"A City Hall proposal to group news boxes together in new kiosks ran into a barrage of criticism from media representatives and elected officials Monday night at the Board of Aldermen's Legislation Committee, which tabled the proposal," the New Haven Independent reports. New Haven Advocate publisher Josh Mamis spoke at the meeting, telling the committee that the proposal's prioritization of daily papers over weeklies is a restriction of freedom of speech, according to the Independent. He also complained about the way the city handled the issue, claiming that he wasn't even aware of news rack problems in New Haven. "I've never fielded a complaint," he told the committee. "If there are problems I'd love to hear about them." The ordinance will reportedly be revisited after more input from local media is obtained.
The Independent and the parent company of the Santa Barbara News-Press have settled a federal copyright infringement lawsuit, the Indy reports. The suit was brought against the alt-weekly in 2006 after a reporter for the News-Press wrote an article describing what occurred in the paper's newsroom the day a handful of top editors resigned. The story never made the paper; instead, the Independent got a hold of a draft and posted it on its website, which the News-Press claimed violated federal copyright law. Local media law blogger Craig Smith says that even though they won't admit it, the settlement is "a victory for the Independent."
The Burlington, Vt., alt-weekly explores the world of complex and often contradictory fair housing laws through its own story: The paper has been accused of violating fair housing laws several times, and was fined $45,000 for doing so on one occasion. "'Single occupancy only,' 'Not Section 8 approved' -- these are terms we thought described physical attributes of the property, as in occupancy limits for fire code," notes publisher Paula Routly. "In fact, the pamphlet we were given for reference said that language was OK. Turns out it was designed for landlords, not publishers." The paper also notes the different legal standards for websites like Craigslist and print publications, which has put an even larger burden on alt-weeklies, already facing stiff competition from web-based classifieds. "Even when their users violate state and federal fair-housing laws, the websites themselves are held faultless," Seven Days reports.
Earlier this month, in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed prior rulings that interpreted the Communications Decency Act as broadly immunizing website owners from liability based on content posted by third parties. However, the court introduced a new test to determine if a website is outside the scope of Section 230 immunity, according to Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. "Under the 9th Circuit's test, if a website 'materially contributes' to the allegedly illegal content, as opposed to providing 'neutral' tools for communicating information, it may forfeit its immunity," the law firm says. Applying this test, the court found that Roommates.com was in part a content provider, so it was not immune from claims under the federal Fair Housing Act and similar state laws that prohibit discriminatory housing practices. AAN joined an amicus brief in support of Roommates.com's position in the case. Here is the L.A. Times' report on the case.
Former assistant commissioner for the Chicago Department of Aviation James Sachay has filed suit against the Reader and political activist Frank Coconate for defamation after a comment on the paper's "Clout City" blog was attributed to him, CBS-2 Chicago reports. According to the suit, Coconate wrote the incriminating comment, dated January 31 at 7:37 a.m., and attributed it to Sachay. Despite the Reader having a comments policy that states, in part, "please note that commenters are free to use whatever name(s) they choose," the suit claims the paper was negligent for not screening the blog. The four-count suit asks for more than $800,000 from Coconate and the Reader.
Four top Bush administration officials are weighing in against The Free Flow of Information Act, which would allow reporters to protect the identities of confidential sources, the Associated Press reports. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff all expressed concerns about the bill via letters to senators which were made public this week. The bill was passed by the House and the Senate Judiciary Committee last October, but has since languished, waiting to be called to the Senate floor for a vote.
The judge agreed to overturn the law enabling only the Democratic and Republican parties to obtain lists of people who voted in the state's presidential primary, Metro Times reports. The law had been challenged by a lawsuit from the ACLU of Michigan, which the alt-weekly had joined. "The state is not required to provide the party preference information to any party," the judge wrote. "When it chooses to do so, however, it may not provide the information only to the major political parties." Michigan's elections director says they will comply with the ruling, but will not release the records to anyone, even via the Freedom of Information Act. Metro Times reports the ruling won't have any effect on the results of the primary, but could have some implications were Michigan to have a mail-based "do over" primary in order to seat its Democratic delegates at this summer's convention. "[If] voters would be eligible for re-voting in a Democratic primary only if they voted in the first primary," Metro Times asks, "how would the election directors know if the records weren't released?"
As we reported last week, the California Supreme Court squelched the Santa Barbara Independent's last legal hope in a long fight over turning over some unpublished crime scene photographs. With the court declining to hear an appeal, the paper and staff photographer Paul Wellman faced criminal punishment -- including possible jail time -- if they continued to hold the photos. So the Independent, rather than give the photos to the district attorney, decided to publish all 334 of them on its website this week. "We did make a point of dragging this case out to the bitter end," explains news editor Nick Welsh. "This was in part inspired by the assault on the media that's been taking place for the past eight years, and the utter contempt for the public's right to know -- anything -- displayed by the Bush Administration."
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Craigslist should not be held liable for discriminatory housing ads posted on the site, the Associated Press reports. The decision upholds a Nov. 2006 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, which ruled that Craigslist serves as an intermediary party, not a publisher, and that the federal Communications Decency Act protects sites that allow users to post unedited messages and communicate freely in forums.
The California State Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a petition from the Santa Barbara Independent and staff photographer Paul Wellman asking the court to review a Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge's decision to hold the paper and Wellman in contempt of court for not handing over photos from a murder last year, the Independent reports. This exhausts the legal options the paper had to fight the initial ruling. "I'm not surprised," Independent attorney Mike Cooney says. "Even though I'm devoted to the concept the subpoena was overbroad, it's difficult for appellate courts to review during criminal proceedings." Wellman faces potential imprisonment and the paper faces fines if they continue to refuse the subpoena, but both parties haven't yet decided what to do.
- Go to the previous page
- 1
- …
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- …
- 48
- Go to the next page
