Media Law Prof Blog

Limiting Student Speech On Campus

Steve Varel, Northern Illinois University College of Law, is publishing Limits on School Disciplinary Authority over Online Student Speech in volume 33 of the Northern Illinois University Law Review (2013). Here is the abstract.

When, if ever, can a public secondary school in the United States legally discipline a student for the content of a personal website, a Facebook post, a text message, or an email that the student created or transmitted from an off-campus location? The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the issue, and the lower courts have split on it, providing a number of different answers to the question. In answering this question, this Comment distinguishes between two kinds of off-campus internet speech: (1) threats or incitements to violence that are never protected by the First Amendment in any context (“true threats”), and (2) other kinds of speech that the First Amendment would protect if the speaker were an adult in a public forum. This Comment argues that there should be limits on school disciplinary authority over both of these kinds of speech. Threats or incitements to violence serious enough to fall outside the scope of constitutional protection may always subject a speaker to criminal punishment. Therefore, this Comment argues that students should not additionally be subject to school discipline for such unprotected speech unless the speech has some connection (a “sufficient nexus”) to the school. This rule has the advantage of allowing schools to discipline students for threats related to the school while also preventing school authority from a limitless extension into matters so unrelated to the school that they should only be handled by authorities. In contrast to its position on unprotected “true threats,” this Comment argues that schools should never be allowed to discipline students for off-campus internet speech that would be protected by the First Amendment if it occurred outside the school context. In cases involving speech that occurred at school, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and its progeny, that schools may discipline students for speech that causes “substantial disruption” to school activities. But this Comment argues that, since Tinker and its progeny were designed specifically for the school setting, the school speech rules articulated in Tinker and its progeny should never be applied to off-campus speech. Although others have made that argument, this Comment goes further by attempting to clearly define when speech occurs on campus and when it occurs off campus. It argues that speech that is originally created or transmitted off campus may only be considered on-campus speech if it is intentionally (re)communicated by the student while he or she is on campus. It further argues that the Spence v. Washington test for communicative conduct should be used to decide if internet speech was intentionally communicated on campus. This Comment concludes with a discussion of how the rule it proposes should apply in specific situations that schools are likely to face in the future.

Download the full text of the article from SSRN at the link.

Tobacco Warning Labels and the First Amendment

David Daniel Coyle, Emory University School of Law, has published Smoke and Mirrors: First Amendment Protection of Commercial Speech and the FDA's New Graphic Warning Labels for Tobacco. Here is the abstract.

In response to harms caused to public health by tobacco consumption, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act. This Act required the FDA to issue regulations requiring that graphic warning labels be put on tobacco products and advertisements to accompany the already existing textual warnings. Several tobacco companies challenged the graphic warning label requirement as a First Amendment violation of their commercial speech rights. The Sixth Circuit in Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States, upheld the graphic warning label requirement, while the D.C. Circuit in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, struck down the graphic warning labels as violations of the First Amendment.

This article explores the graphic warning labels in the context of the Supreme Court’s commercial speech, First Amendment precedents. This article questions the current commercial speech framework embodied by the tests laid down in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court and Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, and ultimately suggests a new, more optimal framework. The new framework developed in this paper would apply strict scrutiny to government regulations restricting commercial speech, while applying a rational basis review to government regulations that compel truthful commercial disclosures so long as an information gap exists. Finally, this article contributes to the body of law and academic literature addressing commercial speech by arguing that the graphic warning labels should be upheld not only under Zauderer and Central Hudson, but also under the more optimal framework developed in this article.

Download the full text of the paper from SSRN at the link.

 

Cameras In the Courtroom and Their Public Value

Cristina Carmody Tilley, Northwestern University School of Law, is publishing I Am a Camera: Scrutinizing the Assumption that Cameras in the Courtroom Furnish Public Value by Operating as a Proxy for the Public in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

The debate over cameras in the courtroom has focused almost exclusively on the fair trial cost that may be imposed when cameras film proceedings. Far less attention has been paid to the benefit side of the ledger; that is, whether cameras are effective in realizing any of the public values identified by the Supreme Court as the justifications for public access to court proceedings. Camera proponents and policymakers tend to assume that cameras are beneficial because they allow the public to follow proceedings they could not otherwise attend. That assumption rests on the notion that the broadcast press is a proxy for the public. But communications studies literature suggests that the proxy is a myth. Research indicates that television news reports featuring live footage actually inhibit viewer recall and comprehension of the event being covered. If the broadcast press is not a proxy for the public, it is unclear whether cameras in the courtroom furnish public value. In fact, policies promulgated in reliance on that proxy may be unsound. The Article concludes that policymakers considering camera access rules would benefit from empirical assessment of the likelihood that cameras will furnish public value in order to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the issue.

Download the full text of the article from SSRN at the link.

Copyright, the First Amendment, and Use of News Footage In Political Campaigns

Deidre A. Keller, Ohio Northern University College of Law, is publishing 'What He Said...': The Transformative Potential of the Use of Copyrighted Content in Political Campaigns, or, How a Win for Mitt Romney Might Have Been a Victory for Free Speech, in volume 16 of the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law (2013). Here is the abstract.

In January 2012 Mitt Romney’s campaign received a cease and desist letter from NBC charging that use of news footage casting opponent Newt Gingrich in a negative light constituted a copyright violation, violation of the right of publicity of the news anchor (Tom Brokaw), and false endorsement under the Lanham Act. This is just latest such charge and came amidst similar allegations against Gingrich and Bachmann during the primary season and in the wake of similar allegations against both the McCain and Obama campaigns in 2008. In fact, such allegations have plagued political campaigns as far back as Reagan’s in 1984. 

The existing literature considering such allegations in the context of political campaigns is almost entirely devoid of a consideration of the uses in question as political speech, protected by the First Amendment. Rather, scholars tend to consider only whether such uses constitute fair use. Courts have considered this question very rarely and tend to limit their consideration to the fair use issue as well. Because these cases rarely progress to decisions, there is little to be said of the way courts handle these issues but much to be said about the way courts ought to. This piece endeavors to engage in the thought experiment of laying out the analysis a court ought to engage in in the case that will never be concerning the Romney/NBC dispute. Ultimately, the piece will argue that in these circumstances, where the copyrighted content is marshaled in advancing a political message, copyright ought to yield to the First Amendment despite prior jurisprudence indicating that copyright infringement cases are largely exempt from First Amendment scrutiny.

Download the full text of the article from SSRN at the link.

Trademarking After the Marathon Bombings

The phrase "Boston Strong" is so popular that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already received two different applications to trademark it. However, trademark lawyers suggest that the USPTO may not grant such an application. The phrase is geographically descriptive (it contains a city name) and it doesn't refer to a particular brand. More here from the National Law Journal. 

The Free Press at the Polls

Trong Le, University of Iowa College of Law, has published The Press’s Right of Access to Polling Places: Does Democracy Die Ten Feet Behind Closed Doors? Here is the abstract.

The Third Circuit recently held in PG Publishing Company v. Aichele that a Pennsylvania statute did not violate the press’s constitutional rights by prohibiting media to access polling places. This decision conflicts with the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Beacon Journal Publishing Company, Inc. v. Blackwell. In Beacon Journal, the Sixth Circuit held that by prohibiting the press to access polling places, an Ohio statute violated the press’s constitutional rights. This Note examines this circuit split and argues that the Third Circuit misapplied the “experience and logic” test. Additionally, this Note advocates that courts should adopt a narrow definition of the press when allowing the press to access polling places.

Download the full text of the paper from SSRN at the link.

The ECJ's Philips/Nokia Cases Decision

Frederick M. Abbott, Florida State University College of Law, is publishing Respect for Copyright Sovereignty in Transit: The European Court of Justice Decision in the Joined Philips/Nokia Cases in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, National Institute of Scientific Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR), CSIR, India (forthcoming May 2013). Here is the abstract.

 

The decision by the ECJ in Philips/Nokia is welcome on a number of grounds. The Court affirmed that each country has the sovereign authority to make and apply IP rules for its own territory, and that applying IP rules governing the domestic market of transit countries would impair that authority. The Court rejected the production fiction approach that had been adopted by the Dutch Supreme Court, and advocated by Phillips and the Belgian government in the joined Philips/Nokia proceeding. Critically, the Court grounded its decision in the EC Treaty and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The ECJ effectively acknowledged (though without expressly referring to it) Article V of the GATT regarding freedom of transit, and the role this provision plays in facilitating international trade. The ECJ reference to the TFEU constrains EU options in the context of present efforts to amend the EU IP Border Regulation.The ECJ distinguished the level of proof or evidence that would justify seizure and temporary detention from the level of proof or evidence that is needed to establish infringement in a substantive enforcement proceeding. The types of evidence that may justify suspicion are broader than the concrete evidence that is needed to make out a case of infringement based on intention to divert. The ECJ placed a significant burden of proof on a right holder seeking the destruction or abandonment of goods “in transit” based on a substantive finding of infringement against the consignor/exporter of those goods. False transit must be proven with concrete evidence.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Wait! Don't Post That!

From CNN.com: warnings that intemperate postings, even parodies, can get you in trouble with law enforcement and the district attorney.

UK Supreme Court: Browsing Webpage Through Link Not Copyright Infringement

The UK high court has ruled that merely opening and browsing a webpage through a link is not a copyright infringement, holding that the page is merely temporary. The case is Public Relations Consultants Associations v. Newspaper Licencing Association.

However, the UK Supreme Court has also asked the European Court of Justice to examine the issue of the applicability of article 5.1 of the Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 to  "temporary copies made for the purpose of browsing by an unlicensed end-user." (see paragraph 38). More here from the Guardian.

Fair Use In Comparative Law

Martin Senftleben, VU University of Amsterdam Faculty of Law, has published Comparative Approaches to Fair Use: An Important Impulse for Reforms in EU Copyright Law, in G.B. Dinwoodie (ed.), Methods and Perspectives in Intellectual Property (G. B. Dinwoodie, ed., Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar, (2014, Forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

Fair use provisions in the field of copyright limitations, such as the U.S. fair use doctrine, offer several starting points for a comparative analysis of laws. Fair use may be compared with fair dealing. With the evolution of fair use systems outside the U.S., fair use can also be compared across different countries. The analysis may also concern fair use concepts in different domains of intellectual property. Instead of making any of these direct comparisons, the present analysis deals with another aspect of comparative analyses: the study of foreign fair use provisions as a basis for the improvement of domestic legislation. More specifically, the analysis will show that important impulses for necessary reforms in the EU system of copyright exceptions can be derived from a comparison with the flexible approach taken in the U.S. 

For this purpose, the legal traditions underlying the legislation on copyright limitations in the EU (civil law) and the U.S. (common law) will be outlined (section 1) before explaining the need for reforms in the current EU system (section 2). On this basis, strategies for translating lessons to be learned from the U.S. fair use approach (section 3) into the EU system will be discussed. This translation is unlikely to fail because of an inability or reluctance of civil law judges to apply open-ended norms (section 4). Under existing EU norms, however, a degree of flexibility comparable to the flexibility offered in the U.S. cannot be achieved (section 5). To establish a sufficiently flexible system, EU legislation would have to be amended (section 6 and concluding section 7).

Download the full text of the essay from SSRN at the link.

Copyright Symposium Taking Place This Week, Berkeley, CA

Taking place this week: Reform(aliz)ing Copyright for the Internet Age, April 18-19, 2013 at the Claremont Hotel, Berkeley, CA. More information available here. CLE is available.

ABA Honors Six Members of Congress For Leadership

Six members of Congress will receive the American Bar Association's Congressional Justice Award for accomplishment in lawmaking that serves the cause of justice. The ABA will honor Senators Mike Crapo, Dick Durbin, Tim Johnson, and Lisa Murkowski and Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen and Nita Lowey. More here from the National Law Journal. More here from the ABA.

How Conspiracy Stories Start

CNN.com points out that false (or fake) stories about the Boston bombing abound already, and even though the media and individuals try to debunk them, they have already taken on a life of their own.

FCC Rules Governing Emergency Information In Video Form To Visually Impaired

The FCC has published rules governing the accessibility of emergency information in video format for those who are blind or visually impaired. These rules are available in the Federal Register. Here's a link. Comments are due 60 days after the date of publication, which was April 8, 2013.

UK Channel Pulls London Marathon-Themed Film After Boston Bombing

From the Hollywood Reporter: The UK network Channel 4 says it will not broadcast a film called "Four Lions" in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings. The film, made in 2010, has as its subject a suicide bomb attack during the London Marathon. This year's London Marathon takes place Sunday, April 21. More here from Screen Daily.

Offense and the First Amendment

Alexander Tsesis, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, is publishing Inflammatory Speech: Offense versus Incitement in volume 97 of the Minnesota Law Review (2013). Here is the abstract.

The commonly accepted notion that content regulations on speech violate the First Amendment is misleading. In three recent cases - Snyder v. Phelps, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, and United States v. Stevens - the Court made clear that free speech includes the right to express scurrilous, disgusting, and disagreeable ideas. A different set of cases, however, concluded that group defamation, intentional threats, and material support for terrorist organizations are not protected forms of expression. This Article seeks to make sense of this doctrinal dichotomy and to develop clearer guidelines for regulating incitements that are posted on the Internet and in public areas. 

Many leading First Amendment scholars regard the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on outrageous and inciting expressions to be inconsistent. These academic authors often adopt a libertarian theory of the Free Speech Clause. They generally agree with cases that strike limits on offensive statements but disregard, or outright ignore, those that uphold restrictions on threats and defamations made in the absence of any imminent threat of harm. This Article demonstrates that opponents of incitement regulations fail to differentiate policies that protect public safety from those that silence outrageous but benign expressions. 

I propose a relatively straightforward method for evaluating the constitutionality of incitement laws. The mens rea of a speaker is key to judicial determinations about whether true threats, group defamation, and material support for terrorists are actionable or constitutionally protected. This Article parses the Court’s analysis of unprotected incitement that poses a threat to public safety. A small but significant group of decisions belies the libertarian claim that incitement is constitutionally protected. My proposal will undoubtedly be controversial because the method I propose would augment juries’ and judges’ authority to assess the context within which threatening statements are made and qualify the relevance of the canonic imminent threat of harm doctrine.

Download the full text of the article from SSRN at the link.

What People Think About IP

Gregory N. Mandel, Temple University School of Law, has published The Public Psychology of Intellectual Property. Here is the abstract.

Though the success of intellectual property law depends upon its ability to affect human perception and behavior, the public psychology of intellectual property has barely been explored. Over 1700 U.S. adults took part in an experimental study designed to investigate popular conceptions of intellectual property rights. Respondents’ views of what intellectual property rights should be differed substantially from actual law, and popular conceptions of the basis for intellectual property rights are contrary to commonly accepted bases relied on in legal and policy decision-making. Linear regression analysis reveals previously unrecognized cultural divides concerning intellectual property based on people’s income, age, education, political ideology, and gender.

Download the full text of the paper from SSRN at the link.

BBC Won't Ban "Wizard of Oz" Tune Used To Refer To Mrs. Thatcher's Passing

The BBC says it will not forbid the playing of the song "Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!" or ignore its rise to popularity on music charts in response to the death of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. BBC Radio1 controller Ben Cooper said the network would treat the song's popularity as a news story (link to a NYTimes story). More here  from the BBC from the BBC website on the debate over the song.

MTV Cancels "Buckwild" After Star's Death

In the wake of reality star Shain Gandee's death MTV has cancelled the show Buckwild. The Washington Post notes that the network plans a Buckwild marathon and then a Buckwild special before it bids farewell to the popular show. Mr. Gandee, his uncle, and a friend were found dead last week in their vehcile, which was partially submerged in mud. More here from CNN.com. [Link to the show's website here].

What "Science" Means In the Copyright Clause

Ned Snow, University of South Carolina School of Law, has published The Meaning of Science in the Copyright Clause in the Brigham Young University Law Review (2013). Here is the abstract.

The Constitution premises Congress’s copyright power on promoting “the Progress of Science.” The word Science therefore seems to define the scope of copyrightable subject matter. Modern courts and commentators have subscribed to an originalist view of Science, teaching that Science meant general knowledge at the time of the Framing. Under this interpretation, all subject matter may be copyrighted because expression about any subject increases society’s store of general knowledge. Science, however, did not originally mean general knowledge. In this Article, I examine evidence surrounding the Copyright Clause and conclude that at the Framing of the Constitution, Science meant a system of knowledge that comprises distinct branches of study. This historically accurate meaning casts doubt on whether a distinct group of expression may be copyrighted — namely, expression that the First Amendment does not protect. I argue that the original meaning of Science cannot support a constitutional copyright of unprotected speech.

Download the full text of the article from SSRN at the link.