Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
  • Ronald Cass, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law
  • Stuart Benjamin, Douglas B. Maggs Chair in Law at Duke Law
  • George Wright, Michael McCormick Professor of Law at Indiana University
  • Ashley Messenger, Associate General Counsel for National Public Radio

The event will begin with a keynote address from Ken Paulson, President and CEO of the First Amendment Law Center, followed by a 30 minute Q&A.  The morning panel will then examine the impact of the Sullivan decision on the media, while the afternoon panel will discuss its broader implications on First Amendment jurisprudence.

Visit the event page for more information.

0

FBI pursues Silk Road’s private Bit Coin key information

By on October 11, 2013 in Internet, Privacy

Center blogger Samantha Scheller wrote a blog post for the Digital Media Law Project on the FBI’s pursuit of private passwords protecting Bit Coin currency associated with the Silk Road.

An attempt to compel those charged in connection with the illegal drug purchasing website could raise a Fifth Amendment question of self incrimination. Read Scheller’s blog post for a full analysis.

Scheller is a 2L at the UNC School of Law. She is a former intern and current contributor to the Digital Media Law Project, part of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.

0

Twitter and Nielsen Ratings Team Up to Track Viewership

By on October 9, 2013 in Internet, Journalism

4156535452_9f2ee39b7e_bTwitter is teaming up with Nielsen Ratings to aid the service in monitoring what television shows are most frequently tweeted about by its users. The novel approach, called a “unique audience,” makes it easier than ever for the Nielsen system to provide accurate information about television viewership numbers on any given night.

The new system allows Nielsen Ratings to track how many tweets are sent, what television show those tweets reference, who those tweets are seen by, and how many times those tweets are seen. With 200 million Twitter users, the data will be a powerful tool for advertisers looking to broadcast during commercial breaks of the most-viewed television programs.

The “unique audience” information gained from Twitter will also help Nielsen track what has traditionally been extremely difficult to measure: the spoken word. In Twitter’s case, it’s easy to capture what millions of Americans are watching through the data trail left behind. By allowing Nielsen to create a rating system based on tweets, Twitter is opening up access to that once impossible-to-track information.

The ratings system provides more information about viewership than ever before by monitoring conversations — not by the spoken word — but by the typed tweet.

Samantha Scheller is a 2L at UNC Law.

(Image courtesy of Flickr user flash.pro pursuant to a Creative Commons CC BY 2.0 license.)

0

California Passes “Limited” Revenge Porn Legislation

By on October 8, 2013 in Journalism

Screen Shot 2013-10-06 at 12.51.42 PMA new California law may cause potential revenge porn posters to think twice before exploiting ex-lovers online.

California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill No. 255 on October 1. The new law will aid potential victims of “revenge porn” — those individuals whose sexually explicit photos and videos are posted online by (typically) ex-lovers — by making it a misdemeanor to post such graphic images or video “with the intent to cause serious emotional distress.” Defendants who violate the law could land a place in jail for up for 6 months or be fined up to $1,000.

The newly-passed law is already receiving criticism about its limited scope of protection. Critics argue that because the law does not protect against the posting of photos that were self-shot by the victims, a large number of individuals who submit revenge porn posts will remain protected. Rather, the law targets only those photos posted which were taken by the poster.

One of the fundamental cornerstones of copyright law holds that copyright rights are given to the author of the work. One possible remedy for those who have been exposed due to revenge porn is filing a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The takedown notice requires that the owner of a website remove some content due to a copyright claim made by the owner of that content.

The American Civil Liberties Union also opposed the bill, citing concerns that the bill was overly vague.

Samantha Scheller is a 2L at UNC Law.

0