Tag Archives | Events

Symposium will contemplate 50 years of press freedom

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

Call for Papers: New York Times v. Sullivan, A Fifty Year Retrospective

FALROn October 12, 2013, we will be partnering with the First Amendment Law Review to help host their annual symposium, which will be focused on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan.  We’ll post more information about the symposium in the next few weeks, but if you are a scholar who writes in this area, you may be interested in submitting a paper to the First Amendment Law Review (note: the deadline is October 1).  Here is their call for papers:

The First Amendment Law Review is hosting its annual symposium in Chapel Hill, NC, on October 12, where scholars from across the country will participate in a discussion focusing on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan. In conjunction with our event, the First Amendment Law Review will also publish a symposium edition featuring articles related to Sullivan’s direct impact on the media, and articles that analyze Sullivan’s effect on a broader scale.

We are seeking articles that will be published in Volume Twelve of the First Amendment Law Review alongside work by some of our symposium panelists, which include Bruce Brown, Vincent Blasi, Ronald Cass, Stuart Benjamin, George Wright, and Ashley Messenger. As the only legal journal in the country dedicated solely to the First Amendment, the First Amendment Law Review is an ideal platform for those looking to contribute to First Amendment scholarship, and we have a tradition of hosting excellent symposia with impressive keynote speakers such as Erwin Chemerinsky and Floyd Abrams. This year, we are pleased to announce that Geoffrey Stone, Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, will give our keynote address.

If you would like to be considered for publication in our symposium edition, please submit an article of at least twenty pages, including footnotes, by October 1 to falr@unc.edu. Those selected for publication will be invited, but not required, to attend our symposium on October 12, and will be recognized at the event.

 

0

Carolina Law CLE Session: Media Law in the Digital Age

Next Wednesday, May 8, I’ll be presenting a continuing legal education (CLE) session in Wilmington, NC at the New Hanover County Executive Development Center.  The topic will be “Media Law in the Digital Age: Internet Defamation and other Digital Torts.”  Here is the description from the law school’s website:

With the advent of the Internet, everyone is a publisher today. Whether it is a company blog, Twitter or even Facebook, these publishing platforms can open you and your clients up to a potential lawsuit. Professor David S. Ardia will review the most recent case law on this evolving topic and share best practices for limiting liability and responding to claims involving speech on the Internet. UNC School of Law invites you to join Professor Ardia and other Carolina grads for this “lunch and learn” session as we explore the impact the Internet is having on media law, with a particular emphasis on libel, privacy, and other digital torts.

If you are in the Wilmington area, I hope you will come. It starts at noon and (bonus!) includes lunch. To register, go to the law school’s event page.

0

Lessig v. Corruption (2013)

lessigcartoon

Larry Lessig will visit UNC on Monday, and we will confess to feeling a bit geeked out at the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy.

What is it about Lessig that continues to captivate political activists, hacktivists and academic observers some 15 years after he was first elevated into the limelight as a special master in the Microsoft antitrust case?

I can’t claim any special understanding of Lessig’s magnetism beyond what many others have said and written in the past. He is obviously not without his critics and detractors. But there are a few insights I can share about what makes him an unusual legal scholar and uniquely qualified, I believe, to root out corruption in government.

He’s someone who reaches and engages his audience.  Lessig’s first blog was followed closely by legal scholars, the tech community and others interested in copyright reform. There, he regularly engaged with those who posted comments and critiques, many of which were as interesting and thoughtful as Lessig’s own posts. In several of those posts, he began to envision a plan to change Congress, eventually the start of his Change Congress/Fix Congress/Rootstrikers movement. His move into the study of institutional corruption was prompted by years of uphill battle against the special interests entrenched in copyright legislation – and in the pockets of congressional representatives seeking re-election. Copyright wasn’t going to change without real change in how Washington worked.

I added my two cents and theorized about how such a movement might gain mass media attention. To my surprise, we engaged in a back-and-forth email discussion, and I was off to Washington, D.C., to help out with his initial announcement to launch Change Congress.  I was one of many who found themselves in this position.

But I’m just another academic.

On another occasion, I went to Cleveland to see Larry speak to a group of reform-minded Clevelanders about his efforts to change Beltway culture. The audience was interesting and varied and included a gentleman hiding in the back of the room who struck me as a Tea Party supporter. (I lived close to Tea Party activists in the Midwest for several years, so I had a good sense of who they were and what they wanted at a grassroots level.) Out of all the wonks, activists and academics in the room, it was this one young man that Larry seemed most compelled to talk to and to answer his questions and persuade. Lessig is, as he says, “cross-partisan” not “bi-partisan.”

He’s someone who has publicly changed his mind, but who is more authentic for having done so. Americans love a good story, but I think they especially like a credible story. Lessig’s is a story of right to left. Raised a Reagan Republican, he experienced a sea change in thought studying abroad. Increasingly, he has taken on the rhetoric of the activist, referring to Dr. Martin Luther King and pledging justice in the wake of Aaron Swartz’s death. This is not a Lessig we would recognize before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. It’s an unapologetically public journey of change, and he has taken many of us – willingly — along with him.

He understands and embraces the passion of youth.  In Remix, Lessig warned of a war against youth culture and a stifling of innovation under an increasingly repressive copyright regime. He understood that new generations would see code as their printing press, with new possibilities and social upheavals on the horizon as a result:

“Now I worry about the effect this war is having upon our kids. What is this war doing to them? Whom is it making them? How is it changing how they think about normal, right-thinking behavior? What does it mean to a society when a whole generation is raised as criminals?”

His words were tragically prescient. Aaron Swartz’s death has been a watershed moment in the copyright wars – a moment that is mobilizing the Internet in new ways.

He listens more than he talks. His unique presentations are legendary, and hundreds will flock to hear them. He can talk for more than a solid hour and hold the attention of everyone in a room. But if you watch Lessig away from the podium, he’s listening and asking questions more than he is talking — and particularly listening to folks at the grassroots. Away from the microphone, he is an observer and often the quietest person in the room.

He gets tech. And tech gets (and admires) him. There are few (if any) legal experts who understand technology as well as Lessig. He is as at home in Internet protocol as he is in intellectual property law. He speaks in code and is comfortable in geekdom. He likes learning from them. That has endeared him to that community.

Finally, he’s a constitutionalist. Perhaps others have said this of him. I realized today that this year is the tenth anniversary of Eldred v. Ashcroft, the U.S. Supreme Court case challenging the Copyright Term Extension Act, the case Lessig argued in front of the Court on behalf of Eldred.  Constitutionalism recognizes that the document isn’t just a series of rules – it’s a series of rules that limit government on behalf of the people. Eldred was all about limiting the government’s reach. Lessig’s new fight is about limiting the effects of special interests on that governance.

With so much more at stake, we can only hope his new battle is more successful.

0

Freedom of Speech, Defamation, and Injunctions

As part of the Mary Junck Research Colloquium series, UNC Law Professor David Ardia will give a talk entitled “Freedom of Speech, Defamation, and Injunctions.” He will discuss his research on two centuries of case law surrounding injunctions in defamation cases, and the recent increase in court-ordered injunctions directed at defamatory speech, particularly speech on the Internet.

David  is an assistant professor at the UNC School of Law and a faculty associate at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.  He also holds a secondary appointment as an assistant professor at the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication and is the faculty co-director of the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy.  Before joining the UNC faculty, he founded and directed the Berkman Center’s Digital Media Law Project.

The presentation will be on Thursday, February 21 from 2 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. in the Halls of Fame Room on the first floor of Carroll Hall.   The event is free and open to the public.

0