AT&T’s Latest Censorship

It’s a good think I chose Comcast’s oligopoly service for broadband internet service and not AT&T (my two easy choices for real broadband). That’s because I tend to point out that our government is becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. And AT&T just changed its acceptable use policy to prevent you from using AT&T’s Toobz to tell others about the bad things AT&T is doing (via boing boing).

Failure to observe the guidelines set forth in this AUP may result inAT&T taking actions anywhere from a warning to a suspension ofprivileges or termination of your Service(s). When feasible, AT&Tmay provide you with notice of an AUP violation, via Email orotherwise, and demand that such violation be immediately corrected.AT&T reserves the right, however, to act immediately and withoutnotice to suspend or terminate Service(s) in response to a court orderor other legal requirement that certain conduct be stopped or whenAT&T determines, in its sole discretion, that the conduct may (1)expose AT&T to sanctions, prosecution or civil action, (2) causeharm to or interfere with the integrity or normal operations ofAT&T’s network(s) or facilities, (3) materially or repeatedlyinterfere with another person’s use of AT&T’s Service(s) or theInternet (4) damage or disparage the reputation of Read more

Duke Conference: Judges Panel (Reggie Live)

Gary Hengstler, Director Reynolds Center for the Courts and Media. Importance of having a judicial strategy for the media. Who makes editorial decisions now? previously, you’d give everyone access. BC of conglomeration, editorial decisions are not being made by journalists, they’re being made by commercial interests. Justice is in the entertainment and media field becoming a commodity. Tools to work with the media. Protective order. If you’re a journalist, they’re a gag order; if you’re a judge, they’re a protective order. Are they doing the reverse of what they were intended to, because in the absence of having the lawyers who know about the case, you’ll have the people who are speculating. To what extent is that counter-productive.

LeRoy Millette, Jr., Circuit Court, Prince William County. Presided over Bobbitt case, and John Mohammad case. One of the most important things in Mohammad trial was appointing really good lawyers. They agreed not to speak to the media. They considered the possibility that Mohammad would be tried in other jurisdictions. Incredible amount of discovery that was available–a lot of it that would not be allowed in trial. Did not put that information out for the media to have access to. Biggest problem: Malvo had confessed, that confession was suppressed in Fairfax, believe it was disgruntled law enforcement official. Main tool for a fair jury was change of venue. Gave jurors numbers, they used judges lunch room, questioned jurors to make sure they remained impartial. Want to make court room as normal as you can.

Terry Ruckriegle, Breckenridge, presided over Kobe’s trial (not the poodle, but the basketball player). Information got leaked before charges were filed. Decorum order, outlining guidelines for conduct. Approximately 20% of the filings were on the part of the media responding trying to open proceedings.
Court Reporter accidentally released portion of transcripts from closed hearings. Issued an order to delete and destroy those transcripts. "Of course, as you heard Lucy Dalglish say earlier, that’s prior restraint, which is like poking a sleeping bear with a stick." That order worked temporarily, Colorado Supreme Court upheld in 4-3 decision. Justice Breyer issued an order. Eventually released about 90% of those transcripts. Accuser’s civil attorneys launched a blitz as a result of the release, eventually withdrew from suit. Possibility of prosecutors, defense attorneys, other sources, you may have another source of information being put out to the public through the public.

Duke Conference: Role of the Public

This panel matches Communications scholar Kim Gross with Scott Bullock with the Institute of Justice and Steve Shapiro of ACLU. Gross talked a lot about framing, particularly the coverage of race and crime. Bullock is talking a lot about working with the media, particularly reaching out to opinion leaders.

Bullock is also talking about putting a client’s story up front in their narrative. Clients have to be comfortable speaking to the press–they even do media training. Importance of providing as much of the documents up front.

Institute of Justice does a lot of eminent domain cases (they did Kelo). But since there’s such a localized focus on these issues, it’s hard to get a national story out of it. Until they could put a national number on it, it didn’t really pick up on a national level. A 60 Minutes story appeared just before SCOTUS took Kelo. And when SCOTUS rules against Kelo, it led to a backlash against the practice of takings.

Shapiro emphasizes a point that Bullock made: you can lose in court and win in the court of public opinion. But more importantly, you can win in the court of law but lose in the court of public opinion (cites Read more

Duke Conference Update

On the comparative access panel, we got the European and Canadian perspective on media access, with a really interesting panel from Gavin Phillipson arguing that in the US the claims of the First Amendment are actually serving commercial interests. He argued that the British system, which made people responsible for leaks, was better.

Lucy Dalglish argued that we don’t have as much access as the others made out.

I asked whether the Wen Ho Lee and Hatfill cases are forcing us into a position akin to the British one Phillipson described–that media organizations have to pay the price for improper government leaks. Dalglish didn’t really respond, but the WaPo lawyer agreed afterwards that’s where we may be heading.

In the Institutional Response to Crisis, Judith Clair and Ron Dufresne used my example of the 80% of the blogosphere that was "dreck" (not my word") and the 20% that had acquired reputation. Clair talked about understanding the structure of the blogosphere before crisis, so you could reach out to the blogosphere. Dufresne pointed out that you might not want to reach out to the 80%–how do you identify who is what? This is, of course, a question Congress and the Courts and Read more

Prosecutor Panel

Thomas Metzloff poses a question: In re: Nifong: We had a case in Durham, we had a prosecutor who was saying lots of things on TV, everyone remembers the quotable quotes. What is the message that’s learned from Nifong?

Michael Cassidy
More lessons not learned than lessons learned. Brady and lying to court, he was going to be disbarred anyway. (Lists the nuances of the rules on what a prosecutor can say.) Because Nifong agreed to waive right to appeal, we didn’t get to reconsider those rules.

Colm Connolly
True believer that 99.9% of USAs and AUSAs do believe that US does not accomplish justice by arrests, it’s whenever justice is done in the courts.

Marhsa Goodenow
The lesson that hasn’t been learned is that a criminal defendant has a right to be tried in the court room, media doesn’t have the right to try a criminal in the public.

Loretta Lynch Hargrove
A former prosecutor, also grew up in Durham (African American), how do you find that balance? Interacting with the press is one of the ways a prosecutor can be accountable to the community, whether elected or not. There seemed to be a stunning lack of clarity on what could and couldn’t be said. Need to find balance.

The media seemed to become part of the story, the media coverage fueled the actions against Nifong.

Defense Attorneys Panel

As expected, Mark Geragos is in CA trying to keep Brent Wilkes out of jail. And perhaps to subpoena a bunch of corrupt Congressmen.

Laurie Levenson
Makes a joke about Geragos being in trial or on TV or both.

Talks about loading up your pleadings–"they’re more likely to get it right." You can comment on public records, so put stuff in your pleadings so you can refer back to it.

Discussion of cameras in the court room. May be courts saying cameras are alright in near future.

Should there be ethical codes on those who appear on the press? (Victoria Toensing, I’m looking at you!!) Suggestion of voluntary guidelines. Should lawyers have to disclose biases (she raises Geragos commenting on Scott Peterson case after having representing him (or do I have it reversed or the wrong damn pop culture case)?

Michael Tigar

Makes a case for the importance of First Amendment protections in cases.

Notes that on Nichols case, people would talk to NYT but not the defense team themselves.

"If you’re not restrained it harms the client. I don’t think jurors like it." Quotes a juror saying, "I think it makes a piss poor impression," appearing on TV.

Sound bite journalism is bad for the client, because we are not in charge of how it’s used.

Harold Haddon

Talks about the JonBenet Ramsey case–the leaks from the FBI and Boulder authorities in an attempt to get one of the parents to flip on the other.

Defense lawyers without as much information as the police early in the case–prevents defense lawyers from speaking publicly when the narrative on the trial is being set.

Checking In

Things I’m going to get in trouble for saying publicly at Duke:

  • That 80% of what is out in the blogosphere is crap. Hodding Carter had said half was. But I wasn’t thinking about anyone in this corner of the blogosphere.
  • That we bloggers were parasites on the legal teams of the mainstream media, who pay lawyers a lot of money to make sure things like the Libby grand jury recording gets released to the public.

Other than that, nothing too earthshattering newswise. I learned that the WaPo did get beat up by Lurita Doan’s lawyers for releasing the draft of the report on her Hatch Act violations. Which set off a very interesting discussion about whether publishing PDFs of draft documents would and should affect the WaPo’s reputation.

Travel Day

I’m about to take off for this conference. The conference organizers have assured me there will be wifi, so I’ll likely liveblog the more interesting panels (gosh, it seems so long since I’ve liveblogged Judge Walton; I wonder if I’ll remember how). But otherwise posting may be spotty until Monday. Then again, maybe not.

Clarence Thomas’ Most Important Contribution To Date

Every time I see mention of the Jena 6, I can’t help but think of Clarence Thomas’ single most positive contribution of his tenure on SCOTUS, as brought to you by Dahlia Lithwick.

Out of nowhere booms the great, surprising "Luke-I-am-your-father"voice of He Who Never Speaks. Justice Clarence Thomas suddenly asks aquestion and everyone’s head pops up and starts looking madly around,like the Muppets on Veterinarian Hospital. "Aren’tyou understating the effects … of 100 years of lynching?" he booms."This was a reign of terror, and the cross was a sign of that. … Itis unlike any symbol in our society. It was intended to cause fear,terrorize." [my emphasis]

I presume Justice Thomas might say the same thing about three nooses.

“Whenever It Is Convenient for You”

Anonymous Liberal found the Wainstein testimony I said I was going to go look for. I’ll come back to his summary of the extra goodies the Administration is requesting (the short version: they want to make it impossible for any case relating to wiretapping to go through normal courts, and they want to expand the universe of people who can make FISA certifications to include Monica Goodling non-Senate approved people the President designates).

But for the moment, I wanted to point to how downright welcoming of oversight the Administration has gotten–now that they want something from Congress.

Because we appreciate the need for regular and comprehensive reporting during the debate of renewal of this authority, we are committing to substantial reporting beyond that required by the statute. As we explained in our September 5, 2007, letter, we will provide the following reports and briefings to Congress over the course of the six-month renewal period:

  • we will make ourselves available to brief you and your staffs on the results of our first compliance review and after each subsequent review;
  • we will make available to you copies of the written reports of those reviews, with redactions as necessary to protect critical intelligence sources and methods;
  • we will Read more
image_print