A Curious Framing of First Amendment Rights

From the Seattle Times:

A Clackamas [Oregon] man has filed a federal lawsuit over what he says is his First Amendment right to express himself by giving the finger to sheriff's deputies.

Robert Ekas tells The Oregonian that he flipped off Clackamas County sheriff's deputies because he has a constitutional right to do it. Ekas also says he is protesting police violence.

In his lawsuit, Ekas says that in July 2007 he flipped off a Clackamas deputy while driving, and the deputy gave him tickets for illegal lane change and improper display of license plates. He was acquitted on the citations. A month later, he gave the finger to another deputy, who detained him but wrote no tickets.

Hmm. . . . I wonder whether this constitutes "protected" speech.

Stripper-Mobile Driving Up The Strip: Free Speech or Indecency?

Only In Vegas...

Convert? Steal? What's the Big Difference?

Oh, the difference one word can make. John Salzano had been accused of converting hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds from his father’s company. Don’t you dare say he was accused of stealing the funds! Why, you ask? Because he’ll sue you and take the case all the way to the state supreme court.

The WSJ Law Blog reported that Salzano sued a New Jersey newspaper, The Record of Hackensack (or The Bergen Record), because it referenced a complaint as alleging that Salzano stole, as opposed to converted, the funds. The case has now reached the New Jersey Supreme Court, which heard arguments earlier this week. The newspaper argues that journalists may not be expected to know legal terms of art and, citing the “fair-report privilege,” maintains that the media should be free to report on allegations in complaints without the risk of liability.

The appellate court, however, ruled that the “fair-report” privilege did not apply to situations where a complaint is newly filed and the claims don’t stick. And, apparently at least one Justice was very skeptical of the “journalist’s aren’t lawyers” argument. Justice Robert Rivera-Soto stated that “If [a complaint] were written in Sanskrit, you’d have to get someone translate it.”

To be honest, I’m not convinced by the Record’s arguments either. While I admit that I’m not familiar with the intricacies of the fair-report privilege, any argument that journalists should categorically be let off the hook when legal terminology is used strikes me as asinine. And the standard here is one of negligence, as opposed to actual malice, because it appears Salzano is a private figure. Ignorance of legal terminology certainly rises to the standard of negligence.

That isn’t to say that I believe the paper should be held liable. As a matter of fact, I feel very strongly that they should not. A more compelling legal argument could have been made in their favor. Specifically, it must be proven that the defamatory statement (i.e. that he was accused of converting the funds) was false. Typically, the plaintiff bears this burden. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986). Although the statement that Salzano was accused of stealing funds is literally false, more is necessary. See Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 (7th Cir. 1993) (the law protects false “details that, while not trivial, would not if corrected have altered the picture that the true facts paint”). Technical falsity is insufficient to overcome the burden of proving falsity; “material falsity” is required. See Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (requiring “substantial truth”); Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek, 440 Mich. 238 (1992) (requiring “material falsity” as opposed to "substantial truth" after the burden was switched from defendant to plaintiff).

Is the statement that Salzano was alleged to have stolen funds, when in actuality he was alleged to have converted them, materially false? I don’t think so, although I suppose it is debatable. What do you think?

Protest - A Dying Art?

Historically, protest has been seen as a sign of passion and an effective tool for change. Whether it was the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, or the Women's Rights Movement, advocates have gathered to show their solidarity in combatting both governmental and societal problems. We're generally taught about these movements with the spin that the protests were worth it even if these people were beaten, executed, and thrown in jail. Does that still ring true? Read about one man's attempt to revive the power of protest. Maybe the government would be more sympathetic if it wasn't just one person, and the issue wasn't the environment, but is that ok?

Today's Media Threatens Our Criminal Justice System

Am I the only one who wonders what has become of the media? Even the supposedly reputable news outlets have become glorified tabloids. As much as I dislike Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and yes, even Keith Olbermann, there is one “newscaster” that I reserve the bulk of my anger for: Nancy Grace.

To put it simply, Nancy Grace is bad for America. CNN’s website describes the program as “television's only justice themed/interview/debate show, designed for those interested in the breaking crime news of the day.” I describe it as a threat to the integrity of our criminal justice system.

The recent coverage of the Annie Le murder at Yale is a prime example of what I am referring to. It was a heinous, truly sickening crime, and the culprit obviously deserves the harshest of punishments. However, the media in general, and especially Ms. Grace, often forget that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They overlook the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a fair trial (and, specifically, a trial “by an impartial jury”) and the due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The media began its assault on alleged murderer Raymond Clark III immediately upon his being named a person of interest. For starters, news quickly leaked that Mr. Clark had failed a lie detector test. Some news outlets even used the above picture of Mr. Clark dressed as a devil for Halloween. Many news shows then began hypothesizing what Mr. Clark’s motive was. I recall a guest psychologist stating that Mr. Clark was clearly a misogynist. Others claimed that he had an infatuation with Asians, as evidenced by his membership to the Asian Awareness Club in high school, or that he perhaps suffered from jealously due to the fact that he never attended any college (never mind a prestigious one such as Yale). Unfortunately, this speculative drivel was being fed to the potential juror pool.

Obviously the defendant’s constitutional rights must be balanced against the First Amendment guarantee to free speech and press. The trial judge does have an affirmative duty to limit prejudice, whether by delaying trial, changing venue, or conducting a searching voir dire. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362-63 (1966). If such a duty is not fulfilled, there is serious risk that a conviction will be reversed. Id. Justice Burger acknowledged that “[t]he extraordinary protections afforded by the First Amendment carry with them something in the nature of a fiduciary duty to exercise the protected rights responsibility.” Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 560 (1976). He went on to explain that “[i]t is not asking too much to suggest that those who exercise First Amendment rights in newspapers or broadcasting enterprises direct some effort to protect the rights of an accused to a fair trial by unbiased jurors.” Id. Ultimately, however, Justice Burger held a gag order on the press unconstitutional, and it appears that Nancy Grace has a constitutional right to spew as much garbage as she would like. Id. at 568.

My question is this: Even though journalists such as Ms. Grace have a constitutional right to broadcast information that threatens a defendant’s right to a fair trial, do they not have a moral duty to avoid doing so? Go ahead and call me an idealistic law student, but I believe that just because you have a constitutional right to engage in certain types of action doesn’t necessarily mean that such action isn’t morally reprehensible. Whatever happened to journalistic integrity?