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.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Happy Independence Day!
I get to celebrate July 4th in Boston, and I can't tell you how excited I am to be here in one of our nations' oldest cities on a day like today.
Happy Fourth of July, everyone!
Photo by me, on the Charles River.
Happy Fourth of July, everyone!
Photo by me, on the Charles River.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
True confessions
I came to Cambridge for so many reasons, but ultimately with hopes that I would maybe turn my life's direction around — that I would not only find work with real meaning and reward, but also grab the the chance to do what I have wanted to do since as long as I can remember.
I'm almost 28 now and a lot has happened since then that could distract souls with more resolve than even I have. This "real world" and the nasty business of living in it has a way of making anybody cynical. But passion is what keeps us sane, and positive, and pleasant to be around. Anytime I meet someone sour, or crotchety or just plain angry with the whole world I recognize one of two things has probably happened. They either never found something to be passionate about — or perhaps they did find it, and then lost it somehow. I feel sorry for them in either case.
Now I have just three weeks left and I can only hope that when I return home I will be able to find opportunities in this pursuit to practice media law. And if I can't, at least I know I did all I could to get there.
We shall wait, and we shall see. Here's to the next three weeks and after, and whatever else they'll bring.
I'm almost 28 now and a lot has happened since then that could distract souls with more resolve than even I have. This "real world" and the nasty business of living in it has a way of making anybody cynical. But passion is what keeps us sane, and positive, and pleasant to be around. Anytime I meet someone sour, or crotchety or just plain angry with the whole world I recognize one of two things has probably happened. They either never found something to be passionate about — or perhaps they did find it, and then lost it somehow. I feel sorry for them in either case.
Now I have just three weeks left and I can only hope that when I return home I will be able to find opportunities in this pursuit to practice media law. And if I can't, at least I know I did all I could to get there.
We shall wait, and we shall see. Here's to the next three weeks and after, and whatever else they'll bring.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Amicus Curiae
My goals this week at the CMLP have been twofold: continue updating our Legal Guide's section on access to government information, and review a brief to be filed by amicus curiae (the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press) so we can decide whether we should sign on to it.
Open Records issues
Limiting access to state citizens
I recently got stuck trying to summarize the muck that is Tennessee "open" records law for our Legal Guide. I don't mean to pick on Tennessee, but it is an excellent example of several issues that journalists and media lawyers face with open records laws.
For some reason, Tennessee is one of several states that only provides access to its records if you are a citizen of the state. I'm not sure the policy rationale. You are still charged a fee for any copies, so I can't see a financial reason to limit access. It also doesn't make much sense in 2011, because if you really need Tennessee records, you can ask someone else (such as a law firm) to file the request for you. But apparently this is not an uncommon requirement and I only hope that in the age of the Internet, states will start eliminating this restriction on public records.
Exhaustive exemptions
Aside from the odd requirement of citizenship, the state also has a very exhaustive list of exemptions for "confidential" information. Personnel files (traditionally open, though with information like SSNs redacted) of any law enforcement officer are especially difficult to get. If you make a request, state law requires your name, address, phone numbers and driver license number to be recorded AND given to the officer whose file you are requesting. If there is "personal information," it is ultimately up to the chief law enforcement officer whether or not it will be disclosed. Even if he or she decides to disclose it, the officer gets a chance to oppose the request.
As a caveat, this may be about protecting the officer's due process rights if someone is trying to investigate the officer for possible disciplinary action. Perhaps the state is concerned that the officer could be investigated and terminated without even knowing that he or she was suspected of wrongdoing. But if that's true, I still don't understand why this applies to personnel files of law enforcement and not other state employees.
Personally, I find it disturbing that certain records are considered public, yet the decision about whether or not to disclose this "public" information is left to the unbridled discretion of a chief law enforcement officer, not traditionally known among journalists as being very "open" with information.
Enforcing open records provisions
Public agencies really don't like complying with open records laws as a general rule. So if you want to sue them to enforce the law and enjoin them from future violations, many states will allow you to do so — however, they won't allow you any damages, and they may not have any provision for fee shifting. So if you get $0 for bringing the suit, how often do attorneys in those states take these cases?
That's why I was glad to hear of Vermont's recent amendment to its open records law, requiring that the public agency pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees if the plaintiff substantially prevails in the suit. States need provisions like these if they are serious about transparency. In other words: if you have a right, you need a remedy.
Amicus curiae
The second goal of the week was my favorite task so far. Amicus curiae are "friends of the court." They are usually filed by organizations, though they can be filed by several individuals (usually politicians) and are submitted for the court's consideration in deciding a particular case. Amicus curiae are not parties to the litigation, but they have an interest in some issue that the case will resolve.
Because they aren't parties to the case the court chooses whether to accept the brief or not. The CMLP writes several and joins several, and this particular issue related to a reporter's privilege not to be subpoenaed to give up nonconfidential materials as evidence in unrelated cases.
Subpoenas of this nature are becoming more frequent and more troubling. Instead of doing research/discovery to get the same information the reporter has used for writing a story, they take a quicker route and subpoena the reporter to hand over all their sources/notes etc. If you have a regular beat reporter who writes on certain litigation-prone issues (e.g. your cops/crime reporters, your Wall Street reporters, etc.) this can become a serious problem. There's the time it takes to comply with lengthy subpoena requests that demand all the notes the reporter has over several years span, and the cost on the company to making sure they are in compliance. Attorney fees alone can be thousands of dollars. It also greatly compromises journalists' independence to be pulled into lawsuits and have their notes used as tools in litigation.
That's why many states recognize a reporter's privilege. Note that this is different from a shield law, which protects a reporter from being forced to identify anonymous sources. This privilege, broadly speaking, protects journalists from subpoenas in suits in which they are not a party. This amicus brief handled just such an issue and was very well written. It was a great experience to be a small part of the process and I certainly hope this reporter is spared from complying with a tedious subpoena.
As a sidenote, tonight the Berkterns are headed to the Boston Museum of Fine Art, which allows visitors in for free on Fridays during the summer and offers a cash bar. Right now the MFA has the Chihuly exhibit on display and I've been excited to see it. One other Berktern and I tried to go to the museum a while ago, but we grossly miscalculated the travel time and arrived too close to closing time to get to go through more than a few rooms. (Lucky for us, we arrived so late that they didn't charge us!) I've been determined to go back so I'm excited to make a return trip tonight. I'll try to post photos this weekend.
Update (07/04):
Well, my camera battery died, so I unfortunately had to take photos with my cell phone camera. But, here's some of my favorite photos from the Chihuly exhibit at the Boston MFA:
Open Records issues
Limiting access to state citizens
I recently got stuck trying to summarize the muck that is Tennessee "open" records law for our Legal Guide. I don't mean to pick on Tennessee, but it is an excellent example of several issues that journalists and media lawyers face with open records laws.
For some reason, Tennessee is one of several states that only provides access to its records if you are a citizen of the state. I'm not sure the policy rationale. You are still charged a fee for any copies, so I can't see a financial reason to limit access. It also doesn't make much sense in 2011, because if you really need Tennessee records, you can ask someone else (such as a law firm) to file the request for you. But apparently this is not an uncommon requirement and I only hope that in the age of the Internet, states will start eliminating this restriction on public records.
Exhaustive exemptions
Aside from the odd requirement of citizenship, the state also has a very exhaustive list of exemptions for "confidential" information. Personnel files (traditionally open, though with information like SSNs redacted) of any law enforcement officer are especially difficult to get. If you make a request, state law requires your name, address, phone numbers and driver license number to be recorded AND given to the officer whose file you are requesting. If there is "personal information," it is ultimately up to the chief law enforcement officer whether or not it will be disclosed. Even if he or she decides to disclose it, the officer gets a chance to oppose the request.
As a caveat, this may be about protecting the officer's due process rights if someone is trying to investigate the officer for possible disciplinary action. Perhaps the state is concerned that the officer could be investigated and terminated without even knowing that he or she was suspected of wrongdoing. But if that's true, I still don't understand why this applies to personnel files of law enforcement and not other state employees.
Personally, I find it disturbing that certain records are considered public, yet the decision about whether or not to disclose this "public" information is left to the unbridled discretion of a chief law enforcement officer, not traditionally known among journalists as being very "open" with information.
Enforcing open records provisions
Public agencies really don't like complying with open records laws as a general rule. So if you want to sue them to enforce the law and enjoin them from future violations, many states will allow you to do so — however, they won't allow you any damages, and they may not have any provision for fee shifting. So if you get $0 for bringing the suit, how often do attorneys in those states take these cases?
That's why I was glad to hear of Vermont's recent amendment to its open records law, requiring that the public agency pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees if the plaintiff substantially prevails in the suit. States need provisions like these if they are serious about transparency. In other words: if you have a right, you need a remedy.
Amicus curiae
The second goal of the week was my favorite task so far. Amicus curiae are "friends of the court." They are usually filed by organizations, though they can be filed by several individuals (usually politicians) and are submitted for the court's consideration in deciding a particular case. Amicus curiae are not parties to the litigation, but they have an interest in some issue that the case will resolve.
Because they aren't parties to the case the court chooses whether to accept the brief or not. The CMLP writes several and joins several, and this particular issue related to a reporter's privilege not to be subpoenaed to give up nonconfidential materials as evidence in unrelated cases.
Subpoenas of this nature are becoming more frequent and more troubling. Instead of doing research/discovery to get the same information the reporter has used for writing a story, they take a quicker route and subpoena the reporter to hand over all their sources/notes etc. If you have a regular beat reporter who writes on certain litigation-prone issues (e.g. your cops/crime reporters, your Wall Street reporters, etc.) this can become a serious problem. There's the time it takes to comply with lengthy subpoena requests that demand all the notes the reporter has over several years span, and the cost on the company to making sure they are in compliance. Attorney fees alone can be thousands of dollars. It also greatly compromises journalists' independence to be pulled into lawsuits and have their notes used as tools in litigation.
That's why many states recognize a reporter's privilege. Note that this is different from a shield law, which protects a reporter from being forced to identify anonymous sources. This privilege, broadly speaking, protects journalists from subpoenas in suits in which they are not a party. This amicus brief handled just such an issue and was very well written. It was a great experience to be a small part of the process and I certainly hope this reporter is spared from complying with a tedious subpoena.
As a sidenote, tonight the Berkterns are headed to the Boston Museum of Fine Art, which allows visitors in for free on Fridays during the summer and offers a cash bar. Right now the MFA has the Chihuly exhibit on display and I've been excited to see it. One other Berktern and I tried to go to the museum a while ago, but we grossly miscalculated the travel time and arrived too close to closing time to get to go through more than a few rooms. (Lucky for us, we arrived so late that they didn't charge us!) I've been determined to go back so I'm excited to make a return trip tonight. I'll try to post photos this weekend.
Update (07/04):
Well, my camera battery died, so I unfortunately had to take photos with my cell phone camera. But, here's some of my favorite photos from the Chihuly exhibit at the Boston MFA:
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Net Neutrality
An area of interest for me and of particular importance to the Berkman Center is the debate on net neutrality. In essence, net neutrality supports equal access for all people, to all online content. The debate changes flavor based on numerous factors, including geography.
For example, in China, the debate takes on the tone of free speech and censorship. Can/should the government limit access to certain content? How does that decision affect the rest of the world, if at all? In the United States, the discussion sounds more economic in nature, focusing on whether or not Internet service providers should be allowed to charge customers extra for accessing certain content. For example, can a provider force customers to pay twice as much if they want to access social media? What affect will that have on the development of the Internet among certain less privileged groups? What about on the way social media are used?
The concept really crosses all platforms at the Berkman Center, from legal issues about the power of the FCC over the Internet, to the effect on journalists trying to expand online through social media, to sociological effects of limiting access to certain groups of people. So, you could say the topic interests all of us here at the Berkman Center and doesn't fit neatly into any one project.
I e-mailed Professor Jonathan Zittrain about net neutrality several weeks ago, commenting that the original model of the Internet he presented to us—a group of providers all providing propietary services, such as CompuServe and AOL—greatly resembled the discussion today regarding net neutrality. The Internet eventually moved from a jumble of propietary services to a group of networked users all using cross-platform services—but if American providers have their way, I foresee we could end up back to the paleolithic days of the Internet when only select users accessed certain services. Prof. Zittrain suggested if there was interest, we could try a discussion group among the Berkterns.
Sidenote: Zittrain is a professor of Law, Computer Science, and Public Policy—all at the same time, all at Harvard. He co-founded the Berkman Center, has been a visiting professor at Oxford and Stanford, and serves on the Internet Society's Board of Trustees. And I know few professors more down to earth and easy to like than him. Yeah. Feel inadequate yet?
Anywho, I sent out emails to our listserve asking if there would be interest in that, and got an absolutely overwhelming response (at least 10 people responded in less than an hour). After some discussion amongst ourselves, we decided that there would be plenty of interest in meeting repeatedly on this very issue. One intern even started proposing articles on this topic we can all read together, so we have the first article already picked. I'll also be reserving a conference room for us and inviting Berkman Center faculty to join us.
I was told in the beginning that this internship would be what you made of it. You could say I'm taking that to heart.
For example, in China, the debate takes on the tone of free speech and censorship. Can/should the government limit access to certain content? How does that decision affect the rest of the world, if at all? In the United States, the discussion sounds more economic in nature, focusing on whether or not Internet service providers should be allowed to charge customers extra for accessing certain content. For example, can a provider force customers to pay twice as much if they want to access social media? What affect will that have on the development of the Internet among certain less privileged groups? What about on the way social media are used?
The concept really crosses all platforms at the Berkman Center, from legal issues about the power of the FCC over the Internet, to the effect on journalists trying to expand online through social media, to sociological effects of limiting access to certain groups of people. So, you could say the topic interests all of us here at the Berkman Center and doesn't fit neatly into any one project.
I e-mailed Professor Jonathan Zittrain about net neutrality several weeks ago, commenting that the original model of the Internet he presented to us—a group of providers all providing propietary services, such as CompuServe and AOL—greatly resembled the discussion today regarding net neutrality. The Internet eventually moved from a jumble of propietary services to a group of networked users all using cross-platform services—but if American providers have their way, I foresee we could end up back to the paleolithic days of the Internet when only select users accessed certain services. Prof. Zittrain suggested if there was interest, we could try a discussion group among the Berkterns.
Sidenote: Zittrain is a professor of Law, Computer Science, and Public Policy—all at the same time, all at Harvard. He co-founded the Berkman Center, has been a visiting professor at Oxford and Stanford, and serves on the Internet Society's Board of Trustees. And I know few professors more down to earth and easy to like than him. Yeah. Feel inadequate yet?
Anywho, I sent out emails to our listserve asking if there would be interest in that, and got an absolutely overwhelming response (at least 10 people responded in less than an hour). After some discussion amongst ourselves, we decided that there would be plenty of interest in meeting repeatedly on this very issue. One intern even started proposing articles on this topic we can all read together, so we have the first article already picked. I'll also be reserving a conference room for us and inviting Berkman Center faculty to join us.
I was told in the beginning that this internship would be what you made of it. You could say I'm taking that to heart.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Online Media Legal Network
This week continues my push to get more attorneys involved with the Online Media Legal Network, a pro bono initiative that provides online journalists with free and reduced-fee legal assistance. It's been nice combining my old life and my new one in this manner, reaching out to journalism foundations and media/nonprofit attorneys to be part of the project. I've seen some strong interest from attorneys who also think media law is their calling. Hopefully a few of them will remember my name in about a year!
Aside from my various Berkman-related projects, the past week has been full — the Berkterns have been quite sociable, with a Kentucky-themed gathering on Saturday (hosted by another fellow Kentuckian Berktern, what are the odds?).
I also started a trek along the freedom trail, which over its 2.5 miles takes tourists through an array of historic sites, including Paul Revere's tomb AND his house, the old city hall, the USS Constitution and several other spots.
This is the plaque outside the Cranary Graveyard, one stop along the Freedom Trail.
I hope to continue over the next couple of weeks, if the weather will allow.
Aside from my various Berkman-related projects, the past week has been full — the Berkterns have been quite sociable, with a Kentucky-themed gathering on Saturday (hosted by another fellow Kentuckian Berktern, what are the odds?).
I also started a trek along the freedom trail, which over its 2.5 miles takes tourists through an array of historic sites, including Paul Revere's tomb AND his house, the old city hall, the USS Constitution and several other spots.
This is the plaque outside the Cranary Graveyard, one stop along the Freedom Trail.
I hope to continue over the next couple of weeks, if the weather will allow.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Kentucky needs an anti-SLAPP law!
One of the cooler parts of my internship here is hearing about modern trends in litigation, something we talk about all too rarely in law school. A particularly interesting development is the anti-SLAPP law -- SLAPP is an acronym for a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" and generally the term is used for 1) suits that have no chance of winning but which are cheaper to settle quickly than to dispute, and 2) disproportionately affect freedom of speech because the suits focus on citizen media/journalists.
For example, America Inc. doesn't like the local weekly newspaper writing about the attorney general's recent investigation of is hiring practices. So it decides to sue for defamation, knowing the paper is so bad off these days that it can't afford to defend a suit, even if it knows America Inc. has no chance of winning. So, it settles -- giving the company a lump sump to make the suit go away, and avoiding writing about the incident because it knows America Inc. could easily sue again.
Around 25-30 states are passing anti-SLAPP laws, which allow a defendant to seek relief if he/she thinks he's a victim of a SLAPP suit. If successful, he may be able to recover not only the court fees, but also a sum of money from the plaintiff. Such suits have been famous in cases such as the successful anti-SLAPP countersuit against Barbara Streisand -- she sued the California Coastal Records Project because it took a photo of her house, taken from a helicopter flying in public airspace. I mean, really Babs? Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, also got a taste of anti-SLAPP law when he sued a paper that published an entirely accurate listing of Snyder's very public failings as owner of the baseball team.
Bottom line for media lawyers: If you're going to work in media law defending journalists, anti-SLAPP laws are an incredibly valuable tool -- if you want to get paid (and let's face it, it does eventually come down to brass tax, like it or not) you need to know all of your fee-shifting tools. Your clients may be able to afford to pay you, but then again great cases may not have clients who can afford your hourly rate. If your heart still lies with defending citizen media but your student loans don't, this is a mechanism you can't afford to forget.
Bottom line for citizen journalists: I don't know anyone who works in journalism who isn't occasionally afraid of being sued. It's even worse if you know someone who can afford to file suit and LOSE just to make your life harder. These anti-SLAPP acts ARE a valuable tool, *if* your state passes one with any teeth. Check and see if your state has one, and if not, it's worth an editorial, a note to your legislature, or whatever you think is best to promote passage where you live.
Bottom line for Kentucky -- pass an anti-SLAPP law!
For example, America Inc. doesn't like the local weekly newspaper writing about the attorney general's recent investigation of is hiring practices. So it decides to sue for defamation, knowing the paper is so bad off these days that it can't afford to defend a suit, even if it knows America Inc. has no chance of winning. So, it settles -- giving the company a lump sump to make the suit go away, and avoiding writing about the incident because it knows America Inc. could easily sue again.
Around 25-30 states are passing anti-SLAPP laws, which allow a defendant to seek relief if he/she thinks he's a victim of a SLAPP suit. If successful, he may be able to recover not only the court fees, but also a sum of money from the plaintiff. Such suits have been famous in cases such as the successful anti-SLAPP countersuit against Barbara Streisand -- she sued the California Coastal Records Project because it took a photo of her house, taken from a helicopter flying in public airspace. I mean, really Babs? Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, also got a taste of anti-SLAPP law when he sued a paper that published an entirely accurate listing of Snyder's very public failings as owner of the baseball team.
Bottom line for media lawyers: If you're going to work in media law defending journalists, anti-SLAPP laws are an incredibly valuable tool -- if you want to get paid (and let's face it, it does eventually come down to brass tax, like it or not) you need to know all of your fee-shifting tools. Your clients may be able to afford to pay you, but then again great cases may not have clients who can afford your hourly rate. If your heart still lies with defending citizen media but your student loans don't, this is a mechanism you can't afford to forget.
Bottom line for citizen journalists: I don't know anyone who works in journalism who isn't occasionally afraid of being sued. It's even worse if you know someone who can afford to file suit and LOSE just to make your life harder. These anti-SLAPP acts ARE a valuable tool, *if* your state passes one with any teeth. Check and see if your state has one, and if not, it's worth an editorial, a note to your legislature, or whatever you think is best to promote passage where you live.
Bottom line for Kentucky -- pass an anti-SLAPP law!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
I say the more open, the better off we all are
Today I've been working primarily on the legal guide, focusing on adding summations of open records/open meetings laws to states that we are currently missing. So far, I have done summations for Arizona (not posted) and am working on one for Tennessee.
This project has been especially interesting for me now, because before I only knew public records law based on what I had been told by colleagues or what I'd heard at journalism conferences. I had no idea how to look up a public records statute and even if I did, I'm not sure I would have felt comfortable figuring out what it said. Now I'm seeing these laws through the lens of a law student, looking at what the statute clearly leaves out and to which agencies its directives applies -- is the statutory remedy permissive (e.g., the court may award attorney's fees) or is it mandatory (e.g., the court shall award attorney's fees?) Does it provide a procedure for applying, and if so does it require a writing? Does it define what a writing can be? Does it provide a response time for open records requests, or does it only say the response time must be -- the lawyer's favorite -- "reasonable"?
Little details like these give a clearer picture of what is "open," and what is still hazy. You certainly get an interesting vibe from a state looking at what information it considers "public." For example, does the state have a broad list of exemptions that may or may not have clear public policy explanations (ahem, Tennessee), or does it list few exemptions, with a clear slant toward openness? Admittedly my bias from years working in journalism is to have an open government: the more access, the easier it is to find kickbacks. It's hard to fight that instinct after years of working to give the public more information about the workings of its government.
There are certainly well-educated, reasoned minds who would differ. In particular, I'm thinking of the author of Stealth Democracy, who hypothesizes that America would altogether be happier (and probably run smoother) with much less public access. The author points out that the court system, the branch of government we tend to see as more mystic and, ironically, the least open, as being the one with the highest ratings in public opinion polls.
I say ironically only because the court system and all its inner workings is probably more open than any other contemporary court, and it certainly was more open than any court system at the time of our nation's founding. Think back to the times of English courts which disallowed a defense for treason, of secret tribunals where the accused had no right to see the evidence against him, the same court system which disallowed anyone with an economic interest in the case to testify. Surely it seems like an improvement?
Congress, on the other hand, with such constant media attention, is seen as the least effective branch of government and the one with strongest negative responses in opinion polls. This negativity leads to frustration and indecisiveness amongst voters, with many voters feeling constantly disenchanted with the people whom they elected and becoming less involved in elections as a result. If we want democracy to keep running, we should scale back on public access instead of putting everything on the table.
The author makes several important points which would be impossible to summarize here (and admittedly you'd only be reading through my bias) so if you're interested in the effect of open records and public access to information, I'd recommend reading this book to see another viewpoint.
As for me, I'll stick with my strong-willed —perhaps even naive— belief that the more information a democratic public has, the better.
This project has been especially interesting for me now, because before I only knew public records law based on what I had been told by colleagues or what I'd heard at journalism conferences. I had no idea how to look up a public records statute and even if I did, I'm not sure I would have felt comfortable figuring out what it said. Now I'm seeing these laws through the lens of a law student, looking at what the statute clearly leaves out and to which agencies its directives applies -- is the statutory remedy permissive (e.g., the court may award attorney's fees) or is it mandatory (e.g., the court shall award attorney's fees?) Does it provide a procedure for applying, and if so does it require a writing? Does it define what a writing can be? Does it provide a response time for open records requests, or does it only say the response time must be -- the lawyer's favorite -- "reasonable"?
Little details like these give a clearer picture of what is "open," and what is still hazy. You certainly get an interesting vibe from a state looking at what information it considers "public." For example, does the state have a broad list of exemptions that may or may not have clear public policy explanations (ahem, Tennessee), or does it list few exemptions, with a clear slant toward openness? Admittedly my bias from years working in journalism is to have an open government: the more access, the easier it is to find kickbacks. It's hard to fight that instinct after years of working to give the public more information about the workings of its government.
There are certainly well-educated, reasoned minds who would differ. In particular, I'm thinking of the author of Stealth Democracy, who hypothesizes that America would altogether be happier (and probably run smoother) with much less public access. The author points out that the court system, the branch of government we tend to see as more mystic and, ironically, the least open, as being the one with the highest ratings in public opinion polls.
I say ironically only because the court system and all its inner workings is probably more open than any other contemporary court, and it certainly was more open than any court system at the time of our nation's founding. Think back to the times of English courts which disallowed a defense for treason, of secret tribunals where the accused had no right to see the evidence against him, the same court system which disallowed anyone with an economic interest in the case to testify. Surely it seems like an improvement?
Congress, on the other hand, with such constant media attention, is seen as the least effective branch of government and the one with strongest negative responses in opinion polls. This negativity leads to frustration and indecisiveness amongst voters, with many voters feeling constantly disenchanted with the people whom they elected and becoming less involved in elections as a result. If we want democracy to keep running, we should scale back on public access instead of putting everything on the table.
The author makes several important points which would be impossible to summarize here (and admittedly you'd only be reading through my bias) so if you're interested in the effect of open records and public access to information, I'd recommend reading this book to see another viewpoint.
As for me, I'll stick with my strong-willed —perhaps even naive— belief that the more information a democratic public has, the better.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The perils of big city travel
This past Friday the Berkman Center hosted a hyperpublic symposium on designing privacy in public spaces online. Urs Gasser opened the conference with an excellent example: Google street view, which allows users looking for directions to wander the streets like a pedestrian would. Google was sued over its street view application in Switzerland right after it went online, and the court ordered that Google couldn't take its street view cameras anywhere a normal pedestrian wouldn't go, nor could it show any faces. In essence, we have an application available online to the public that still maintains some private spaces. Speakers at the symposium included computer scientists, ethnographers, architects, historians, artists and legal scholars, all of whom talked about how they define privacy in their respective fields and how they define spaces for that in what they produce.
After the syposium, the interns went out to the Cheers Pub and did a little touring around downtown Boston. The Cheers pub was nice, though super touristy (what do you expect, really?) and we also hit another small bar called the Mallilave in the North End of Boston. This Saturday, I went to the Union Oyster House in downtown Boston with one of the Berkman Center interns. It bills itself as the oldest restaurant in the U.S., and was a favorite of JFK. If you're ever in Boston and you like seafood, I'd recommend it. All in all, the weekend was a good time and I got to see some nice attractions in the city.
However, after being crammed on the subway with hundreds of people -- by that I mean each train was standing room only and everyone had to grab onto metal rails to keep from falling -- I've gotten sick. It started Sunday with my usual symptoms, but by Monday I decided I wouldn't let it beat me. I was determined to make it to the Berkman Center and all in all had a productive day. I got several bits of work done and met up for lunch with Trey Grayson, former Secretary of State and new director of the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy Center. After work hours I met with an HLS professor (Stephen Shay) to talk about job hunting advice, and in the end felt pretty good about my plan for the coming year.
And as I walked home, the Ick started. It got worse the closer I got to Somerville, and eventually I realized that maybe working today wasn't a good call.
I've been at home for two days now, and hope to venture back to the land of the living Thursday.
But my advice for any travelers not used to mass transit -- bring along hand sanitizer. Seriously.
After the syposium, the interns went out to the Cheers Pub and did a little touring around downtown Boston. The Cheers pub was nice, though super touristy (what do you expect, really?) and we also hit another small bar called the Mallilave in the North End of Boston. This Saturday, I went to the Union Oyster House in downtown Boston with one of the Berkman Center interns. It bills itself as the oldest restaurant in the U.S., and was a favorite of JFK. If you're ever in Boston and you like seafood, I'd recommend it. All in all, the weekend was a good time and I got to see some nice attractions in the city.
However, after being crammed on the subway with hundreds of people -- by that I mean each train was standing room only and everyone had to grab onto metal rails to keep from falling -- I've gotten sick. It started Sunday with my usual symptoms, but by Monday I decided I wouldn't let it beat me. I was determined to make it to the Berkman Center and all in all had a productive day. I got several bits of work done and met up for lunch with Trey Grayson, former Secretary of State and new director of the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy Center. After work hours I met with an HLS professor (Stephen Shay) to talk about job hunting advice, and in the end felt pretty good about my plan for the coming year.
And as I walked home, the Ick started. It got worse the closer I got to Somerville, and eventually I realized that maybe working today wasn't a good call.
I've been at home for two days now, and hope to venture back to the land of the living Thursday.
But my advice for any travelers not used to mass transit -- bring along hand sanitizer. Seriously.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Fun and awkward
Prof. Zittrain just coined a phrase at the Hyperpublic symposium -- fawkward.
If it's fun yet awkward, it's indeed fawkward.
Spread the word.
If it's fun yet awkward, it's indeed fawkward.
Spread the word.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Glik v. Cuniffe
Yesterday the Cyberlaw Clinic students (which is run primarily for Harvard Law students at the Berkman Center) and the Citizen Media Law Project interns went to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to hear oral arguments on the case of Glik v. Cunniffe, a case on which the project filed an amicus brief, which the court rejected.
The Glik case is a §1983 action. Such an action is a lawsuit provided for by federal law for violations of constitutional rights. Here, the suit was filed by a man who was arrested in the Boston Commons area after using his cell phone camera to video tape an arrest. The officers charged him with violations of the Massachusetts wiretapping statute, which prohibits recording anyone's conversations in secrecy. The charges were later dropped for lack of probable cause and the man who was arrested sued for violations of his fourth (which prevents unreasonable search and seizure) and first amendment rights.
This appeal of the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss the case for qualified immunity. Basically, the police officers wanted the case thrown out because as police officers acting as any reasonable police officer would while performing his or her duties in good faith, they are in fact entitled to immunity and the case would be thrown out. But, the trial court found that this actions weren't clearly reasonable. A reasonable officer might not think this arrest was constitutional. So the case was allowed to proceed.
The attorney representing the police made the point that the officers didn't know he was recording until after he had already started, and that the statute doesn't allow for recording without knowledge. After much debate back and forth, one judge made an excellent point -- what would the police have done if this were a member of the press? Say a journalist and a single camerama began filming and the police didn't hear them until they were already underway. Would they have thought this a violation of the wiretapping statute? I think most of us would hope that any journalist who spotted what they believed to be police abuse would stop and get it on camera, along with an explanation from the officers.
I think the judge brings up an excellent point. This wiretapping statute doesn't clearly make any distinction for the purpose behind the recording, or the person doing the recording. If this were a journalist recording a public event in a public place, I hardly think the Boston police would have arrested the reporter on camera. But this man, recording what he said at the time was a violent arrest (he told the cops, "I saw you punch him") was made a target.
Here is a link to the blog entry on the oral argument, written by my colleague.
Update:
Check this link to my supervisor, Jeff Hermes, being interviewed on this case.
The Glik case is a §1983 action. Such an action is a lawsuit provided for by federal law for violations of constitutional rights. Here, the suit was filed by a man who was arrested in the Boston Commons area after using his cell phone camera to video tape an arrest. The officers charged him with violations of the Massachusetts wiretapping statute, which prohibits recording anyone's conversations in secrecy. The charges were later dropped for lack of probable cause and the man who was arrested sued for violations of his fourth (which prevents unreasonable search and seizure) and first amendment rights.
This appeal of the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss the case for qualified immunity. Basically, the police officers wanted the case thrown out because as police officers acting as any reasonable police officer would while performing his or her duties in good faith, they are in fact entitled to immunity and the case would be thrown out. But, the trial court found that this actions weren't clearly reasonable. A reasonable officer might not think this arrest was constitutional. So the case was allowed to proceed.
The attorney representing the police made the point that the officers didn't know he was recording until after he had already started, and that the statute doesn't allow for recording without knowledge. After much debate back and forth, one judge made an excellent point -- what would the police have done if this were a member of the press? Say a journalist and a single camerama began filming and the police didn't hear them until they were already underway. Would they have thought this a violation of the wiretapping statute? I think most of us would hope that any journalist who spotted what they believed to be police abuse would stop and get it on camera, along with an explanation from the officers.
I think the judge brings up an excellent point. This wiretapping statute doesn't clearly make any distinction for the purpose behind the recording, or the person doing the recording. If this were a journalist recording a public event in a public place, I hardly think the Boston police would have arrested the reporter on camera. But this man, recording what he said at the time was a violent arrest (he told the cops, "I saw you punch him") was made a target.
Here is a link to the blog entry on the oral argument, written by my colleague.
Update:
Check this link to my supervisor, Jeff Hermes, being interviewed on this case.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The H bomb
Today, the executive director of the Berkman Center told a room full of interns that based on numbers alone -- people applying versus people accepted -- it's harder to get into a Berkman Center internship then it is to get into Harvard Law.
I think he was only halfway joking.
There's a very diverse bunch here, all of them talented, all of them with unique backgrounds that they'll bring to the range of projects at the center. If I hadn't felt honored to be here before (and I did) I certainly would feel that way now.
Opportunities at the Center
Every Tuesday the Center hosts a lunch with different speakers on Internet-related topics, and if the interns rsvp earlier enough they can join those. I was too late this time, but I will certainly try as often as I can to be part of these.
Interns are also encouraged to make contacts with staff, faculty and fellows with their respective interests. In fact, we were all told specifically that this experience would be what we made it. What contacts we made, who we reached out to, that would all be up to us. I think the practice I've had trying to make contacts over the past semester will come in handy as I try to get in touch with anyone I can affiliated with the center.
One comment in particular struck me, coming from the internship director to a few students hovering in the conference room. One Harvard Law student made a saracastic remark that as soon as he told people he was an HLS student, everyone assumed he was stuck up -- a few students jokingly called that "dropping the H bomb."
"Dropping the H bomb doesn't do much at Berkman." said the director, unimpressed.
"Because nearly everyone around here is from Harvard?" I asked.
Well, that's true, but really it's because we know there's so much to offer from all kinds of schools, she said. There's value in having different groups here and plenty of talented people out there outside of HLS.
How refreshingly novel. I can tell you, after working on applications for judicial clerkships, this is definitely not the perspective to which I am accustomed.
The Citizen Media Law Project
I soon met my fellow interns on the project. There are three of us, two Harvard Law students and myself. Because of my background in journalism, I will be working on outreach for the Online Legal Media Network, a network of pro bono attorneys that the project connects with online journalists in need of legal assistance. I'll be trying to get this service more publicity. I really couldn't be happier about the work for which I was selected.
We'll also be writing weekly blog entries about media law issues, updating the legal threats database -- a compilation of litigation and other legal "threats" such as cease and desist letters or advanced threats of prosecution -- and the legal guide, which breaks down state and federal law on a variety of media law topics.
Additionally, I hope to write a white paper while I'm here that could be published on the project's web site. Finally, as part of the Center's ongoing attempt to explain its goals and its internship program, all of us will also create a digital piece that explains what interning at the Berkman Center is like. There are few guidelines for this, so long as it answers some question future applicants might have about the center.
So, if any interested journalists or media law savvy readers out there know of a good topic for either a legal research paper or even just a blog entry, I would be happy to hear it!
I think he was only halfway joking.
There's a very diverse bunch here, all of them talented, all of them with unique backgrounds that they'll bring to the range of projects at the center. If I hadn't felt honored to be here before (and I did) I certainly would feel that way now.
Opportunities at the Center
Every Tuesday the Center hosts a lunch with different speakers on Internet-related topics, and if the interns rsvp earlier enough they can join those. I was too late this time, but I will certainly try as often as I can to be part of these.
Interns are also encouraged to make contacts with staff, faculty and fellows with their respective interests. In fact, we were all told specifically that this experience would be what we made it. What contacts we made, who we reached out to, that would all be up to us. I think the practice I've had trying to make contacts over the past semester will come in handy as I try to get in touch with anyone I can affiliated with the center.
One comment in particular struck me, coming from the internship director to a few students hovering in the conference room. One Harvard Law student made a saracastic remark that as soon as he told people he was an HLS student, everyone assumed he was stuck up -- a few students jokingly called that "dropping the H bomb."
"Dropping the H bomb doesn't do much at Berkman." said the director, unimpressed.
"Because nearly everyone around here is from Harvard?" I asked.
Well, that's true, but really it's because we know there's so much to offer from all kinds of schools, she said. There's value in having different groups here and plenty of talented people out there outside of HLS.
How refreshingly novel. I can tell you, after working on applications for judicial clerkships, this is definitely not the perspective to which I am accustomed.
The Citizen Media Law Project
I soon met my fellow interns on the project. There are three of us, two Harvard Law students and myself. Because of my background in journalism, I will be working on outreach for the Online Legal Media Network, a network of pro bono attorneys that the project connects with online journalists in need of legal assistance. I'll be trying to get this service more publicity. I really couldn't be happier about the work for which I was selected.
We'll also be writing weekly blog entries about media law issues, updating the legal threats database -- a compilation of litigation and other legal "threats" such as cease and desist letters or advanced threats of prosecution -- and the legal guide, which breaks down state and federal law on a variety of media law topics.
Additionally, I hope to write a white paper while I'm here that could be published on the project's web site. Finally, as part of the Center's ongoing attempt to explain its goals and its internship program, all of us will also create a digital piece that explains what interning at the Berkman Center is like. There are few guidelines for this, so long as it answers some question future applicants might have about the center.
So, if any interested journalists or media law savvy readers out there know of a good topic for either a legal research paper or even just a blog entry, I would be happy to hear it!
Sunday, June 5, 2011
This is it!
Tomorrow is my first day at the Berkman Center -- I am excited and anxious, not sure what to expect but I just know I will love it. I'll report back later!
Me on the Charles River
The Charles River separates Cambridge from Boston -- it's a popular spot, with lots of people kayaking, sailing, canoeing or just lying by it's bright blue water during the summertime.
Something about being near water always makes a trip feel more "vacation-y," though I suspect part of that is because Lexington has no body of water nearby. I went to the river today as part of the River Festival, which is in it's 32nd year. And interestingly enough, my roommate had never heard of it.
That tells you something about how much a city has to offer, if there's an annual festival with thousands in attendance and a resident of the area has never heard of it!
Saturday, June 4, 2011
How to appease the mass transit monster
The scariest part -- so far, that is -- of moving to such a large city from Kentucky is the mass transit monster.
When I say that, I imagine a large, red furry monster with big horns, wearing a Red Sox cap and screaming at me in a strange accent, littering wherever he walks with tickets and Charlie cards, with an annoying habit of perpetual lateness and a refusal to admit that causes a problem for anybody.
Here's why I imagined the monster was so scary:
1. I have never used mass transit because I'm from Kentucky, a state which is very low on forms of mass transit because there is little need. As far as I knew everyone over the age of 16 drove everywhere in their own cars 100% of the time.
2. There are thousands of people using the transit every day so a newcomer probably will not be given much time or patience to learn said mass transit. This is very offputting to someone who was taught to be kind to strangers until given a reason otherwise, and especially hard when you are new and feel particularily vulnerable, so feel especially timid.
3. There are several, sometimes overlapping forms of mass transit. There's a bus route, a subway route, a commuter rail, taxi cabs, flying carpets and catapults if you're in the right part of the city. Apparently having one reliable method was simply too easy to learn, so in order to keep things fun they invented more methods to keep the guessing game going. I highly suspect even native Bostonians have no idea how to use more than two methods and may just pretend they do if anyone asks.
4. Since you have no idea how to get anywhere, you will constantly have to resort back to mass transit options to figure out how to get around the city. That involves carefully identifying where to go, what system to use to get there and how to use it, how long it will take you, and what your emergency escape route is if you get lost (see number 5, below).
And, finally, but not least scary:
5. If you make a mistake, you will have zero idea where you've ended up, and perhaps less of an idea how to get back to wherever it was you were headed in the first place, if you can remember that after surviving the panic from getting lost in a city like Boston.
Here's how I did on my first venture. (If I don't come back in ten minutes, send a search-and-rescue crew. A large one.)
So. Once again, my gracious roommate decided to show me how one uses the Red Line, a simpler subway system that is apparently quite reliable and goes through Cambridge to downtown Boston.
It's about a 15 minute walk to the Harvard Square red line station, and since it's a lovely walk through the Yard I so far don't mind that at all. Things got a bumpy start though when I couldn't add money to my card, and the subway agent was very unexcited that anyone was actually going to ask him a question today. We took the subway to the Green Line, which meets the Red Line in downtown Boston and then -- because the subway wasn't fun enough -- splits into four lines all going different directions.
Lovely. So, I have (sorta) figured out how to use this Red Line, and haled my first taxi cab. Though somehow, I was expected to tell him how to get where I wanted to go, which says quite a lot when the person who drives the city every day for a living hasn't figured it out enough to take me home.
But, Green Line crazy splitting aside, it wasn't that bad. The Red Line seems fairly straight forward and at least there are taxi cabs all over the city if you do get completely and totally lost. Just keep cash on you (and having some strong nerves might be a good thing, too).
I will eventually be a "big city" traveler -- I will rub the belly of the mass transit monster. Just you wait, Boston.
When I say that, I imagine a large, red furry monster with big horns, wearing a Red Sox cap and screaming at me in a strange accent, littering wherever he walks with tickets and Charlie cards, with an annoying habit of perpetual lateness and a refusal to admit that causes a problem for anybody.
Here's why I imagined the monster was so scary:
1. I have never used mass transit because I'm from Kentucky, a state which is very low on forms of mass transit because there is little need. As far as I knew everyone over the age of 16 drove everywhere in their own cars 100% of the time.
2. There are thousands of people using the transit every day so a newcomer probably will not be given much time or patience to learn said mass transit. This is very offputting to someone who was taught to be kind to strangers until given a reason otherwise, and especially hard when you are new and feel particularily vulnerable, so feel especially timid.
3. There are several, sometimes overlapping forms of mass transit. There's a bus route, a subway route, a commuter rail, taxi cabs, flying carpets and catapults if you're in the right part of the city. Apparently having one reliable method was simply too easy to learn, so in order to keep things fun they invented more methods to keep the guessing game going. I highly suspect even native Bostonians have no idea how to use more than two methods and may just pretend they do if anyone asks.
4. Since you have no idea how to get anywhere, you will constantly have to resort back to mass transit options to figure out how to get around the city. That involves carefully identifying where to go, what system to use to get there and how to use it, how long it will take you, and what your emergency escape route is if you get lost (see number 5, below).
And, finally, but not least scary:
5. If you make a mistake, you will have zero idea where you've ended up, and perhaps less of an idea how to get back to wherever it was you were headed in the first place, if you can remember that after surviving the panic from getting lost in a city like Boston.
Here's how I did on my first venture. (If I don't come back in ten minutes, send a search-and-rescue crew. A large one.)
So. Once again, my gracious roommate decided to show me how one uses the Red Line, a simpler subway system that is apparently quite reliable and goes through Cambridge to downtown Boston.
It's about a 15 minute walk to the Harvard Square red line station, and since it's a lovely walk through the Yard I so far don't mind that at all. Things got a bumpy start though when I couldn't add money to my card, and the subway agent was very unexcited that anyone was actually going to ask him a question today. We took the subway to the Green Line, which meets the Red Line in downtown Boston and then -- because the subway wasn't fun enough -- splits into four lines all going different directions.
Lovely. So, I have (sorta) figured out how to use this Red Line, and haled my first taxi cab. Though somehow, I was expected to tell him how to get where I wanted to go, which says quite a lot when the person who drives the city every day for a living hasn't figured it out enough to take me home.
But, Green Line crazy splitting aside, it wasn't that bad. The Red Line seems fairly straight forward and at least there are taxi cabs all over the city if you do get completely and totally lost. Just keep cash on you (and having some strong nerves might be a good thing, too).
I will eventually be a "big city" traveler -- I will rub the belly of the mass transit monster. Just you wait, Boston.
Friday, June 3, 2011
What to do when you're on Harvard Square
After arriving at 2 p.m. in the Logan International airport, my very gracious roommates Mika and Ilana took me back to Somerville, where I'll be living for the summer. As soon as they pulled up, I was quickly greeted with a thoroughly frustrated, overweight, tan-skinned man honking his horn, who immediately got out and started yelling in some weird accent about how we shouldn't be in this lane.
Maybe that's how they say "welcome" here in Boston.
Anywho, it's about 73 degrees and sunny with a constant breeze --- terrible conditions, I tell you. I quickly got a guided tour of the area from my roommates, showing me how to get to the Berkman Center on Everett Street and also a few touristy things. For example:
This building looks so breathtaking that it's hard to describe, especially when you combine this beautiful stained-glass window with the size of the tower that greets you from the front:
Freshmen apparently eat lunch inside this building, in a very Hogwarts-esque atmosphere. If anything speaks for all you probably thought Harvard would be, it's something like this structure -- head-spinning size and intricacy, decadent but somber to the point of intimidating, yet so magnificent you just have to stare at it.
After a walk through Harvard Yard we went to the Square, where I ran into Click and Clack from Car Talk and begged them for an autograph and photo to send to Terry.
They had to make fun of me for actually knowing who they were, but still agreed to not only sign him an autograph, but take a photo, too.
As I slowly try to settle into my new, temporary home, I still can't fight this surreal feeling at the pit of my stomach that someone like me isn't supposed to be in a place like this. Can a Kentucky girl from Cardinal Valley -- not exactly upper class living, let's just admit it -- fit in ok in a place like this? I still haven't figured out if that's possible but my roommates did make a soothing point. Nearly EVERYONE who comes to Harvard wonders that same question. Did the admissions office make a mistake? Did they really want me to come here?
Yes. They did. And if so, then you WILL fit in here, like everyone else. And truth is, if you didn't get that feeling, that "Surely not. You can't mean me?" feeling, then you probably will be one of those people no one likes anyway, so who cares what they think?
I hope they are right. I'm wearing my UK gear regardless, and if you hear my Kentucky accent, so be it. I'm here to be part of an awesome media law project at the Berkman Center and learn all I possibly can, so somehow or another I'll find my vein away from home.
Maybe that's how they say "welcome" here in Boston.
Anywho, it's about 73 degrees and sunny with a constant breeze --- terrible conditions, I tell you. I quickly got a guided tour of the area from my roommates, showing me how to get to the Berkman Center on Everett Street and also a few touristy things. For example:
This building looks so breathtaking that it's hard to describe, especially when you combine this beautiful stained-glass window with the size of the tower that greets you from the front:
Freshmen apparently eat lunch inside this building, in a very Hogwarts-esque atmosphere. If anything speaks for all you probably thought Harvard would be, it's something like this structure -- head-spinning size and intricacy, decadent but somber to the point of intimidating, yet so magnificent you just have to stare at it.
After a walk through Harvard Yard we went to the Square, where I ran into Click and Clack from Car Talk and begged them for an autograph and photo to send to Terry.
They had to make fun of me for actually knowing who they were, but still agreed to not only sign him an autograph, but take a photo, too.
As I slowly try to settle into my new, temporary home, I still can't fight this surreal feeling at the pit of my stomach that someone like me isn't supposed to be in a place like this. Can a Kentucky girl from Cardinal Valley -- not exactly upper class living, let's just admit it -- fit in ok in a place like this? I still haven't figured out if that's possible but my roommates did make a soothing point. Nearly EVERYONE who comes to Harvard wonders that same question. Did the admissions office make a mistake? Did they really want me to come here?
Yes. They did. And if so, then you WILL fit in here, like everyone else. And truth is, if you didn't get that feeling, that "Surely not. You can't mean me?" feeling, then you probably will be one of those people no one likes anyway, so who cares what they think?
I hope they are right. I'm wearing my UK gear regardless, and if you hear my Kentucky accent, so be it. I'm here to be part of an awesome media law project at the Berkman Center and learn all I possibly can, so somehow or another I'll find my vein away from home.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
First night in Cambridge
After a long journey (which involved a sleepless night, a tearful goodbye at the airport in Lexington at 5 a.m., a layover in Charlotte, NC, and a screaming infant on the way to Boston) I have arrived in Cambridge and have slowly begun to settle into my apartment in Somerville.
Because I have been up since 4 a.m. and it is now almost 11, I apologize for needing to keep this short. But, first thing's first.
Yes, that's me, rubbing the foot of the statute of John Harvard, while wearing my UK Law gear.
Because I have been up since 4 a.m. and it is now almost 11, I apologize for needing to keep this short. But, first thing's first.
Yes, that's me, rubbing the foot of the statute of John Harvard, while wearing my UK Law gear.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
T-minus 24 hours
You know that feeling in the pit of your stomach as you're walking up the steps of the law school building before the biggest exam of your semester?
Yeah, it feels like that -- multiplied by 3.
I could use a hug. Did I mention I hate flying?
I. Despise. Flying.
I suspect the person in the seat next to me will not be cool with me gripping the armrests in the seat. I hopefully won't see them again, so if I whimper a little, just judge away, random stranger.
Either way, this time tomorrow, I'll be in Cambridge.
Yeah, it feels like that -- multiplied by 3.
I could use a hug. Did I mention I hate flying?
I. Despise. Flying.
I suspect the person in the seat next to me will not be cool with me gripping the armrests in the seat. I hopefully won't see them again, so if I whimper a little, just judge away, random stranger.
Either way, this time tomorrow, I'll be in Cambridge.
Monday, May 30, 2011
If you're interested
Here's where you can see more of what the Berkman Center and the Citizen Media Law Project are up to:
Berkman Center's YouTube Channel
The Project's YouTube Channel
Berkman Center's YouTube Channel
The Project's YouTube Channel
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Meet the interns
Here's a list of who all will be joining me at the Berkman Center this summer, with my colleagues at the Digital Media Law Project starred at the end:
Kendra -- recent graduate of Carnegie-Mellon, heading to the University of Cambridge
Matthew -- University of Rochester
Simon -- Amsterdam University
Jane -- Swarthmore College
Hannah -- Columbia
Claire -- Brown
Kassra -- High schooler from North Carolina
Andres -- UT-Austin
Joyce -- Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands
Andy -- University of Basel (Switzerland)
Benjamin -- Harvard University
Christian -- University of California, Davis School of Law
Sandy -- Michigan State University
Shreya -- Princeton
Rebecca -- Recent Duke graduate, heading to Penn Law
Nahmias -- The International Max Planck Research School for Competition and Innovation
Alexander -- University of Michigan
Meredith -- UT-Austin
Alan -- Harvard Law
Timothy G. -- Harvard Law
**Timothy L. -- Harvard Law
**John S. -- Harvard Law
**John B. -- Harvard Law
AND then there's moi, representing the University of Kentucky! :o)
Kendra -- recent graduate of Carnegie-Mellon, heading to the University of Cambridge
Matthew -- University of Rochester
Simon -- Amsterdam University
Jane -- Swarthmore College
Hannah -- Columbia
Claire -- Brown
Kassra -- High schooler from North Carolina
Andres -- UT-Austin
Joyce -- Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands
Andy -- University of Basel (Switzerland)
Benjamin -- Harvard University
Christian -- University of California, Davis School of Law
Sandy -- Michigan State University
Shreya -- Princeton
Rebecca -- Recent Duke graduate, heading to Penn Law
Nahmias -- The International Max Planck Research School for Competition and Innovation
Alexander -- University of Michigan
Meredith -- UT-Austin
Alan -- Harvard Law
Timothy G. -- Harvard Law
**Timothy L. -- Harvard Law
**John S. -- Harvard Law
**John B. -- Harvard Law
AND then there's moi, representing the University of Kentucky! :o)
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Welcome!
Hello readers! This blog is intended to track my adventures in the Greater Boston area this summer as I intern for The Digital Media Law Project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. The Berkman Center focuses on a variety of sociological and legal issues surrounding the Internet, and as part of its efforts the Center houses a variety of projects to study different issues in the online world. The Digital Media Law Project’s goal is to assist community journalists wanting to use online and digital resources but facing legal issues in the process. The project addresses a wide range of media law issues, from copyright to libel to access to open records online.
Of course, if you’re actually reading this, you probably already knew where I am and what I’m doing. (It doesn’t hurt to be thorough though, right?)
I hope to not only record my observations about the developing legal issues surrounding digital journalism, but also to keep up with my family and friends who I will miss terribly while I am away in Massachusetts. (Terry, you know to keep sending me pictures as our flowers bloom in the garden while I’m away. Tiffany, your job is to leave witty comments frequently on posts. I will be checking!) You will probably see a blend of personal commentary and pictures, along with scattered thoughts about the intersection between the law and journalism online.
I plan to try and write this like I would if I were still writing newspaper columns – I hope you all like following my travels.
Or at least, pretend like you like them by leaving me lots of comments. Please?
Of course, if you’re actually reading this, you probably already knew where I am and what I’m doing. (It doesn’t hurt to be thorough though, right?)
I hope to not only record my observations about the developing legal issues surrounding digital journalism, but also to keep up with my family and friends who I will miss terribly while I am away in Massachusetts. (Terry, you know to keep sending me pictures as our flowers bloom in the garden while I’m away. Tiffany, your job is to leave witty comments frequently on posts. I will be checking!) You will probably see a blend of personal commentary and pictures, along with scattered thoughts about the intersection between the law and journalism online.
I plan to try and write this like I would if I were still writing newspaper columns – I hope you all like following my travels.
Or at least, pretend like you like them by leaving me lots of comments. Please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)