The jury ruled the films, which include scenes of vomiting, violence and urination, were criminally obscene...

Little apologized to the court and said the videos and DVDs in question were labeled and intended for the more permissive European market, not for sale in the United States.

There's also the fact that his movies "usually feature him engaging in a variety of sexual acts with young women who dress and act like prepubescent girls." What a sleazebag. Also, what a bad ruling. America should be ashamed to lose to Europe in porn freedom. [TBO]

Warner Bros. sued an Indian film company for making a movie called "Hari Puttar," claiming that it was a ripoff of Harry Potter. They just lost the case in an Indian court. Home team advantage? Actually, when you hear the facts it seems more like sheer bullying or paranoia on Warner Bros. part:

"Hari Puttar" is not a tale of magic, but the story of an Indian boy and his cousin forgotten at home in Britain where his family has recently moved, in a plot more reminiscent of the film "Home Alone." In the Indian film, 10-year-old Hari Puttar must guard his scientist father's top-security computer chip from bumbling burglars, while his parents are away.

Gee, that sounds... absolutely nothing like Harry Potter. Also, "Hari is a common name in India and Hindi for God, while 'puttar' is Punjabi for son."

Hey Warner Bros, stop that. Bollywood has already stolen Snoop Dogg from us and India has surpassed America in fighting the Axe Body Spray menace. Soon America will have no original culture left and you'll have to steal ideas from India, so don't blow your wad on frivolous lawsuits. [WSJ; pic via Courant]

[The judge] said he was throwing out Rather's fraud claim not because he wasn't duped, but because he didn't suffer any damages from the alleged trickery. The judge noted that Rather, 76, was still paid the money he was owed under his contract, and is still gainfully - and lucratively - employed by HDNet.

He said Rather's claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty can go forward.

Now Rather's suit has come down to proving that CBS stopped giving him (enough) work in the 15 months following the Bush story controversy. Which is not quite as dramatic as it was before.

I apologize for perpetuating Rather-talk.

[NYP]

"What needs fixing isn't the African-Americans; it's the white guy running the agency"...

"We know the industry has had various diversity efforts over the years. However, these efforts are going to continue to fall short until they understand they're operating under a false premise — that the problem is the supply of African-American talent — when the real problem is the lack of leadership at the top and their exclusionary policies and practices."

[Ad Age]

Those who support the contemplative use of salvia disdain the YouTubers for disrespecting the herb’s power and purpose.

“They’re not really taking it as a tool to explore their inner psyche,” said Daniel J. Siebert, a Californian who pioneered the production of salvia extracts. “They’re just taking it to get messed up.”

Because if salvia is banned, it could make it hard for researchers to use it to potentially cure serious medical conditions. Such as insufficient fear of couch monsters:

[NYT]

Mr. Follieri's move toward a guilty plea comes despite some potential problems with the government's case. While prosecutors contend that Mr. Follieri overstated his Vatican ties to attract investors to his church real-estate deals, he did have some high-level connections in Rome. Last year, a Clinton spokesman said at least two senior Catholic Church figures had spoken up for Mr. Follieri, including Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who, as Vatican secretary of state, effectively ran church operations before retiring last year.

[WSJ]

Commentary has a think piece out this month on new legislation signed by New York's heroic blind governor last spring, which allows judges here to invalidate libel judgments obtained in countries with lesser free speech protections (hello, UK). The prime motivation was reportedly the nonstop libel tourism of Khalid bin Mahfouz (see below), which threatened to bankrupt some journalists. Huzzah for our right to write things, and yours to read them! Here are some of recent history's most notable libel tourists:

• Khalid bin Mahfouz—a Saudi billionaire who may be the chief libel tourist offender. He's been successful three dozen times, according to Commentary, winning either cash or an apology. His main problem is that lots of people say he funds Al-Quaeda.
• Sidney Blumenthal—wonky former Clinton advisor and (irony!) journalist who sued Matt Drudge for $30 million for alleging Blumenthal abused his wife, based on anonymous sources. Drudge later apologized, but Blumenthal never won his suit formally.
• Richard Perle—hawkish Bush advisor "threatened to sue investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in London, because of a series of critical articles Hersh had written about him." Jerk.

Truth is the ultimate defense!

[Commentary (abstract); pic via Reuters]

The original WOWCH shirt:

The Pineapple Express poster:

A closer look at Franco's shirt-wearing:

On WOWCH's blog, the company points out an interview in which Franco credited the shirt's design to director David Gordon Green. Yea right! WOWCH is demanding free tickets and popcorn to a showing of Pineapple Express to make up for what is, in all likelihood, the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of licensing fees (we just made that figure up). Justice!

Renault complained to the police because the magazine, Auto Plus, "published pictures and details of a new model not due to be launched for another three years." I call that a hell of a scoop. Three years in advance! Such things are criminal matters in France. By contrast, in the greatest country on earth (USA), leaks like this are routine, and it's the company's god damn problem to track down leakers. (Unless you're talking about Apple and the Think Secret blog). Renault says they were just getting a little assistance:

"It kills creativity, you may as well just give our models to the newspapers and our competitors. What's the point of doing any research?" a spokesman said.

"The idea is not to attack Auto Plus but to cut off the sources that feed it, to find the source inhouse."

Interesting interpretation. In that case, police should be raiding Renault and arresting its executives every time an consumer is tricked into buying one of their crappy cars. The idea is not to attack Renault, you see, but to cut off the money that feeds it.

USA, USA, USA.

[Reuters, Folio]

Mr. Nekschot, who calls the investigation "surreal," says, "Not even Monty Python could have come up with this." (His pen name, Gregorius Nekschot, is a mocking tribute to Gregory IX, a 13th-century pope who set up a Vatican department to hunt down and execute heretics. Nekschot means "shot in the neck" in Dutch.) Some Muslim groups have voiced dismay at his arrest as well. The head of an organization of Moroccan preachers in Holland said authorities seemed "more afraid" of offending Islam than Muslims.

Predictably, the cartoonist has now turned into a popular cult figure. Although, judging by these two selections from his website, he's not really the most incisive cultural critic you're likely to come across. Stop turning all these bad cartoonists into martyrs! You fools.

[WSJ]

[A legal expert] said that generally speaking, it’s OK to take aerial photos of objects that are readily visible to the naked eye, since they’re taken from public airspace.

The possibility of trouble arises when people use high-powered telephoto lenses. If a photo reveals a home’s security operations or shows close-ups of people, there could be an argument for an invasion of privacy claim. She said that “capturing someone sitting on their patio sunbathing nude” could create a legal challenge, but added that “if you’re just showing that someone has this lovely home, I’m not sure that would be a compelling argument for a claim.”

You heard it straight from the WSJ: you are well within your rights to try to "incidentally" snap a photo of Bill Gates in the buff. Because you like his lovely home. And thank god for that. Without these rights, the media would never get jealousy-producing shots like these:

Rodney Propp's $40 million Hamptons spread, from Vanity Fair:

A mere glimpse of Abigail Johnson's hideously valuable Massachusetts manse:

You get the idea, plebe.

[WSJ]

ABC tried to sneak a waiver into its new contracts saying that news writers "would not be compensated for checking their company-issued BlackBerrys after office hours." The union got upset!

Lowell Peterson, the executive director of the East Coast guild, said the writers are comfortable with the tools of the news trade, but the guild is trying to avoid “the 24/7 workplace.”

“People are entitled to time off the job,” he said. “BlackBerrys can be liberating; they can help people keep tabs without going into the office. But they can also shackle people to their jobs.”

The two sides settled, but this little story was popular with the media because, secretly, all members of the media would love to get paid extra for fiddling with their BlackBerries while waiting in line for the movies. The best solution, of course, is to never check your work email outside of work hours. Then watch the overtime roll in.

[NYT]

In August 2002, Quon and another officer exceeded a department limit of 25,000 characters per month for texting. The police chief ordered a subordinate to obtain transcripts of the officers' text messages to determine whether the pagers were being used purely for work purposes.

The provider, Arch Wireless, sent the department transcripts of the messages. The city determined that many of Quon's messages were personal, and several were sexually explicit.

The court found that Arch Wireless violated the federal Stored Communications Act, which prohibits providers from divulging the contents of any communication that is maintained on the service without a warrant.

So check to make sure your work uses and outside email contractor; then, spend all day texting dirty things to your girlfriend and sending us spiteful leaks via email. America! Freedom!

[LAT]

David Seamon, expert in self-publicity and former Gawker Media intern, found Cox's blog itself to be suspect.

Fishy: So some of this guy's posts receive 0 comments, while others get 81,406 user comments — but you can't view any of them unless you log in. I honestly have trouble believing his blog gets that much traffic, especially considering there are no pics and the whole thing reads like the starter text included with a blog template. (For comparison's sake, the most popular story on PerezHilton.com at the moment has 142 comments...)

3. What's totally even weirder: when you try to create a login so you can view his 81,000+ comments, it doesn't let you...

"Thanks for signing up for our email list. We'll contact you once registration is open. We hope that will be sometime in August and hopefully no later than 9/1/08."

Seaman suggests the entire MBA is just an excuse to sell scared bloggers useless liability insurance. Commenter Triborough agrees!

They do not list any physical location (i.e. street address), the whois info for their domain appears to be a private registration, in the e-mail the phone number is Westchester, but the fax is Arizona (big red flag). Part of me thinks it could be a front group for AP to get money.

This is the group that the blogger behind Drudge Retort turned to when faced with legal threats from the Associated Press. AP backed down, but who knows what Cox and his MBA got from the blogger. And now this group is supposedly in negotiations with the AP to issue blogging guidelines that most likely will be stricter than copyright law even calls for.

If we suspected anyone was maybe going to follow those rules, we'd be worried!

Anyway, Roger, if you have any response to all this, just put it on your blog, and then we'll read it and make fun of it again. That's how it works.

Update: We forgot about the AP's friendly history with Cox!

Media Bloggers Association head Robert Cox gets along just swimmingly with the wire service. They worked together in early 2007 to cover the Scooter Libby trial and Cox was thrilled at the opportunity. "This is a great step forward in the relationship between news bloggers and the mainstream media," Cox said the AP's decision to deign to allow bloggers to get press passes.

In return, Cox promised to keep bloggers in line! “This is not the time to write a post titled ‘Dick Cheney is a [expletive deleted].’ We sought to address [the AP’s concerns] by saying we have a vetted membership of bloggers who’ve agreed to ascribe to certain ideals of what they’re trying to do. [The AP] has the kind of accountability that they want. I’m not going to control what the blogger writes, but if they get way out of line and embarrass the AP, they can be pulled from the feed.”

Goddammit Cox this is the time to write a post titled "Dick Cheney is a [expletive deleted]." If we can't do that, then what is the point of blogging?

(Thanks, it takes a train to cry, for reminding us.)

In closing arguments, Kelly's attorney banged on the jury box with his fist, yelled and whispered, laughed and pleaded for more than in hour in his emotion-filled closing.

At one point, Sam Adam Jr. referred to a defense argument made repeatedly during the trial that a mole on the singer's back proved he simply can't be the man in the video.

After displaying a freeze frame of the man's back in the video — with no apparent mole — Adam walked over to the defense table and placed his hand on Kelly's shoulder.

"The truth be told, there is no mole ... that means one thing," Adam told jurors, then paused and lowered his voice. "It ain't him. And if it ain't him, you can't convict."

Prosecutors wrapped up their arguments the same way they began them a month ago: by playing the entire graphic sex tape in open court.

[CNN.com]

"The libel claim focuses on a series of articles that appeared in the British press including the Daily Mail, the London Evening Standard and the Independent on Sunday from April 22 onwards.

These articles alleged that Robert Dee had lost 54 consecutive professional matches, making him the world's worst player. British-born Dee, who works full time as a tennis professional at La Manga in Spain, has denied the claim.

According to his spokesman, Dee said that while he has lost 54 consecutive International Tennis Federation matches he also won 20 other professional matches in that time."

Robert Dee is a terrible tennis player. God bless the USA!

(Also, could this spell the end of derogatory listicles in the UK? Heaven forbid!)

[Guardian UK]

Mike Sitrick is in some ways an LA version of NYC uberflack Howard Rubenstein: as much a power broker as a publicist. But Sitrick's firm is heavily media-focused; he employs a laundry list of high profile ex-reporters, and keeps a tight control on his clients' access to the media. He's the go-to guy for Hollywood stars embroiled in scandals, and does a ton of corporate work as well. He's hated—and even feared—by many working reporters because of his clout. But he's also extremely intelligent about how the media works, and able to wrangle the best possible coverage for clients in seemingly intractable situations. A 2006 story in LA Magazine gave a good rundown of his famous tactics, like this:

One of Sitrick's favorite gambits is "the Lead Steer." He frequently uses it when clients are besieged by negative pack coverage. His thinking is that if he can turn a single respected writer around, he can reverse the trend and maybe even start a stampede in the other direction. "There's an impression among a lot of publicists," says Sitrick, "that you want to deal with lightweight journalists. That's okay on a one-off story, but on a big piece you want a Mike Wallace." When the publicist was representing the actress Kim Basinger during her 1993 bankruptcy case, he says he used Judy Brennan, of the Los Angeles Times, as his lead steer. "She did a sympathetic article, and her piece reversed the way people thought of Kim."

And, more deviously, this tactic to push a story into oblivion:

When journalist Mim Udovitch was assigned by Radar to investigate whether the Kabbalah Center was a cult organization, Sitrick and Company inundated her with material. Indeed, the publicist contends that his staff kept her occupied so long that the firm can take credit for the article's appearance in the relative oblivion of the magazine's online edition instead of in print as originally planned.

So while Sitrick's most visible clients are celebrities, they don't nearly account for the bulk of his revenue. Calling Sitrick & Co. "Paris Hilton's PR firm" is as simplistic as saying "Barney's master invades Iraq." His firm has hundreds of clients, many of them smaller companies that want an experienced flack on hand in case the going gets rough. And that's exactly the role that Sitrick played for Pitcock's law firm: His agency helped to position the firm as the righteous ones, indignantly firing an employee who had gone astray (rather than letting them appear complicit in a harassment ordeal).

Was it worth it? In light of the $90 million suit, perhaps not. But if the aggrieved Pitcock walks away with nothing, it will only bolster Sitrick's own reputation for wizardry (not that he needs it). The lesson: Never be surprised to see Sitrick's name pop up anywhere. He is the scary unseen ninja of PR.

[NYT via NY Mag. Pic via Deadline Hollywood]

Chicago Sun-Times music critic Jim DeRogatis, who first received the infamous R. Kelly kinky child sex tape in the mail, was ordered to testify at the trial. But he refused to show! He's claiming some sort of journalistic privilege to protect his sources, which may or may not actually exist in the eyes of the law. Now the judge is deciding whether to issue a warrant for the reporter's arrest. He could be the Judy Miller of the sex tape circuit!

The whole reason DeRogatis was called in the first place is that the defense team is "interested in what DeRogatis may have done with the tape between the time he received it in early 2002 and when he gave it to police."

As long as he didn't spend that time digitally inserting images of R. Kelly having sex with a minor into it, I don't see how it really matters.

[Tribune]

Mainly the government wants to keep ads equally loud to the shows they surround, not louder:

The new British rules take account of this, saying that "broadcasters must endeavor to minimize the annoyance that perceived imbalances could cause, with the aim that the audience need not adjust the volume of their television sets during program breaks."

Still: volume button? Anyone? Regulators? Times? Advertisers? I admit to being partially asleep right now and not that bright overall, so help me out here. What if your asshole neighbor just plays their freaking TV too loud? It should be legal to shoot them. Governments are so weird.

From Mary Stevenson, 1936:

One night I dreamed I was walking along the beach with the Lord. Many scenes from my life flashed across the sky.

In each scene I noticed footprints in the sand. Sometimes there were two sets of footprints, other times there was one only.

This bothered me because I noticed that during the low periods of my life, when I was suffering from anguish, sorrow or defeat, I could see only one set of footprints, so I said to the Lord,

"You promised me Lord,
that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I have noticed that during the most trying periods of my life there has only been one set of footprints in the sand. Why, when I needed you most, have you not been there for me?"

The Lord replied, "The years when you have seen only one set of footprints, my child, is when I carried you."

From Carolyn Carty, 1963:

One night a man had a dream. He dreamed He was walking along the beach with the LORD. Across the sky flashed scenes from His life. For each scene He noticed two sets of footprints in the sand. One belonging to Him and the other to the LORD.

When the last scene of His life flashed before Him, he looked back at the footprints in the sand. He noticed that many times along the path of His life there was only one set of footprints. He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times of His life.

This really bothered Him and He questioned the LORD about it. LORD you said that once I decided to follow you, you'd walk with me all the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life there is only one set of footprints. I don't understand why when I needed you most you would leave me.

The LORD replied, my precious, precious child, I Love you and I would never leave you! During your times of trial and suffering when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you.

From Margaret Fishback Powers, 1964:

One night I dreamed a dream. I was walking along the beach with my Lord. Across the dark sky flashed scenes from my life. For each scene, I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand, one belonging to me and one to my Lord.

When the last scene of my life shot before me I looked back at the footprints in the sand. There was only one set of footprints. I realized that this was at the lowest and saddest times of my life. This always bothered me and I questioned the Lord about my dilemma.

"Lord, You told me when I decided to follow You, You would walk and talk with me all the way. But I'm aware that during the most troublesome times of my life there is only one set of footprints. I just don't understand why, when I need You most, You leave me."

He whispered, "My precious child, I love you and will never leave you, never, ever, during your trials and testings. When you saw only one set of footprints, It was then that I carried you."

[NYP; poems via WowZone]

The rules make it an offense to blog, use brand ambassadors or seed viral ads while "falsely representing oneself as a consumer." They also apply to bloggers who fail to disclose they have accepted money to write about a product.

This is not of course, happening in the US. But maybe bloggers should rethink their opinions about accepting free shit in return for positive reviews. Word of mouth marketing online is big business here, but most companies and their marketing agencies are smart enough to realize already that disclosure can save them a world of scandal and bad PR.

So far the exact penalties haven't been spelled out, and it will likely take a test case, reported to the Office of Fair Trading and prosecuted, to make clear the size of the penalty and whether jail time is really likely.

Flogging?

Also, here we gratuitously bring up once again Edelman's famous fake Wal-Mart blog. If only it had happened after May 26, and in the UK.

[Ad Age]

The AP: "The French parliament's lower house adopted a groundbreaking bill Tuesday that would make it illegal for anyone — including fashion magazines, advertisers and Web sites — to publicly incite extreme thinness." Incite thinness? How does one even do that? Catchy slogan? Throw a salad through the window of a pizza place? What happened to liberté!

Now the bill heads to the Senate. They say it mainly targets pro-anorexia websites and message boards, but the fashion industry is worried about the language of the bill. Of course, they don't have to worry about imprisonment, as no jail can hold such gorgeously thin people.

Still, this represents yet another attack on the American Way of Life, which is inciting extreme thinness while acting on delicious processed foods.

[lrc.ky.gov]

Back in the day, the FCC used to let these little mistakes slide. But then came the rise of Christian conservatives, and the Janet Jackson Super Bowl nip slip, and all of a sudden the agency wants big fines for every little cuss word. Now they say "fuck" in any context has "an inherently sexual connotation."

Fuck that, yo. What about when you just say, "Fuck the FCC?" That doesn't seem very sexual at all. The networks point out they don't even allow cuss words late at night, when they're technically okay; they just don't want to get fined every time Bono is due for an award, and feels the need to express himself.. And while the F-word always gets the headlines, the other word is even more confusing:

Broadcasters also say the rules on what is indecent remain confusing. Variations of the s-word, for example, are considered indecent because they are a "vulgar description of excrement." But the FCC has determined that "crap" and "poop" are not indecent.

There's a great peril of these modern times. All the ideas are taken! Nothing original is left! Every bon mot and swell idea has been used, and what's more, those who own those ideas all retain high-priced law firms. Take poor Jennifer Cassetta, for instance. She's a "New York fitness/martial-arts instructor" who started a business called "Health and the City," for which she now wants to obtain a legal trademark from the U.S. Patent Office.

Oh, but noooo, say those hyperventélattéd folks at HBO. Seems they have a little franchise you may have heard of, a TV show-soon-to-be-Major Motion Picture starring various aging Actresses desperately seeking Major Motion Paydays before the well, uh, dries up. (A Picture that is unendingly being filmed, by the way.)

According to the Law Blog of the Wall Street Journal, HBO and its lawyers oppose Ms. Casetta's application, but have been kind enough to suggest a name change for her biz—to "Health in the City." But she's incurred costs already for building the business with the allegedly infringing name, and she doesn't want to blow her own wad starting over. So she's standing on her application.

Bad news, lady. HBO always goes to the mat to protect Carrie and her Sisters.

The medicine ball's in HBO's court now—they've got until 11/18 to oppose the application, which in "similar" past situations, they've done: they've had legal issues with businesses called Scents In the City (why is the "in" not OK here?), Flex In the City (ditto), and Handbags & the City (too close to the truthbone for HBO?).

(She's not the only one taking on HBO. One Odelia Bittone seems to be standing by her application for "Sex and the City of Angels": "Printed publications, namely columns, magazine articles, and books in the field of relationships, love, sex, and living in Los Angeles, CA." That might not go very well! "An opposition is now pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.")

Here's your tutorial: you register a tradename, trademark, or service mark with the government in order to build legal protection for your valuable brand—so you can sue the shit out of infringers and get to some real money. It keeps leeches from sponging off your five minutes' hard work.

HBO holds trademarks for "Sex and the City" for use on posters and calendars; for "cosmetic brushes, eye shadow brushes, eyebrow brushes, lip brushes, make-up brushes, nail brushes and powder puffs"; for videogames, computer games, ringtones; for "trivia games, namely trivia cards"; for "makeup remover in the form of a pen," make-up kits, "nail enamel corrector pen, namely, nail enamel remover in the form of a pen," and "cosmetic facial blotting papers," as well as "perfume, perfume oils, eau de perfume," body spray, wax strips, shaving lotion, shaving mousse, false eyelashes and glue for false eyelashes; coin purses, clutch bags, duffel bags, luggage; lingerie, scarves, panties, pajamas, bras; drinking glasses and shot glasses; and "APPAREL, NAMELY T-SHIRTS AND HATS."

They've sort of got it covered!

When you think someone is invading your sacred territory, like when Japan went into China, or when Tila Tequila and Katie Couric showed up in your sexual fantasy, the law examines a couple major areas.

1) is there a "likelihood of confusion" caused by the interloper's choice of a name or mark? (Such as: does everyone head over to Scents in the City when they want a whiff of Sarah Jessica Parker?) The criteria is: Would it lead the "ordinary and prudent purchaser" to become flushed and confused.

And!

2) Did the new name "dilute your brand" by, essentially, sucking off your customer base (multiple interps there, but they all work) and "blur or tarnish" your good name? In other words, does Samantha go all four-eyed and start to turn green when you crunch your squats?

The "legal experts" who make up the Comments on the WSJ blog are skeptical that HBO can pull this off, which is all you need to know, since the only comment worth your time is by "Am I Confused too?" who writes, "If I went to a place called Health and the City I would expert to get a rubdown from Kristin Davis."

If that's not blurry and tarnished, then let me finish drinking the silver polish.

I'd say "Here's my take" here, but fellow lawyer (and MSNBC pundit) Dan Abrams probably has lawyers for that, so, here's Our Ruling: Get the fuck over it. You're HBO. You've got syndication rights until the 22nd century. You have that film in production, which'll do boxcar numbers well into the second week of July, when it's knocked off its perch by "What The Fockers?"

Jessica Cassetta's got her own workout space... and the name she chose for it is so friggin' vague it won't prevent a soul from toppling over a tumbler of Mountain Dew to change the channel when your overwrought, worn-out TV show comes on for the 500th time with that moronic episode about Carrie moving to Paris.

Oh Carrie. Why the fuck couldn't she just have stayed?

AboveTheLaw So I thought I'd check in re: the Murphy case—did you want to chat about it?
Gawklins Well, I think it might be most helpful! Because I am—what is the opposite of a legal scholar? A legal idiot? So will you talk to me as if I were an idiot?
AboveTheLaw Sure, I can try.
Gawklins Okay, so, for starters, it looks to me as if this dude got TOTALLY FACED at his appeal. Like they basically said he recanted his original testimony.
AboveTheLaw Yes, that's right. A number of inconsistencies between his trial testimony and his earlier deposition testimony. Not good...
Gawklins Query: What law-talking person would let that happen to a client???
AboveTheLaw Good question! Such things should get ironed out beforehand in witness prep, ideally.
Gawklins That seems ideal! So your advice to these sort of people is work it out *before* court!
AboveTheLaw Totally. That's what witness coaching, um, er, "witness prep" is for.
Gawklins I've seen that on the Law & Order.
AboveTheLaw Exactly — just like on TV.
Gawklins So, this is a case that had amicus brief-whatever-thingies filed by everyone and their mother. Dow Jones, AP, the whole lot of 'em.
AboveTheLaw Yes — it seems like a lot of other news organizations were following it. It involved a high-profile figure and a pretty good-sized verdict (north of $2 million).
Gawklins But now, after reading the decision this week, this case doesn't seem like something I'd want to be all "I am friend" to!
AboveTheLaw It does seem like the reporter and the Herald were, um, a bit sloppy at times...
Gawklins But in general, this case aside, it seems that it's hard to get shafted on a defamation claim in this day and age, if the Media Law Center and the like are to be believed.
AboveTheLaw Shafted from whose perspective?
Gawklins Ah, an excellent point. I speak as someone who doesn't like the idea of getting sued for defamation, and only rarely think of myself as someone who would like to sue for being defamed.
AboveTheLaw Well, me too, as a blogger now. Generally these cases are very hard to win for the plaintiff b/c the standard — "actual malice" — is so tough to satisfy.
Gawklins If this was like, Fox News, I'd start yelling at you like, "IS THIS A SLIPPERY SLOPE, DAVID?"
AboveTheLaw And I suppose it is.... Which is why the news organizations were coming to the Herald defense... Even though they probably turn up their noses at the Herald and wouldn't be caught dead reading it on the T.
Gawklins Hello.
AboveTheLaw Because no media outlet likes to see a $2 million libel verdict get upheld.
Gawklins Yeah, that's a lot of newspapers to sell. Though I suppose they have libel insurance?
AboveTheLaw I would think this would be covered (but don't know for sure).
Gawklins Oh yeah, so, you read law cases a lot. Is this crazy harsh?

"Neither Wedge, nor any other Herald employee who testified at trial, could name one person at the Herald who either edited, or checked for accuracy of, the content of Wedge's articles. It is fair to say that, by the end of Wedge's testimony, his credibility on any material factual point at issue was in tatters."

"The defendants contend that, under Sullivan and its progeny, the plaintiff may not recover damages for any libelous statements therein without proof of actual malice as to each reporter. We disagree. An original publisher of defamatory material is liable for subsequent republication where "the repetition was authorized or intended by the original defamer, or the repetition was reasonably to be expected."