Journalism & Law

Our sister blog PRNewser also got a hold of the FTC's Richard Cleland who assured them that it would be advertisers, not bloggers, who would be fined in cases of infringement:

We have never brought a case against a consumer endorser and we've never brought a case against somebody simply for failure to disclose a material connection. Where we have brought cases, there are other issues involved, not only failing to disclose a material connection but also making other misrepresentations about a product, a serious product like a health product or something like that. We have brought those cases but not against the consumer endorser, we have brought those cases against the advertiser that was behind it. If people think that the FTC is going to issue them a citation for $11,000 because they failed to disclose that they got a free box of Pampers, that's not true. That's not going to happen today, not ever.

Read the whole thing at: FTC Clarifies Blogger Guidelines: 'We've Never Brought a Case Against Somebody Simply for Failure to Disclose'

Related Post: FTC Clarifies $11,000 Blogging Fine, Courtesy of Fast Company

While the blogosphere erupted these past few days in protestations and expostulations over the news that the Federal Trade Commission updated its "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising"—especially the assertions that bloggers could be fined $11,000 for not disclosing freebies—the good folks at Fast Company went and did some old fashioned reporting.

Specifically, they gathered up the primary concerns of major bloggers and then went back to the FTC and asked, "So, what's the deal?"

Among the revelations comes this assertion by FTC assistant director, division of advertising practices, Richard Cleland:

That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law. To the extent that I have seen and heard, people are not objecting to the disclosure requirements but to the fear of penalty if they inadvertently make a mistake. That's the thing I don't think people need to be concerned about. There's no monetary penalty, in terms of the first violation, even in the worst case. Our approach is going to be educational, particularly with bloggers. We're focusing on the advertisers: What kind of education are you providing them, are you monitoring the bloggers and whether what they're saying is true?

Read the whole thing at: FTC Responds to Blogger Fears: "That $11,000 Fine is Not True"

An attorney for outed "Skanks in NYC" blogger Rosemary Port is
comparing her right to dispatch anonymous epithets about a Vogue cover model to the right of Alexander Hamilton et al to advocate anonymously for the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

"I'm ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court," Port's attorney Salvatore Strazzullo told the New York Daily News. "Our Founding Fathers wrote 'The Federalist Papers' under pseudonyms. Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to speak anonymously. Shouldn't that right extend to the new public square of the Internet?"

Port is threatening to file a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Google, which handed over identifying information about her to model Liskula Cohen under court order.

Oh goodness. Looks like we're going to have to start minding our P's and Q's online.

Under court order, Google has just handed over the IP address of the user of Blogger (a Google service) who had posted some very unkind things about Vogue cover model Liskula Cohen on a blog called "Skanks in NYC," including photo captions referring to her as the "Skankiest in NYC" and a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank."

Cohen had asked Google for the information, so she could sue the author for defamation. Google had refused, citing the company's privacy policy (though it did take down the blog). Cohen's attorney's brought the matter to court. On Monday, a New York Supreme Court justice batted down the anonymous blogger's contention that the bons mot were mere opinion and instead, according to the Guardian (UK), "found Cohen may insist in a suit that the statements are factually inaccurate."

As Cohen's attorney Steve Wagner told Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America today, the judge "balanced the first amendment rights with the rights of people to be protected from harmful, defamatory speech. It's sending out a message that the Internet is no longer a safe harbor for defamatory language."

It turns out that the perp is an acquaintance of Cohen's, "an irrelevant person in my life," Cohen told Sawyer. She's already called the woman to tell her she forgives her but hasn't ruled out a defamation suit. "Maybe if she apologizes...," Cohen said.

Video report, including interview with Cohen, at Good Morning America.

Back in May, we told you about the San Francisco State University journalism student who was invoking the shield law to deny police access to photos he took at the scene of a Bayview-Hunters Point murder.

At the time, it wasn't clear whether the student would get shield protection. But a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that the student is covered and that police must return photographic equipment they took from the student's apartment during a warrant search.

The state tried to argue that the student wasn't protected because he wasn't working for a news organization. The attorney for the 22-year-old student, who is remaining anonymous out of safety concerns, argued the student was a freelancer and had been trying to sell the story to various outlets.

Image credit: Chrisdesign

(Via San Francisco Chronicle, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press)

This could be a harbinger of things to come: A federal grand jury subpoena is asking the Las Vegas Review-Journal for the names and contact information of people who posted comments on a story about a tax fraud trial.

The paper says, "prosecutors told federal Judge David Ezra that they issued [the subpoena] out of concern for jurors' safety, because some comments hinted at acts of violence."

The Review-Journal is resisting, saying that "anonymous speech is 'a fundamental and historic part of this country,'" according to an article published in the paper today. The article also says the paper will file a motion to quash the subpoena later this week.

The ACLU is also apparently getting into the game. The Review-Journal says the ACLU has offered to represent any of the commenters who want their help.

A San Francisco State University journalism student who witnessed a killing in San Francisco is invoking the shield law to refuse police access to the photos he was taking at the time of the killing, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The student, whom the Chronicle did not name, citing concern for his safety, had been following the victim for several months as part of his senior photojournalism project.

Police obtained a warrant for the photographs and searched his apartment earlier this month, the Chronicle said. It's not clear whether they found the pictures. The student has not had direct contact with the police and is now being represented by attorney Jim Wagstaffe, who the Chronicle says is an expert on First Ammendment law.

It's not clear where the case stands. When asked about the shield law, San Francisco deputy police chief David Shinn did not comment, simply telling the newspaper: "We are looking for evidence to bring forward a homicide case in San Francisco. We will use every legally available means to do exactly that."

Another attorney who represents media organizations, Karl Olson, told the Chronicle that a judge might be sympathetic to police in this case and that this "may be not the strongest case of invocation of the shield law."

Read the full article at the Chronicle.