Tag Archives: Patterico

Likelihood of jurisdiction (UPDATED and bumped)

Appellate courts, we see, choose what interests them, and how much.  Sometimes they surprise the parties and their counsel.

We weren’t all that shocked about the argument in Naffe v. Frey, the free-blogger-speech case involving Patterico, but perhaps the degree of the court’s emphasis on one issue as opposed to the other was a bit surprising.  We (the legal team including Ken from Popehat) were ready for it, however.

You’ll understand what I mean if you scan the brief, and then behold the oral argument:

I love my job.

UPDATE:  On June 15th the Ninth Circuit ruled.  As you may have guessed from watching the above, we got a mixed outcome, as explained by Ken at Popehat.  The heart of his post: Read More…

Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club 12(b)(6) Decision: A good start

If you’re following this wacky case, or even if you’re just a beginner, you will find the decision below on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) very interesting, at the very least.

Your blogger made the motion that resulted in this order on behalf of a bunch of these defendants — Patterico (Pat Frey), Liberty Chick (Mandy Nagy), Ace of Spades HQ and, kind of, in a moral, spiritual sense, Ali Akbar — as it happens*, so to me it’s so very interesting that it gets to be this post.  Unfortunately our work here is not yet done, but this is a good start.

Thanks are due to the esteemed Maryland attorney Bruce Godfrey who stepped up to act as pro bono local counsel when the majority of the organized bar was too chicken — in one case, so shamefully chicken that even I have not had the temerity to write about it yet — and was a man where a man was needed when the other million lawyers in America ignored our very public plea for help.

Speaking of which, thanks, of course, to the ever-lovin’ Popehat — the real West Coast Popehat, i.e., the formidable (in so many ways) Ken White, a very busy guy who found time to help out with this piece of business too, both behind the scenes (unofficially but very much for really) and in the ether.

Ken and whatsisname have been working this beat, and this prestigious client (Pat Frey), together for a while now.   Read More…

Kimberlin v. All the bloggers — The Patterico / Liberty Chick Motion to Dismiss

Read about the case here and here.

DMCA abuse, YouTube, politics and blogs? Same old, same old (UPDATED — but still same old)

My friend Patterico has done it again — but, then again, it has been done, as I’ll remind shortly.  The scoop for today?  In a post about one Songhai “Sunny” Armstead, he links to a video on YouTube of some embarrassing campaign comments — which was promptly pulled down by YouTube per a DMCA claim by someone named Gail Copeland, to wit:

In the post I did about Armstead’s disgusting views, I linked the full video of her remarks. When you click on the YouTube URL for that video now, you see this:

Screen Shot 2014-05-22 at 8.12.35 AM

Looks like I got someone’s attention, huh?

So who is Gail Copeland, the person who filed the copyright claim? Well, for one thing, she appears to be a supporter of Armstead’s. (Surprise!)

And all that will have to be worked out.  Surprisingly, to some extent, the fact that it’s so easy to quash expression by a unilateral claim of copyright infringement is something that should have been worked out some time ago.

It was just this, as those who did not come in late will recall, the impetus for the founding of the old Media Bloggers Association.  There the New York Times abused the DMCA by yanking a parody of its correction page off blogger Bob Cox’s server.  I helped out a little.  That’s all gone now, as is Bob’s blog, but the whole thing is preserved for the ages at this link.

Problem solved?  For Bob, yes, but not for the next person to say something others did not want heard — especially in the political realm, as I explained to America per the video at right, which was actually a variation of the DMCA problem involving a spurious claim of trademark infringement that led to a politically-motivated takedown:
Read More…

Blogger rights and wrongs – From sea to shining sea

Surrogate's CourtLast week, on April 18th, I retweeted news of this court decision:

New Jersey blogger considered a journalist under state Shield Law
A New Jersey blogger qualifies for protection under the state’s shield law and does not have to reveal the names of government officials she accused of wrongdoing, a judge ruled.

Union County Superior Court Judge Karen Cassidy quashed county prosecutors’ subpoena served on blogger Tina Renna, who runs the website The County Watchers. Prosecutors sought the names of 16 local government officials Renna accused of misusing county generators after Hurricane Sandy in a December blog post. Cassidy ruled that Renna passed a three-part test that determines whether someone qualifies as a journalist and should receive protection under the shield law.

In the opinion, Cassidy considered the three factors: whether Renna had a connection to news media, whether her purpose was to gather or disseminate news, and whether she obtained her information through “professional newsgathering activities.”

“These original posts are arguably newsworthy and constitute ‘news’ under the Statute,” Cassidy wrote in her opinion released Friday. “In addition, her method of talking to sources, attending freeholder meetings, and using Open Public Records Act requests … is sufficiently similar to the methods used by traditional news media entities.”

The actual opinion is here.  I got a kick out of the fact that the blogger’s lawyer, a former journalist who has done a lot of media law, was the guy who first taught me how to defend a deposition when we were associates together (he much senior to me) at the same big New Jersey law firm.  (The same law firm I just defeated in a motion last month, in fact!)  We’ve both moved on since then, of course, and I was pleased to see the outcome — consistent with a position I’ve advocated for years.  Bloggers, obviously, are journalists, when they’re doing journalism, just as journalists, obviously, are something else when they merely act as propagandists or mouthpieces.  Journalism, as we said in the old Media Bloggers Association, is something you do, not something you are.

That was the question concerning whether one is a journalist or non-journalist, asked without reference to what one might be other than a journalist in that instance, which, the New Jersey court ruled, is not the inquiry — despite the insistence of another party, in that case a prosecutor, that the blogger is just “playing journalism” to avoid getting in trouble with the law:

Union County prosecutor Theodore Romankow . . .  has publicly questioned whether [blogger Tina] Renna made up the accusations and invoked the shield law so that she would not be caught.

“Personally, I believe she was caught in a lie and chose to waste time and money by hiding,” the prosecutor told the news website NJ.com on Friday.

In court, Romankow said Renna cannot be considered a journalist because many of her posts are unprofessional and related to her personal involvement in local politics.

The New Jersey court wasn’t buying.  Guess what:  Journalism isn’t a “profession,” it is, yes, an activity.  And weighing personal involvement in a topic of journalistic interest, besides being actually pretty common among journalists, cannot possibly be a good policy.

Patterico Public Enemy No. 1

Attacking bloggers for what they write, however, can take more vicious form than service of a subpoena for information, not that that can’t be quite destructive.  And, sometimes, that prosecutor shoe can be on the other foot.  

Read More…

I’m with Popehat

Do you like defamation cases?

Cases involving blogging and social media?

Patterico Public Enemy No. 1

How about SLAPP motions in cases involving defamation and blogging and social media and Patterico?!

And what if they’re cases involving Patterico and Popehat and LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®?  (The case is in California, but I was in charge of punctuation and adjectives!)

Then click here already!