Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.2014297
Derigan A. Silver, Loryn Rumsey
Abstract Viral content on the internet has become part of our everyday lives. It has even made its way into defamation litigation. This article explores how viral content is changing the legal definition of limited-purpose and involuntary public figures. The article argues that courts should not consider having access to social media alone as having “access to media” under the test for deciding when an individual is a limited-purpose public figure. Additionally, courts should focus the analysis on determining whether plaintiffs voluntarily injected themselves into a controversy to sway public opinion or to resolve the controversy either via the viral content or with other behavior. More importantly, we argue courts should no longer recognize involuntary public figures. Although some authors have suggested that in the age of the internet it makes sense to require more individuals to prove actual malice, we suggest courts should use a lower standard for some individuals to better compensate for injury to reputation.
{"title":"Going Viral: Limited-Purpose Public Figures, Involuntary Public Figures, and Viral Media Content","authors":"Derigan A. Silver, Loryn Rumsey","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.2014297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.2014297","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Viral content on the internet has become part of our everyday lives. It has even made its way into defamation litigation. This article explores how viral content is changing the legal definition of limited-purpose and involuntary public figures. The article argues that courts should not consider having access to social media alone as having “access to media” under the test for deciding when an individual is a limited-purpose public figure. Additionally, courts should focus the analysis on determining whether plaintiffs voluntarily injected themselves into a controversy to sway public opinion or to resolve the controversy either via the viral content or with other behavior. More importantly, we argue courts should no longer recognize involuntary public figures. Although some authors have suggested that in the age of the internet it makes sense to require more individuals to prove actual malice, we suggest courts should use a lower standard for some individuals to better compensate for injury to reputation.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"27 1","pages":"49 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44630676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.2014291
A. Sanders
{"title":"Editor’s Note: A Vision for Communication Law & Policy in the Digital Age","authors":"A. Sanders","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.2014291","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.2014291","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"27 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45941850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.2014293
Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, S. Kendall
Abstract Espionage has emerged as a leading national security threat for the digital age. Far from traditional wartime spy tactics, espionage now includes actors—including journalists—accessing and publishing sensitive information online to a global audience. This threat must be addressed; however, overbroad espionage laws have the capacity to criminalize legitimate journalism and chill free expression. This article examines the implications of Australia’s expansive 2018 counterespionage framework for foreign media. It argues that this broad suite of offenses creates a complex risk environment for global media reporting on issues that impact Australia’s national interest or foreign relations. These risks are exacerbated for media organizations owned or controlled by foreign governments and their journalists, sources, and associates. We consider whether the practical and political likelihood of extraterritorial enforcement alleviates the potential impact of the laws and argue for targeted reform to protect press freedom on a global scale.
{"title":"Crimes of Communication: The Implications of Australian Espionage Law for Global Media","authors":"Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, S. Kendall","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.2014293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.2014293","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Espionage has emerged as a leading national security threat for the digital age. Far from traditional wartime spy tactics, espionage now includes actors—including journalists—accessing and publishing sensitive information online to a global audience. This threat must be addressed; however, overbroad espionage laws have the capacity to criminalize legitimate journalism and chill free expression. This article examines the implications of Australia’s expansive 2018 counterespionage framework for foreign media. It argues that this broad suite of offenses creates a complex risk environment for global media reporting on issues that impact Australia’s national interest or foreign relations. These risks are exacerbated for media organizations owned or controlled by foreign governments and their journalists, sources, and associates. We consider whether the practical and political likelihood of extraterritorial enforcement alleviates the potential impact of the laws and argue for targeted reform to protect press freedom on a global scale.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"27 1","pages":"3 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42271460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-14DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132
Chris Wiersma
At the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), responding governments often argue that the right to “Freedom of expression” (Article 10) does not apply to cases because of journalists’ controversial methods of information gathering (such as wiretapping, secret recording, the use of aliases, and other methods). This article examines how the ECtHR’s international adjudication is a test of the boundaries of the freedom of journalism. It shows that it is a common human rights issue for the ECtHR to consider the justiciability of wide, principled freedoms about newsgathering. Through a conceptual, legal study of twenty-seven cases covering the past two decades, the analysis is focused on the criteria surrounding the scope of ECHR Article 10, paragraph 1, concerning the acts of a member state. It is argued that the way that the ECtHR is defining the contours of the freedom to conduct newsgathering and investigative journalism provides an undue challenge to legal certainty, because it is tending too much towards including a wide range of elements related to either journalistic ethics or “duties,” such as the lawfulness of journalists' conduct. The article advocates that a more human rights-based coverage under ECHR Article 10 is needed.
{"title":"Scoping the Journalists’ Freedom to Conduct Newsgathering at the European Court of Human Rights: A Step Toward a More Human Rights-Based Approach to the Coverage of ECHR Article 10?","authors":"Chris Wiersma","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132","url":null,"abstract":"At the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), responding governments often argue that the right to “Freedom of expression” (Article 10) does not apply to cases because of journalists’ controversial methods of information gathering (such as wiretapping, secret recording, the use of aliases, and other methods). This article examines how the ECtHR’s international adjudication is a test of the boundaries of the freedom of journalism. It shows that it is a common human rights issue for the ECtHR to consider the justiciability of wide, principled freedoms about newsgathering. Through a conceptual, legal study of twenty-seven cases covering the past two decades, the analysis is focused on the criteria surrounding the scope of ECHR Article 10, paragraph 1, concerning the acts of a member state. It is argued that the way that the ECtHR is defining the contours of the freedom to conduct newsgathering and investigative journalism provides an undue challenge to legal certainty, because it is tending too much towards including a wide range of elements related to either journalistic ethics or “duties,” such as the lawfulness of journalists' conduct. The article advocates that a more human rights-based coverage under ECHR Article 10 is needed.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"507 - 557"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47063705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-14DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1963131
Michele Bush Kimball
Throughout its history, the Supreme Court of the United States has allowed members of the press access to oral arguments and decision releases in its courtroom. However, it took nearly eighty years to formally codify a process by which members of the press were officially credentialed to cover the Court, a pass giving them access to the courtroom beyond the bar, access to walk the halls freely, to work in dedicated space in the building, and access to the justices themselves. This article traces the history of the press credentialing from the day the justices moved into the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., in 1935 to the unprecedented public access granted to oral arguments due to the social distancing required by the COVID19 virus in the spring of 2020. It is meant to fortify the historical record to ensure that the Court remains as open and accessible as possible to reporters because they act as emissaries of the public. The Court’s decisions affect all aspects of life for citizens, and therefore public knowledge of the Court’s work is essential to a strong democracy. Press access is key to that understanding.
{"title":"A History of Modern Press Access to the Supreme Court of the United States","authors":"Michele Bush Kimball","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1963131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1963131","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout its history, the Supreme Court of the United States has allowed members of the press access to oral arguments and decision releases in its courtroom. However, it took nearly eighty years to formally codify a process by which members of the press were officially credentialed to cover the Court, a pass giving them access to the courtroom beyond the bar, access to walk the halls freely, to work in dedicated space in the building, and access to the justices themselves. This article traces the history of the press credentialing from the day the justices moved into the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., in 1935 to the unprecedented public access granted to oral arguments due to the social distancing required by the COVID19 virus in the spring of 2020. It is meant to fortify the historical record to ensure that the Court remains as open and accessible as possible to reporters because they act as emissaries of the public. The Court’s decisions affect all aspects of life for citizens, and therefore public knowledge of the Court’s work is essential to a strong democracy. Press access is key to that understanding.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"438 - 506"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43346293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-14DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1963128
Roxanne Watson
In 2014, the highest court of appeals for Mauritius overturned the conviction of a journalist for scandalizing the court in an article that was sharply critical of that country’s chief justice. In 2020, a well-known attorney was convicted of scandalizing the court in India for tweets that were critical of that country’s chief justice. While in Victoria, Australia, three government ministers narrowly escaped charges of scandalizing the court by apologizing for criticisms made of a high court judge’s sentence in a terrorist case. “Scandalizing the court,” otherwise referred to as “murmuring against judges,” has been defined as “conduct which denigrates judges of the court so as to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.” This article explores the action of scandalizing the court in three commonwealth countries. The three relatively recent cases are juxtaposed in order to provide the basis for the argument that these actions are not only ineffective in ensuring respect for the court or ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice, but also fly in the face of other important constitutional issues such as freedom of the press and the constitutional right to a fair trial. The action for scandalizing the court should be abolished in the commonwealth.
{"title":"Scandalizing the Court in the Commonwealth in the Twenty-First Century","authors":"Roxanne Watson","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1963128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1963128","url":null,"abstract":"In 2014, the highest court of appeals for Mauritius overturned the conviction of a journalist for scandalizing the court in an article that was sharply critical of that country’s chief justice. In 2020, a well-known attorney was convicted of scandalizing the court in India for tweets that were critical of that country’s chief justice. While in Victoria, Australia, three government ministers narrowly escaped charges of scandalizing the court by apologizing for criticisms made of a high court judge’s sentence in a terrorist case. “Scandalizing the court,” otherwise referred to as “murmuring against judges,” has been defined as “conduct which denigrates judges of the court so as to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.” This article explores the action of scandalizing the court in three commonwealth countries. The three relatively recent cases are juxtaposed in order to provide the basis for the argument that these actions are not only ineffective in ensuring respect for the court or ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice, but also fly in the face of other important constitutional issues such as freedom of the press and the constitutional right to a fair trial. The action for scandalizing the court should be abolished in the commonwealth.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"377 - 437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42760539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Broadcasting and Telecommunications","authors":"D. Caristi, W. R. Davie, Laurie Thomas Lee","doi":"10.4324/9781003091660-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003091660-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75183480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Digital Online Media","authors":"D. Caristi, W. R. Davie, Laurie Thomas Lee","doi":"10.4324/9781003091660-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003091660-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"141 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78496720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-08DOI: 10.4324/9781003091660-11
D. Caristi, W. R. Davie, Laurie Thomas Lee
{"title":"Advertising Law","authors":"D. Caristi, W. R. Davie, Laurie Thomas Lee","doi":"10.4324/9781003091660-11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003091660-11","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74629067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1937003
S. Bates
The philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn ranks among the most renowned First Amendment theorists. In Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, published in 1948, he lays out four propositions: The First Amendment is intended to facilitate political discourse; its principal concern is the rights of listeners rather than those of speakers; the government has an affirmative obligation to improve the system of free expression; and effective political deliberation requires structure and rules. Together, these propositions add up to Meiklejohn’s self-government theory of the First Amendment. But he was not the first: All four propositions appear in a book published a year earlier by another philosopher, William Ernest Hocking, a member of the Commission on Freedom of the Press. This article critically examines the two men’s versions of self-government theory in the context of their backgrounds, their political philosophies, and their animating concerns about free speech.
哲学家亚历山大·米克尔约翰(Alexander Meiklejohn)是最著名的第一修正案理论家之一。在1948年出版的《言论自由及其与自治的关系》一书中，他提出了四个主张:第一修正案旨在促进政治话语;它主要关心的是听者的权利，而不是说话者的权利;政府有完善言论自由制度的积极义务;有效的政治审议需要结构和规则。综上所述，这些主张构成了米克尔约翰关于第一修正案的自治理论。但他并不是第一个:这四个主张都出现在另一位哲学家、新闻自由委员会成员威廉·欧内斯特·霍金(William Ernest hawking)一年前出版的一本书中。本文从他们的背景、他们的政治哲学以及他们对言论自由的关注等方面，批判性地考察了两人的自治理论版本。
{"title":"Meiklejohn, Hocking, and Self-Government Theory","authors":"S. Bates","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1937003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1937003","url":null,"abstract":"The philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn ranks among the most renowned First Amendment theorists. In Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, published in 1948, he lays out four propositions: The First Amendment is intended to facilitate political discourse; its principal concern is the rights of listeners rather than those of speakers; the government has an affirmative obligation to improve the system of free expression; and effective political deliberation requires structure and rules. Together, these propositions add up to Meiklejohn’s self-government theory of the First Amendment. But he was not the first: All four propositions appear in a book published a year earlier by another philosopher, William Ernest Hocking, a member of the Commission on Freedom of the Press. This article critically examines the two men’s versions of self-government theory in the context of their backgrounds, their political philosophies, and their animating concerns about free speech.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"265 - 311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47175307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：