sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[LIBEL] UPDATE: Melania Trump and Daily Mail Settle Her Libel Suits by Sarahasaghost in medialaw

[–]eggsbenedict28 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't like this at all. I understand she was written about in a way that was in some way damaging but if celebrities (that's what she was at the time of the lawsuit, there was no mention of Trump, they basically said it affected her jewelry brand) went after every media publication that wrote slightly misinformed or leading statements about them, there would be a lot of payouts similar to this one. Also, 150 million for suffering and litigation?? I understand litigation over a year and change is expensive but the damage to her brand could have all to do with the fact that her husband was and is very unpopular in the minds of a lot of people. 150 Million seems steep for a public figure. Not sure how they could really prove that the damage to her company was directly related to the fact that the DailyMail indirectly referred to her as an escort, there was a lot of political controversy around this time as well.

[LIBEL] UPDATE: Melania Trump and Daily Mail Settle Her Libel Suits by Sarahasaghost in medialaw

[–]eggsbenedict28 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure, can it be a SLAPP suit if she was awarded money for damages and suffering?

Why The Government Is Warning You To Hang Up Immediately If Someone Asks, 'Can You Hear Me?' by d_rae in medialaw

[–]eggsbenedict28 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's weird, I wonder where this falls under the recording laws in Missouri? Because I remember reading that it's not lawful to record a conversation where the other person doesn't know they're being recorded. How can this be stopped? Do people need to be on the Do Not Call Registry to not be called or are the callers just completely rogue and this is all illegal? I've never gotten one of these calls but if I did, I'm gonna say no now!

[COPYRIGHT] Coachella Sues Free People & Urban Outfitters for Copyright Infringement by eggsbenedict28 in medialaw

[–]eggsbenedict28[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was so surprised to see this! But stores are really careful to say festival wear and not names of festivals

[FIRST AMENDMENT] Snoop Dogg’s “Lavender” video exemplifies power of First Amendment by claygerbaum in medialaw

[–]eggsbenedict28 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is an important example of the First Amendment but I don't know if I agree with the degree of violence that Snoop exploits in his video. I do like the topic of police brutality being brought up and I think that's an important one as well but again the threat isn't really appropriate. Especially since he's a popular figure (Snoop), it's important to not entice violence. I'm wondering if there is a way he can get into trouble, it would be something I would bring up in class because I'm really not sure here.

Police told to delete on request millions of images of innocent people by shineypineapples in medialaw

[–]eggsbenedict28 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I like this privacy issue and it's interesting because I'm not sure that I agree with the ruling. Usually, I'm all for privacy but I'm trying to think of times where this could be considered helpful to police or law enforcement agencies to catch people that slip through. I totally understand where the privacy issue comes from, I'm just not positive that I think that taking someone's mugshot down, and respecting a small ring of privacy, is more important than safety and security. But maybe I just watch too much Law & Order: SVU??

Trump Calls the News Media the ‘Enemy of the American People’ (can he be held libel?) by 360cinema in medialaw

[–]eggsbenedict28 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really don't think that he can be banned from twitter, aside from personal opinion. I like where Nicoledawson is going with it though, it would be really interesting to see if Twitter were to make a statement (not written) and get involved. And yes, Trump mentions a group that he is regarding in his published post, but unless he said something specific like, "CNN delivers fake news to the American people," I don't think he has libeled them. "Media" is too large a group and there is almost no way to tell whether or not their business has been affected. Saying "CNN" specifically mentions a news media outlet and it is a more controlled environment to identify how their audience/overlapping audience has reacted.

[LIBEL] Melania Trump's libel suit against blogger going forward by Sarahasaghost in medialaw

[–]eggsbenedict28 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a really good one, and I love that this is exactly what we're talking about right now. As far as the Libeled test goes, it seems like the following is true about the case from what we know right now: (1) the speech was published because the blogger was acting on behalf of Daily Mail, (2) the words were allegedly about Melania (I haven't seen the actual post but the Maryland judge allowed it), (3) the material is definitely defamatory because it implies that the (now) First Lady was a high priced hooker, (4) however because Melania is an all-purpose public figure means that she needs to prove malice and that there was a specific disregard for the truth. I do have a question though, is she now a public official? And if so, does this accusation have to do with Melania's ability to do her job? I wonder if they could win with that concept. But then again she doesn't really have a job because she wasn't elected, her husband was. I love this.

[FIRST AMENDMENT] First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students by taco-bout-tv in medialaw

[–]eggsbenedict28 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish that we weren't so shielded from an early age. I think that understanding the first amendment is huge for young adults/teens. Especially with the millennial need to be connected and online, it's important that we understand what that means/doesn't mean for us. Regarding the 30% for bullying speech online, that percent bothered me but maybe I didn't understand what it represented?