Site Meter

Category: First Amendment

1

Criticizing Referees and Judges

The conclusion of the collegiate and professional football seasons has brought about more than the usual number of questionable — and outright blown — calls. In response to Sunday’s replay-assisted overturning of a Pittsburgh interception, the NFL issued a statement informing fans that the call was wrong. The play should have been called — as it originally was — an interception, and the Steelers (likely) would have won the game without the drama that occurred after that point.

The controversies bring up a subject on which I plan to write this summer — the ways in which sports and the legal profession can learn from the ways each deals with criticisms of those who apply the rules. The differences are extensive and interesting.

In terms of actual independence, judges are much more insulated than are sports officials. Even in the states, where 80% of judges are elected, often terms are long and few judges have re-election challenges to worry about. (There are exceptions, of course.) And the federal system’s tenure and salary protection provide significant independence beyond the level enjoyed by state judges.

Sports officials, by contrast, may be fired more or less at will (though I am not familiar with the specifics of the NFL’s policy and invite comment from those who are). Sure, fans do not play much of a role in deciding whether to keep a referee employed, but when a significant error like this one occurs, some repurcussions are likely. At the least, Morelli will not work any more games this season, and he could even be fined, according to ESPN’s Chris Mortensen. On top of this, officials in the NFL and all amateur athletics are part-timers who have to hold down real jobs to earn a living. It is conceivable that officials’ dependence on other forms of income could lessen their ability to be independent in the face of criticism from employers, clients, etc.

In terms of criticism, though, it is judges who must endure more from the participants. Both sports officials and judges hear plenty of criticism from the public, of course, and sports officials must hear the criticism even when working. (“Kill the umpire,” etc.) But sports leagues have been draconian in prohibiting comment by players and coaches about officiating blunders. After Sunday’s Steelers-Colts game, for example, Steeler Joey Porter said, “I know they wanted Indy to win this game; the whole world loves Peyton Manning. But come on, man, don’t take the game away from us like that.” It is likely that he will be fined, even though the NFL agrees that the call was a mistake. (Porter, of course, accused the referee of bias and not just blowing the call, but there are plenty of examples where fines have been assessed merely for calling attention to officiating mistakes. The best quote on the subject is from Jim Finks, New Orleans Saints General Manager, who responded to a question about calls during one of his team’s games, “I’m not allowed to comment on lousy no good officiating.”

The legal profession, too, attempts to squelch free speech criticizing judges, but recognizes that First Amendment principles limit the extent to which parties, lawyers, politicians, and the public can be restricted.

My question is predominantly a practical one: Do restrictions on criticism of sports officials add to their respect? Does a sports league, or do individual officials, gain anything when the league prohibits a coach from saying that a particular official blew a call when replay after replay makes that fact clear to everyone? Is the speech ban prophylactic, in that the real goal is to eliminate comments relating to potential bias or limit violence? What, then, explains the leagues’ apparent acceptance of on-field criticisms of officials (e.g., Marv Levy: “You over-officious jerk!”)?

6

Whistleblowing, Journalist Privilege, and NSA Surveillance

whistleblowing1a.jpgThe DOJ has launched a probe into the leaking of the NSA surveillance program to the New York Times:

“The leaking of classified information is a serious issue. The fact is that al-Qaida’s playbook is not printed on Page One and when America’s is, it has serious ramifications,” Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Bush was spending the holidays.

This probe will raise several important questions in the months to come.

First is the issue of whistleblowing. Somebody leaked classified information about the NSA surveillance program. Should that individual be punished? On the one hand, we don’t want people leaking classified information that could impact national security. On the other hand, the President possibly violated a federal criminal statute. Whether he did or not is something that Congress and the courts must settle, but very few of those defending the legality of the President’s actions believe that it is a very easy clear-cut case. At best for the President, the issue is contestable; at worst, he broke the law. Without the whistleblowing, there would be no way for the Congress or courts to address the issue. Even if it turns out the President lawfully engaged in the surveillance, there’s another issue: Is the President lawfully allowed to keep it secret for as long as he desires? At the very least, should the President be allowed to keep it secret from other branches of government?

Read More

1

Update on the Seigenthaler Wikipedia Defamation Case

Wikipedia.jpgPaul Secunda over at Workplace Prof Blog brings news about an update to the Seigenthaler Wikipedia defamation case I blogged about recently. In the case, an anonymous individual wrote in Seigenthaler’s Wikipedia entry that Seigenthaler was involved in President Kennedy’s assassination. Seigenthaler complained that he was unable to track down the identity of the alleged defamer.

Enter Daniel Brandt, who earlier had complained about information in his Wikipedia profile he claimed was false. I blogged about Brandt’s case a while back. According to the New York Times:

Using information in Mr. Seigenthaler’s article and some online tools, Mr. Brandt traced the computer used to make the Wikipedia entry to the delivery company in Nashville. Mr. Brandt called the company and told employees there about the Wikipedia problem but was not able to learn anything definitive.

Mr. Brandt then sent an e-mail message to the company, asking for information about its courier services. A response bore the same Internet Protocol address that was left by the creator of the Wikipedia entry, offering further evidence of a connection.

Paul Secunda nicely explains what happened next:

Chase later resigned from his job because he did not want to cause problems for his company. Seigenthaler has urged Chase’s boss to rehire him, but so far Chase is still without a job.

Oh, the wrath of bloggers!

More details at the NY Times article and at Paul Secunda’s post.

Read More

11

Jennifer Aniston Nude Photos and the Anti-Paparazzi Act

jennifer-aniston1a.jpgpaparazzi1a.jpgJennifer Aniston is suing a paparazzi who took nude photos of her. In a complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Aniston claims that Peter Brandt took topless photographs of her from a significant distance from her home. He used a high-powered telephoto lens to photograph her at her home. Aniston’s lawyers claim the photos were taken from over a mile away, but Brandt claims that this would be “impossible . . . unless you have something from NASA.”

Jack Chin at CrimProf expresses disbelief at the case:

Nude Photos of Jennifer Aniston can’t possibly be “illegal” if taken from a lawful vantagepoint with commercially available and commonly used equipment, can they? At least, they cannot violate a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” right? But lawyers who filed a lawsuit described on The Smoking Gun say otherwise.

This case is an example of the application of California’s Anti-Paparazzi Act. In a previous post about the Act, I observed:

Read More

10

Fake Biographies on Wikipedia

Wikipedia.jpgMost of us would be quite flattered to find an entry about us on the Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia where anybody can create or edit an entry. Not so for John Seigenthaler. His Wikipedia bio said:

John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960′s. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.

In a USA Today editorial Seigenthaler begins by quoting the false bio and then writes:

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious “biography” that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. . . .

At age 78, I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at anything negative said about me. I was wrong. One sentence in the biography was true. I was Robert Kennedy’s administrative assistant in the early 1960s. I also was his pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my son, John Seigenthaler, journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say he found the same scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com.

Seigenthaler explains how he tried to track down the person who posted the information:

Read More

17

Is Anonymous Blogging Possible?

anonymity2.jpgHoward Bashman at How Appealing muses whether anonymous blogging is really possible:

These days, however, most users of the internet understand that every bit of information communicated electronically leaves electronic fingerprints that can be used to trace the source of the information, even if the source hoped to remain anonymous. To be sure, there are ways to anonymize emails and other forms of communication, but they tend to be complicated to use and difficult to figure out. . . .

I doubt whether anonymous blogging is possible. It surely isn’t possible if the blogger conducts email correspondence with others and fails to mask his or her internet protocol address. Plus, even the act of logging on to a blogging service provider, such as TypePad or blogger, leaves electronic fingerprints, and I’d have to assume that “UTR” had a TypePad subscription, enabling someone to subpoena the blog owner’s identity and/or payment information. So, to you anonymous bloggers out there, have fun, but don’t fool yourselves into thinking that simply by not providing your identity you are doing an effective job of remaining hidden.

I generally agree that it is very difficult to blog anonymously, but it is certainly possible if a person is careful.

Read More

1

Journalist Privilege and Law Enforcement Leaks

freespeech1.jpgIn a very interesting case, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer recently held a Washington Post reporter in contempt of court for not revealing the source of a leak in the investigation of Wen Ho Lee. [Click here for the court's opinion.] The case involves a civil suit by Lee against a number of federal agencies for violating the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Lee was a scientist employed by the Department of Energy and was being investigated by the FBI for espionage for China. Ultimately, the espionage case collapsed and Lee pled guilty to one count of mishandling computer files.

During the investigation, Washington Post journalist Walter Pincus published a few articles about the Lee investigation, identifying him by name and discussing extensive details of the investigation, including “his and his wife’s employment histories, their financial transactions, details about their trips to Hong Kong and China, details concerning the Government investigation and interrogation, and purported results from polygraph tests.” Pincus indicated that anonymous government sources supplied him with the information.

Lee has sued the government for violating the Privacy Act, which prohibits government agencies (including the FBI) from disclosing records about an individual. Lee sought from Pincus who his sources were. Pincus raised the journalist privilege, claiming he should be sheilded from being forced to disclose.

Read More

6

Article III Groupie Disrobed: Thoughts on Blogging and Anonymity

A3G.bmp“Article III Groupie” is the pseudonym for the mysterious author of a wildly popular blog about the federal judiciary, Underneath Their Robes. The blog is a lighthearted and witty discussion of the federal judiciary, chronicling the lives of judges and law clerks. Article III Groupie (or A3G for short) describes herself as an attorney from a Top 5 law school who works at a “large law firm in a major city, where she now toils in obscurity.” She writes: “During her free time, she consoles herself through the overconsumption of luxury goods. Her goal in life is to become a federal judicial diva.” Her identity has long remained shrouded in secrecy.

As she describes her blog:

This weblog, “Underneath Their Robes” (“UTR”), reflects Article III Groupie’s interest in, and obsession with, the federal judiciary. UTR is a combination of People, US Weekly, Page Six, The National Enquirer, and Tigerbeat, focused not on vacuous movie stars or fatuous teen idols, but on federal judges. Article III judges are legal celebrities, the “rock stars” of the legal profession’s upper echelons. This weblog is a source of news, gossip, and colorful commentary about these judicial superstars!

Her blog has become a regular read among the legal blogosphere. Even federal judges enjoy it. According to a New Yorker article:

The blog has many fans, including Richard Posner, the legal scholar and federal appeals-court judge in Chicago. “The beauty contests between judges can’t be taken very seriously, but I enjoy the site,” he said. “It presents good information about clerkships and candidates. It’s occasionally a little vulgar, but this is America in 2005.”

People have long wondered who A3G is. The drawing she supplies on her profile page is of an attractive Sex-in-the-City-type diva . . . and one who purports to be starstruck by the nerdy world of the federal judiciary. How exciting that someone–anyone–-is even interested in this lonely corner of the world in the same way that groupies are into rock stars!

Read More

8

Suing Wikipedia

Wikipedia.jpgWhat happens if there’s a Wikipedia article about you that’s unflattering? What if it is in error or revealing of your private life? Wikipedia, for those not familiar with it, is an online encyclopedia that is written and edited collectively by anybody who wants to participate.

Daniel Brandt, a blogger who maintains blogs called Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch complained to Wikipedia administrators asking them to delete an entry about him. What should one’s rights in this regard be?

Here’s what Brandt writes:

There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia, consider themselves responsible for the content. . . .

At the same time that no one claims responsibility, there are two unique characteristics of Wikipedia that can be very damaging to a person, corporation, or group. The first is that anyone can edit an article, and there is no guarantee that any article you read has not been edited maliciously, and remains uncorrected in that state, at the precise time that you access that article.

The second unique characteristic is that Wikipedia articles, and in some cases even the free-for-all “talk” discussions behind the articles, rank very highly in the major search engines. This means that Wikipedia’s potential for inflicting damage is amplified by several orders of magnitude.

Brandt muses whether he ought to sue Wikipedia:

Read More

0

The Pretexual Prosecution of an Adult Webmaster

nopicture.jpgEric Goldman (law, Marquette) has a very interesting post about the arrest and prosecution of the operator of an adult website where users could upload photos of people having sex. Goldman writes:

On October 7, Wilson was arrested by Florida state police and charged with 301 counts of obscenity (each of 100 photos have been charged with distribution, offering to distribute and conspiring to distribute; plus a bonus felony charge of wholesale distribution). My understanding is that the subject photos were all user-uploaded and that the charges are all based on state law (not federal law).

Let’s assume the photos are truly obscene. This assumption may be questionable; the probable cause report indicates that they are extremely hard-core pornography but not out of the ordinary. But even if the photos are obscene, I simply can’t understand this prosecution. If the photos are user-uploaded, then all state anti-obscenity laws trying to hold the webmaster liable for them should be preempted by 47 USC 230.

Wilson, the website operator, also allowed military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan to load up photos of enemy corpses. Goldman writes:

Read More