Current News and Media Videos

The Wall Street Journal has reported that an Indian company is suing a blogger for defamation. A Wired blog is predicting a win for that company.

In case you aren’t familiar with the case. Here’s a quick run-down:

• “Toxic Writer”, an anonymous blogger, made some comments about the company
• The company, Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects Ltd., is based in Mumbai, India
• The allegation is that the blogger is engaging in “hate speech”
• The blog’s been removed, but the Blogger.com subsidiary, based in India, is claiming no responsibility

According to some legal experts, countries that were once a British colony see these types of lawsuits often. This is perhaps the most high profile of the cases of this sort. What makes it so special, however, is one simple fact of the law: Any company doing business in any country in the world is subject to the local laws, regardless of its country of origin.

Google is a U.S. company. If the same suit happened in the U.S. then Google would likely win. But India has no first amendment and companies fighting this type of suit in those countries typically lose. That means Google will have to change its operating policies for bloggers in that country. But this is where it gets sticky.

The blogger is being threatened with loss of anonymity. Doesn’t he have a right to privacy? The real issue here is the crossroad between a blogger’s right to blog anonymously and the right of the company to have nothing defamatory said about it. If the blogger wins then all is well (except for the company). If the company wins, the blogger not only loses anonymity in India, but in every country in the world.

What if a U.S. citizen, blogging anonymously, makes an off-hand comment about an international company headquartered in India, or another country with no first amendment law? Which court has jurisdiction? Furthermore, which nation’s laws will be applied to the situation?

Will the U.S. blogger be subject to Indian laws? Will Google? Since search engine results can theoretically be viewed in any country, based on personal preferences and geographic concerns as applied by Google’s algorithms, you can see how these situations could lead to some sticky case law. Either every search engine headquartered in every country will have to adopt a different policy to reflect the local laws of each nation in which it operates or an international body governing Internet search and publishing will need to be created to maintain a consistent legal policy that governs the entire world’s policy regarding defamation, copyright, and related issues.

The only question left to answer is, Which path will be taken?

This story was first published at Blogger News Network.

Ad revenues are down for big media companies. Who’d have guessed? Gas prices are up so where are people going to cut expenses? On the expenses that aren’t 100% necessary and for many small businesses, advertising is one of those things that eats into the budget, especially if small business owners can’t easily spot or measure the ROI of the expense. But big companies have budgets too. And when hard times hit they’ll cut their expenses just like the small fries will. So this is where we’re at right now. Big oil had its hey-day and now the rest of us are eating dirt. Thanks Exxon Mobil. The news industry loves you.

The second story this week has more to do with legislation. The Senate has decided not to vote on the media shield law. It’s technical name is the Free Flow of Information Act. All but five Republicans want to vote on energy legislation before tackling the free flow of information law that keeps the public informed of important goings on in Washington. Well, they may not have their priorities right, but at least they have priorities, much like the Big Oil companies. The media thanks you.

The Sillicon Valley Mercury News is reporting that the U.S. Census Bureau plans to count gay married persons in its next census the same as it reports unmarried partners. This carries very strange political consequences.

On the one hand, gay married couples are legally married if they marry in Massachusetts or California. Doesn’t that fact mean that they are to be counted among the census numbers as “married couples”? According to representatives of the U.S. Census Bureau, no.

Actually, I think it smacks of the same kind of political compromise that led to the 3/5 rule in the U.S. Constitution. Upon the founding of America, since slaves did not have a right to vote, Northern non-slave owners argued that they should not be counted in the Census numbers. Southerners wanted them counted. The obvious reason was because apportionment of legislative representatives was based on population. The South wanted to increase its power in Congress while the North wanted to diminish the South’s influence. They compromised by allowing slave owners to count their slaves as 3/5 of a person instead of a whole person.

The Census Bureau’s insistence that gay married couples be counted as unmarried partners is the same type of compromise, only it isn’t based so much on economics, as the 3/5 compromise was, as it is based on morality. Christian evangelicals and other conservative factions do not want to recognize marriage for homosexuals. Liberals and gay couples simply want the same political and economic rights as heterosexuals with regard to marriage contracts. The Census Bureau has evidently figured out a “moral compromise” - allow same-sex couples to marry, since they can’t stop it anyway, and don’t count them as married in the Census data, which would acknowledge the legitimacy of the marriage contracts. By disallowing the counting of marriage contracts between same-sex couples in the numbers of total persons who are married, the Census Bureau and its decision makers can essentially de-legitimize the practice of homosexual marriage without taking a stand on its legality. Very clever “moral compromise” on the part of the head counters.

Viacom is at it again. And this time they have the court’s backing. Google has been ordered to hand over YouTube users’ private data. TechCrunch says Viacom wants to use the information to find ordinary Joe’s to sue. I don’t think so.

I think Viacom will see it more as a marketing opportunity. Once the cold blows off and dissipates from the sinister news they will likely want to use the information for marketing purposes, which would be far worse than trying to sue YouTube users. If the court does get away with forcing Google to sell out its users to Viacom there should be a stipulation that Viacom cannot use the information for anything other than determining that there were in fact users who watched their copyrighted videos. But the more pressing issue is the privacy of users altogether.

There is no reason to make YouTube user privacy information available to Viacom or the public. The court should instead allow the information to be used in discovery and with the stipulation that none of the information can be used beyond the purview of use within this lawsuit and that none of it will be made public. But to be totally honest, I hope Viacom loses its pants off.

This is a tale of two presidents. One past, one future. In the words of others.

First, George W. Bush. I say he’s history though he is the current chief. Some have called him a lame-duck president. That’s too kind. It doesn’t do justice to the English language and it’s an insult to other lame-duck presidents of the past. Imagine how Jimmy Carter must feel being equated to G.W.B. What a real slap in the face!

In actuality, George W. Bush is a dead-duck president. His entire administration has been rocked with scandal, stupidity, bad judgments, and just plain ridiculous thought processes filled with non sequiturs, leaps of logic, and synaptic misfires. His war may have been based on bad intelligence, but his legacy of one of no intelligence and it won’t be hard for the next president to look good.

Hear what Kos has to say:

The Congress is about to severely expand the already too-extensive authority of the president in surveilling the citizens of this nation. In doing so, it is ignoring the fact that the government has become a law breaker and made the telcos accessories to the crimes.

OK, so he’s talking about Congress. But he’s inadvertently talking about President Bush, the chief lawbreaker in the land. But he isn’t the first. FISA itself was passed as a result of abuses perpetrated by Richard Nixon. It essentially replaces the Fourth Amendment with a new law of the land with a stamp of approval by the legislative body and the courts.

It’s hard to believe that Congress could actually be less curious and more secretive than than the Bush/Cheney administration in trying to keep this information from ever seeing the light of day.

No, it’s really not hard to believe. Look at their track record.

President Bush has done nothing but subvert the law and replace it with his. Of course, he could not have done that had Congress not fallen asleep. Do I expect changes? No. Not in this lifetime.

And, now, on the future President Obama:

Obama has long been comfortable talking about his moderate to liberal Christianity, and has long been very much at ease with the social Gospel and mixing religion with politics.

Brilliant observation. And the result?

If that happens (and I can’t see how it will because of Obama’s abortion record), we’re talking about a historic landslide. But if only a fifth of them move over to the Democrat, we have a serious realignment - and possibly real movement in a few Southern states.

Yes, if Obama is elected it will be because evangelical Christians have decided that’s who they want to be the next president. But what kind of record does the Church have on picking presidents? Well, let’s see:

• Richard Nixon (criminal)
• Jimmy Carter (ineffectual)
• Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra)
• George H.W. Bush (liar)
• Bill Clinton (scumbag)
• George W. Bush (warmonger)

Is there any reason to be optimistic?

I like Andrew Sullivan, but “any time soon?”

How about never.

Lawyers for The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times and The Associated Press filed a motion requesting the Supreme Court to order the Cook County Circuit Court to unseal court records and transcripts related to R. Kelly’s pornography case.

The R&B icon pleaded not guilty to charges that he videotaped himself having sex with an underage girl. Judge Vincent Gaughan (GAWN) has said he’s “trying to protect Kelly’s rights and prevent information from influencing prospective jurors”.

R. Kelly’s trial is scheduled to start May 9th in Chicago. This isn’t the first time R. Kelly has been charged with allegations that he has sexual relations with a minor.

United Business Media, the specialist publishing and events group, is abandoning the UK after 90 years to take advantage of the more favourable tax regime in Ireland.

The move by the company is the second snub to the UK’s tax regime in a month following the decision of drugs group Shire said to move its parent company to Ireland. Other companies including GlaxoSmithKline have also warned that the UK’s business environment may not be conducive to their staying registered here.

Rest of the Story

Photo courtesy of newsobserver.com

The News & Observer and nine other North Carolina news organizations sued Gov. Mike Easley on Monday over his administration’s deletion of e-mail, which they say violates the state’s Public Records Law.

The news media coalition accuses Easley’s administration of “the systematic deletion, destruction or concealment of e-mail messages sent from or received by the Governor’s Office” in violation of the law, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Wake County Superior Court.

The Rest of The Story here

Apparently, Britney Spears is in the middle of another controversy.

Photo courtesy of ABCNews.com

Ever since Britney took off in an ambulance surrounded by police cars, motorcycles and a helicopter, Dennis Zine, a popular political figure has pushed for L.A. lawmakers to provide a “Safety Bubble” for celebrities.

This “Safety Bubble” basically states that the Paparazzi must keep a minimum of 20 yards away from celebrities deemed “paparazzi targets”. Some celebrities with this level of star power are Angelina & Brad, Tom & Katie, George Clooney and…Britney Spears.

The demand for private, personal or intimate photos of celebrities is in greater demand than ever before. The reason being, just one of these photos can rake in six figures or more.

There should be limitations placed on “overly-aggressive” paparazzi who endanger the safety of those involved but, one thing to remember is that when someone becomes a “high-profile” celebrity, they should have already realized that much of their private life would no longer be private and that they have to sacrifice much of what us “little people” take for granted.