This past week, Terry and I made the trek across New England back to Kentucky. We saw Boston, Cape Ann, and New York City. After a fun week together, I'm now back in Lexington getting ready for my final year of law school.
I was trying to think of a good theme to cap off this blog and my time in Boston. But really, there's not much left to be said. It was the experience of a lifetime, one that I am sad to leave but hope will lead me to more opportunities in the future.
I will miss working with the Online Media Legal Network, writing on current legal issues for the CMLP blog, studying areas of law for the Legal Guide, and reading current cases for the Legal Threats database. I will miss working with the amazingly talented group at the Berkman Center. I will miss the utopian atmosphere of Cambridge and Harvard Square, and the many offerings of Boston.
I am grateful to the staff of the CMLP (David, Jeff, Arthur and Andy) for the experience, to the Berkman Center faculty and staff for helping me along the way, to the CMLP interns (Tim and Sharkey) for being awesome coworkers and to all the other Berkman Centers for an awesome summer. I'm also grateful to my dean, my professors and a few attorneys here in Lexington for graciously helping me to go to Cambridge by donating to my summer funding.
And last but not least, I'm grateful to Terry, who understood why I wanted and needed to come here, even though it meant we would be apart for two months, and who waited patiently for me to return. He even drove 16.5 hours nonstop to come here and take me home. His dedication through this whole experience was remarkable and touching.
I will remember this experience for the rest of my life, and I will try to make the best of what I learned. Here's hoping for the best!
Signing off,
Brittany
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
El Fin
Well, it's over now. I'll think of a capstone post about my experience at the Berkman Center later, but for the time being, I will miss everyone I got to work with on my project and at the Center. I wish all of them the very best.
I'm soon to be Kentucky bound!
I'm soon to be Kentucky bound!
Monday, July 18, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The future is bright -- we hope
This past week has been full of so many different thoughts and feelings that I struggled to find any theme for them all. With my time here reaching its horizon and my future after law school hanging squarely over my head like a Looney Tunes piano out of an eighth story window, the best "theme" I can imagine is wondering what the future looks like for this industry and my place in it.
The future of journalism
I predict this medium of newsprint will fade away entirely. Magazines may survive, but they will have specific audiences and even they will dwindle over time.
I expect, however, that the for-profit "print" news that survives will be through downloadable applications for e-readers and mobile devices. People using applications are not unfamiliar with paying for apps, plus it offers needed content in a familiar, easy to use format.
I'm not sure how easy this will be, and given the expense of such a transition — especially while people still hold on to newspapers that cost so much to produce — much quality journalism will enter the downward spiral. So when we do see this transition into digital journalism, I worry what kind of content will be filling it.
I predict also that the quality journalism that does survive will probably convert to non-profit media first. I've written about this already for the CMLP and included a link below on my thoughts. Allowing non-profit media to continue producing needed information so long as they can produce enough revenue to stay afloat is probably where most investigative journalism will be forced if it wants to continue in the twenty-first century.
The future for media lawyers
I can tell from my work with the Online Media Legal Network that there are several legal issues that a young media lawyer would be wise to understand. I believe these will be what attorneys, who will continue finding more clients needing legal assistance for digital media, see more frequently in the coming years. Here are only a few (in no particular order).
1) Know and understand how privacy policies and terms of use policies are drafted and how they protect customers AND web site owners. These can help your client OR get them into trouble. Also, I'm sure it doesn't hurt to understand how these work internationally, although I confess I never saw any international clients in my time at the CMLP.
2) Know if your state has an anti-SLAPP law and how it works, because it could get you paid.
3) Learn more about non-profit tax issues, as this is probably where many journalists will end up in the next few years and you'll be the one they're asking for help, IF you're lucky.
4) Know the Communications Decency Act and the immunity it gives web site publishers in § 230. In fact, sleep with it under your pillow. In 2011, there are still lawyers out there who don't know about it. Don't be that guy.
Actually, if you're suing my client, I'd really prefer you WERE that guy, but nevertheless at least *I* won't be *that* guy.
5) Know your state's wiretapping act. The federal wiretapping act is what I heard about in law school, but state wiretapping acts somehow passed under my radar until my time here. Know how it's worded inside and out. Remember Glik v. Cuniffe (see my earlier blog post in June) and how easily a wiretapping act was used to arrest someone recording openly in public.
6) Know your administrative law. This has always been a no-brainer for anyone doing media law, but before it probably seemed less important if you wanted to represent print media. But as I mentioned earlier, print media will probably become nonexistent. The FCC has already tried to assert power over the Internet in the debate over net neutrality. While it's questionable whether they have statutory authority, I have little doubt that eventually Congress is going to make it clear and give that power to the agency. Think about how much of our recent telecommunications innovation has been through the Internet. Even television will someday be deliverable entirely online, and it's getting to that point soon.
7) Know your commerce clause and be ready to see it — a lot. Again, this is a no brainer. But, I bring it up because Congress has used the commerce clause to exert control to regulate the Internet (see point 6). We may see a SCOTUS debate about the extent to which certain activities on the Internet are "commercial" -- we may also see a SCOTUS debate over regulations of activity that seems entirely local being subject to federal control just because there is an online component. The Internet can indeed allow activity that at any point crosses state lines but can also offer activity that entirely stays within a particular state. The person using it may have no idea, nor do they care.
As a Berkman Center intern, I've been able to attend Berkman Center luncheons and this past week I attended one about recent amendments to the Federal Kidnapping Act, wherein Congress, under the commerce clause power, to allow for subject matter jurisdiction over the case if the perpetrator used the Internet in some substantial way when allegedly committing the crime. The speaker pointed out that one defendant who used the Internet committed the actual violent crime in a state with no death penalty — but, because he was taken into federal court for using the Internet to lure his victim, he could face the federal death penalty. Now I know this is slightly off topic, but it's just an illustration of how this debate over commerce clause power is going to continue in the digital age.
Really, this is probably the most exciting time to be a media lawyer, and also the most competitive. Which brings me to my last point.
My future
Now that, friends is a scary thought. Will I find employment at all? Will I find it soon or at the last minute? Will I find some place that offers me good opportunities to at least try to practice media law whenever I can? Will Terry and I even be in Kentucky this time next year, or will we have to move far away?
I am, as we speak, applying for federal court clerkships and working on cover letters to send to law firms. I have no idea what will happen, or if I'll be able to practice this law ever again. Even if I do not, I hope I will find something fulfilling. Something that makes me remember why I came to law school. But hopefully, I'll find a place at a respected firm that lets me at least practice some media law, whenever the opportunity arises. Maybe then, someone will notice my work, and I'll get the chance to actually do this full time.
At least I have my dreams. And Terry.
The future of journalism
I predict this medium of newsprint will fade away entirely. Magazines may survive, but they will have specific audiences and even they will dwindle over time.
I expect, however, that the for-profit "print" news that survives will be through downloadable applications for e-readers and mobile devices. People using applications are not unfamiliar with paying for apps, plus it offers needed content in a familiar, easy to use format.
I'm not sure how easy this will be, and given the expense of such a transition — especially while people still hold on to newspapers that cost so much to produce — much quality journalism will enter the downward spiral. So when we do see this transition into digital journalism, I worry what kind of content will be filling it.
I predict also that the quality journalism that does survive will probably convert to non-profit media first. I've written about this already for the CMLP and included a link below on my thoughts. Allowing non-profit media to continue producing needed information so long as they can produce enough revenue to stay afloat is probably where most investigative journalism will be forced if it wants to continue in the twenty-first century.
The future for media lawyers
I can tell from my work with the Online Media Legal Network that there are several legal issues that a young media lawyer would be wise to understand. I believe these will be what attorneys, who will continue finding more clients needing legal assistance for digital media, see more frequently in the coming years. Here are only a few (in no particular order).
1) Know and understand how privacy policies and terms of use policies are drafted and how they protect customers AND web site owners. These can help your client OR get them into trouble. Also, I'm sure it doesn't hurt to understand how these work internationally, although I confess I never saw any international clients in my time at the CMLP.
2) Know if your state has an anti-SLAPP law and how it works, because it could get you paid.
3) Learn more about non-profit tax issues, as this is probably where many journalists will end up in the next few years and you'll be the one they're asking for help, IF you're lucky.
4) Know the Communications Decency Act and the immunity it gives web site publishers in § 230. In fact, sleep with it under your pillow. In 2011, there are still lawyers out there who don't know about it. Don't be that guy.
Actually, if you're suing my client, I'd really prefer you WERE that guy, but nevertheless at least *I* won't be *that* guy.
5) Know your state's wiretapping act. The federal wiretapping act is what I heard about in law school, but state wiretapping acts somehow passed under my radar until my time here. Know how it's worded inside and out. Remember Glik v. Cuniffe (see my earlier blog post in June) and how easily a wiretapping act was used to arrest someone recording openly in public.
6) Know your administrative law. This has always been a no-brainer for anyone doing media law, but before it probably seemed less important if you wanted to represent print media. But as I mentioned earlier, print media will probably become nonexistent. The FCC has already tried to assert power over the Internet in the debate over net neutrality. While it's questionable whether they have statutory authority, I have little doubt that eventually Congress is going to make it clear and give that power to the agency. Think about how much of our recent telecommunications innovation has been through the Internet. Even television will someday be deliverable entirely online, and it's getting to that point soon.
7) Know your commerce clause and be ready to see it — a lot. Again, this is a no brainer. But, I bring it up because Congress has used the commerce clause to exert control to regulate the Internet (see point 6). We may see a SCOTUS debate about the extent to which certain activities on the Internet are "commercial" -- we may also see a SCOTUS debate over regulations of activity that seems entirely local being subject to federal control just because there is an online component. The Internet can indeed allow activity that at any point crosses state lines but can also offer activity that entirely stays within a particular state. The person using it may have no idea, nor do they care.
As a Berkman Center intern, I've been able to attend Berkman Center luncheons and this past week I attended one about recent amendments to the Federal Kidnapping Act, wherein Congress, under the commerce clause power, to allow for subject matter jurisdiction over the case if the perpetrator used the Internet in some substantial way when allegedly committing the crime. The speaker pointed out that one defendant who used the Internet committed the actual violent crime in a state with no death penalty — but, because he was taken into federal court for using the Internet to lure his victim, he could face the federal death penalty. Now I know this is slightly off topic, but it's just an illustration of how this debate over commerce clause power is going to continue in the digital age.
Really, this is probably the most exciting time to be a media lawyer, and also the most competitive. Which brings me to my last point.
My future
Now that, friends is a scary thought. Will I find employment at all? Will I find it soon or at the last minute? Will I find some place that offers me good opportunities to at least try to practice media law whenever I can? Will Terry and I even be in Kentucky this time next year, or will we have to move far away?
I am, as we speak, applying for federal court clerkships and working on cover letters to send to law firms. I have no idea what will happen, or if I'll be able to practice this law ever again. Even if I do not, I hope I will find something fulfilling. Something that makes me remember why I came to law school. But hopefully, I'll find a place at a respected firm that lets me at least practice some media law, whenever the opportunity arises. Maybe then, someone will notice my work, and I'll get the chance to actually do this full time.
At least I have my dreams. And Terry.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
What diversity feels/looks/tastes like
If asked, I'd say that Lexington offers its share of diversity. You'll see people from different nationalities opening businesses and taking prominent positions in public education, primarily at the University of Kentucky. While there is still a clear "majority" background within the the people here, overall I'd characterize Lexington as fairly open to newcomers from different ethnic backgrounds.
Then I came to Boston.
At least once a week I'll walk along the streets of Harvard Square and hear a language I can't recognize. People will drop paint-thick accents of all kinds, including South African, Caribbean, Brazilian, Italian and Irish dialects dripping off the edge of every letter. The Berkman Center also has interns from all over the country and across the world — Texas, Ohio, New York, North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Hawaii, Connecticut, Kentucky, Switzerland, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Germany, Israel, on and on and on. For someone who is used to being in a school where at least half the students are originally from Kentucky, it's quite amazing to see a group who represent so many different states and nations.
Boston also has several neighborhoods that offer distinct flavors from its many immigrant populations: Chinatown, the North End (Boston's "Little Italy") and South Boston (Boston's "Irish Town"). Unfortunately, from what I've heard, I wouldn't recommend traveling in South Boston alone in your first trip to the city, but Chinatown and the North End are both in very nice areas to walk and shop. This is not to say that South Boston doesn't have much to offer — but alas, Boston is a big city and you should always watch your surroundings.
Today I decided to see a little of the North End for myself and visited the Trattoria II Panino. I wanted to see what food really tasted like in a restaurant where the waiters speak Italian to each other and bill the restaurant as (supposedly) the first Trattoria in Boston. I wanted something that at least seemed quintessentially Italian, something that may not taste the same once I leave an Italian neighborhood.
I wanted gnocchi. Tiny, pillow-shaped dumplings of potato in tomato sauce and mozzarella cheese.
Now, I can try to describe to you what it tastes like. They are incredibly soft, holding their shape right until you bite into one. They taste much like pasta except firmer, richer, and maybe a little saltier. They are the ultimate comfort food.
But really, I find pictures sum up food experiences very well. Wouldn't you rather see food then hear me tell about it?
And afterward, I wasn't leaving without tiramisu. It's not for certain if this is truly Italian or not, but I knew that a place in the North End would probably know how tiramisu should taste after enough years of getting credit for the dish.
Once again, I could describe it to you. The ladyfingers have been soaked so long in the liquer that they make a solid layer together, just the right amount of sweetness balancing with a coffee flavor that I love in tiramisu.
Or, I could just show you.
Amazing. Ah, Boston. I will definitely miss the huge variety of people, culture, food, and sounds of this city.
Then I came to Boston.
At least once a week I'll walk along the streets of Harvard Square and hear a language I can't recognize. People will drop paint-thick accents of all kinds, including South African, Caribbean, Brazilian, Italian and Irish dialects dripping off the edge of every letter. The Berkman Center also has interns from all over the country and across the world — Texas, Ohio, New York, North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Hawaii, Connecticut, Kentucky, Switzerland, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Germany, Israel, on and on and on. For someone who is used to being in a school where at least half the students are originally from Kentucky, it's quite amazing to see a group who represent so many different states and nations.
Boston also has several neighborhoods that offer distinct flavors from its many immigrant populations: Chinatown, the North End (Boston's "Little Italy") and South Boston (Boston's "Irish Town"). Unfortunately, from what I've heard, I wouldn't recommend traveling in South Boston alone in your first trip to the city, but Chinatown and the North End are both in very nice areas to walk and shop. This is not to say that South Boston doesn't have much to offer — but alas, Boston is a big city and you should always watch your surroundings.
Today I decided to see a little of the North End for myself and visited the Trattoria II Panino. I wanted to see what food really tasted like in a restaurant where the waiters speak Italian to each other and bill the restaurant as (supposedly) the first Trattoria in Boston. I wanted something that at least seemed quintessentially Italian, something that may not taste the same once I leave an Italian neighborhood.
I wanted gnocchi. Tiny, pillow-shaped dumplings of potato in tomato sauce and mozzarella cheese.
Now, I can try to describe to you what it tastes like. They are incredibly soft, holding their shape right until you bite into one. They taste much like pasta except firmer, richer, and maybe a little saltier. They are the ultimate comfort food.
But really, I find pictures sum up food experiences very well. Wouldn't you rather see food then hear me tell about it?
And afterward, I wasn't leaving without tiramisu. It's not for certain if this is truly Italian or not, but I knew that a place in the North End would probably know how tiramisu should taste after enough years of getting credit for the dish.
Once again, I could describe it to you. The ladyfingers have been soaked so long in the liquer that they make a solid layer together, just the right amount of sweetness balancing with a coffee flavor that I love in tiramisu.
Or, I could just show you.
Amazing. Ah, Boston. I will definitely miss the huge variety of people, culture, food, and sounds of this city.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Net Neutrality discussion
I mentioned earlier that I was trying to organize a discussion group amongst the interns for net neutrality, which Prof. Jonathan Zittrain was interested in attending and leading. Being such a complex topic that touches on every project at the Berkman Center, there was certainly a high degree of interest from the majority of the interns and I was looking forward to hearing what everyone had to say.
After much discussing amongst ourselves, I got the date/time hammered down, reserved the conference room for us in the Berkman Center, and e-mailed Prof. Zittrain with the information. Another intern suggested reading material ("Keeping the Internet Neutral: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo debate," published in the Federal Communications Journal) for us which we then circulated. Then this Wednesday afternoon at 5, it was time.
I will admit I was nervous -- I've never organized something like this and I was afraid that if people didn't speak up readily that I might end up looking silly for suggesting the whole thing, especially if Prof. Zittrain showed up (which he did).
Not to worry. There were plenty of pretty strong, well-informed opinions, and all seemed in favor of a mandate for net neutrality. We covered everything from free speech to economic impact to equal access, and after about an hour of going back and forth amongst ourselves with JZ listening, he finally weighed in and decided to play Devil's Advocate in response to several issues we had raised:
Point 1: Those who favor net neutrality tend to think what everyone wants is a "right" to free, fast flow of information from point A to point B. However, what Internet Service Providers think we want is basically the ability to watch TV online — think Netflix/YouTube, but those services and *only* those services. If that's true, then it makes sense to limit what we get through the Internet to "packages" that fit different budgets. But what we (meaning those supporting net neutrality) envision for the Internet is a world with equal access at equal price to all content by all people. So package deals that discriminate against certain content rubs us the wrong way, but they do make sense to providers.
Point 2: There's a lot of paranoia amongst those of who don't want corporations deciding what content they can filter. But really, we have to decide which is better -- allowing the government to control this (and they would through FCC regulating the Internet) or corporations controlling it? Is one really better? He gave the great ironic example of U.S. v. Grace, where a woman was distributing pamphlets, which had the First Amendment inscribed within them, outside the United States Supreme Court, and was arrested for trespass. Her case ironically went all the way up to the Supreme Court. While a funny example, it illustrates this dilemma: Does it make sense to have regulations subject to scrutiny based on what is a public forum (meaning the government can't restrict content but could restrict the time/place/manner of the speech) or isn't a public forum applying to the Internet?
Point 3: How come the discussion about neutrality doesn't come up when we have limited numbers of channels available on a cable service? Somehow it's only with the Internet that we believe we have a right to unlimited access to all information, even though there are still some concerns for scarcity with the Internet based on bandwidth. Even dedicated bandwidth doesn't necessarily mean the service has unlimited bandwidth. Think about Netflix, for example. Streaming Netflix takes up a huge amount of bandwidth, and if every other user on one network streams Netflix, then they are taking up a huge amount of bandwidth yet paying no more or less than any other consumer.
In the end, regardless of what position we take, we had a healthy discussion about something highly relevant, interesting and complex, and got to interact with THE Jonathan Zittrain, the Chuck Norris of the Internet.
I'm calling this one a win.
Image created by believekevin and received from Creative Commons, some rights reserved. No endorsement intended.
After much discussing amongst ourselves, I got the date/time hammered down, reserved the conference room for us in the Berkman Center, and e-mailed Prof. Zittrain with the information. Another intern suggested reading material ("Keeping the Internet Neutral: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo debate," published in the Federal Communications Journal) for us which we then circulated. Then this Wednesday afternoon at 5, it was time.
I will admit I was nervous -- I've never organized something like this and I was afraid that if people didn't speak up readily that I might end up looking silly for suggesting the whole thing, especially if Prof. Zittrain showed up (which he did).
Not to worry. There were plenty of pretty strong, well-informed opinions, and all seemed in favor of a mandate for net neutrality. We covered everything from free speech to economic impact to equal access, and after about an hour of going back and forth amongst ourselves with JZ listening, he finally weighed in and decided to play Devil's Advocate in response to several issues we had raised:
Point 1: Those who favor net neutrality tend to think what everyone wants is a "right" to free, fast flow of information from point A to point B. However, what Internet Service Providers think we want is basically the ability to watch TV online — think Netflix/YouTube, but those services and *only* those services. If that's true, then it makes sense to limit what we get through the Internet to "packages" that fit different budgets. But what we (meaning those supporting net neutrality) envision for the Internet is a world with equal access at equal price to all content by all people. So package deals that discriminate against certain content rubs us the wrong way, but they do make sense to providers.
Point 2: There's a lot of paranoia amongst those of who don't want corporations deciding what content they can filter. But really, we have to decide which is better -- allowing the government to control this (and they would through FCC regulating the Internet) or corporations controlling it? Is one really better? He gave the great ironic example of U.S. v. Grace, where a woman was distributing pamphlets, which had the First Amendment inscribed within them, outside the United States Supreme Court, and was arrested for trespass. Her case ironically went all the way up to the Supreme Court. While a funny example, it illustrates this dilemma: Does it make sense to have regulations subject to scrutiny based on what is a public forum (meaning the government can't restrict content but could restrict the time/place/manner of the speech) or isn't a public forum applying to the Internet?
Point 3: How come the discussion about neutrality doesn't come up when we have limited numbers of channels available on a cable service? Somehow it's only with the Internet that we believe we have a right to unlimited access to all information, even though there are still some concerns for scarcity with the Internet based on bandwidth. Even dedicated bandwidth doesn't necessarily mean the service has unlimited bandwidth. Think about Netflix, for example. Streaming Netflix takes up a huge amount of bandwidth, and if every other user on one network streams Netflix, then they are taking up a huge amount of bandwidth yet paying no more or less than any other consumer.
In the end, regardless of what position we take, we had a healthy discussion about something highly relevant, interesting and complex, and got to interact with THE Jonathan Zittrain, the Chuck Norris of the Internet.
I'm calling this one a win.
Image created by believekevin and received from Creative Commons, some rights reserved. No endorsement intended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)