Lobbying for speech

Yesterday in class we discussed the issues of the press (whoever that may be...) to be required to reveal sources. If a privilege were awarded to the press to not be required to respond to a subpoena, content discrimination would no doubt follow so the court could label the plaintiff as press or not. Discrimination based on content is the last thing the Founders would want as this greatly limits free speech. However, the Obama administration has quite recently instated a sort of content discrimination.

This past Friday, lobbyists told the White House ethics chief that the ban forbidding administration officials from meeting lobbyists to discuss the stimulus plan violated their free speech. This ban is part of the March 20 White House memorandum. Lobbyists claim their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon as anyone that is not a registered lobbyist is allowed to discuss the plan with the officials. This is clearly specific discrimination of lobbyist views. Like content discrimination, the government singled out which views would not be allowed to be expressed.

Technically, lobbyists can still communicate with the officials, but they must not discuss specifically the stimulus plan and any contact they have with the officials must be documented in writing with the date and time and issues discussed. Lobbyists, according to this memorandum, shouldn't technically be talking to officials, and if they happen to they better not mention the stimulus plan and what they think of it.

One of Obama's campaign promises was to limit lobbyist influence in order to "restore faith in government." White House representative Ben LaBolt stated that, "The goal is full transparency." Ironically, shouts are now being heard that the government is taking away citizens' rights. 

While this ruling clearly does single out one classification of people, it is from the perspective that it is for the public interest to reassure non-lobbyist citizens that stimulus decisions are not being made for the highest bidder. However, anyone that is not registered as a lobbyist can discuss whatever they wish with officials, still allowing for possible interference. It does seem kind of sad that, in order to prove to others that the government will not be swayed for reasons other than public interest, the government has to ban communication altogether as if the officials are not steadfast enough to stick to moral decision-making. Then again morality and politics haven't seemed to be synonymous for quite a while...

One could fail to see that lobbyist's are being inexplicably silenced. They can say whatever they wish in writing as long as they agree that it will be publicly accessible and lobbyists do have a history of bribery to influence legislation. Lobbyists generally have a negative reputation, as seen by the restrictions already placed on them such as the requirement to report activity within Maryland jurisdiction by the Maryland Senate. The reports concern events and gifts funded by registered lobbyists.  However, oral speech is being strictly limited and monitored and the First Amendment has been repeatedly explained as a risk but one required for a free market of ideas. Prior restraint rings through the air as issues relevant to public interest are being silenced and more so if a lobbyist fears their opinion may touch too close to the line dividing "general Recovery act policy issues" and the issues concerning "particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding."

Further discrimination is addressed by the New York Times Article The Good Lobbyist published the day before lobbyists cornered the ethics chief. The Obama policy allows for occasional waivers. So, if an official does feel like discussing the stimulus plan orally with a lobbyist, this could be unrightfully allowed if Obama agrees with what this specific lobbyist has to say. While William Lynn, a lobbyist, was chosen for deputy secretary of defense, Tom Malinowski is refused the position for the administration's global human rights chief because of his being a registered lobbyist. Rightly stated by this article, it is a good thing that lobbyist relations are being limited, but such an incomplete ban is unconstitutional. The government has given itself the power to silence all but those they agree with. 

The traditional job of lobbyists is to represent others when debating public policy. By silencing this group, those of self-interest have a greater opportunity to influence the decision-making process, an opinion expressed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Additionally, silencing lobbyists then silences all the people that they represent. Clearly this is in violation of the First Amendment rights of more than just the lobbyists. More negative influence on administrative decisions seems inevitable.

The Irony of the "Obama Youth Effect"

We all know our good friend the reasonable person. According to recent studies, the youth of America today is different from the last era. Last fall, William Strauss, a generational expert, reported to MTV that the current generation of teens is more civic-minded. This year, MTV decided to raise its number of viewers by conforming to the new thinking and sending MTV talents across the country to accomplish "100 things to do before you die"-type acts and, along the way, granting the wishes of underprivileged youth (though as this idea is in hopes to raise their number of viewers it is not quite as gallant an action).

If youth are becoming more civic-minded and more reasonable relating to political issues, it can be inferred that their reasonability for their own actions regarding the laws has increased as well. After all, if they have been paying more attention to the news and take a greater interest in politics, they should have a better understanding of right and wrong in respect to America's laws and capable of understanding ways to improve society. 

Cases such as Morse v Frederick and Fraser, students were ruled against because of their inappropriate speech and/or behavior, Frederick displaying a sign that could reasonably be read as sanctioning marijuana usage and Fraser using "offensively lewd and indecent speech." Stated for Frederick, "children assuredly do not shed their constitutional rights...at the schoolhouse gate...[as] the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school." If minors of this generation are more interested in watching shows documenting charity work and community improvement than how rich teenagers entertain themselves, it's clearly a step in the right direction for teens to exhibit less inappropriate behavior and more behavior that is beneficial to other students based on merit of ideas or actions. In essence, acting in a more reasonable manner.

However, what is seen as reasonability of minors by MTV's sources may be seen as the beginning of socialism by others. Such a label would of course strip away any progress made by minors to resemble our reasonable friend.

The recent election has caused numerous people to give credit to Obama for the rising youth involvement in politics and has even been given the name "The Obama Youth Effect."

The MTV article gives credit to the recent election for the growing political education of teens. Ironically, some see Obama as against First Amendment rights. Back in October of 2008, Andrew McCarthy of the National Review sent out a warning that then Senator Obama "and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What's more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quall dissent." Agreeing opinions would be that of the "Conservative Christian," and the creator of this YouTube video, extremist views that Obama's election has led to the demise of true free speech and has actually resulted in a sort of brainwashed, regulated speech. The blogger believes that Obama's goal in affecting youth is to turn them away from God and to act as today's Hitler. Such an issue would of course give cause to discourage youth from allowing Obama's influence to affect their reasoning of political decision making. If minors are assumed to be influenced by Obama, their level of reasoning if below that of the reasonable person as they now not only do not have the knowledge to make beneficial decisions for their classmates or society, but are incapable of making their own decisions period.

Contrary to such reports of Obama's acts of domestic mental terrorism is that of the First Amendment Lawyer Blog. New Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines were decided by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 19th, following the President's presidential memorandum issued on his first day of office. He called for agencies to "usher in a new era of open government." The new guidelines are to direct executive branch departments to presume openness when administering the FOIA. Transparency is to allow for the public to view government activities and support their right to see them. Such a policy encourages the public to become more active in the politic aspect of America and such action could trickle down to American's youth, furthering their reasonableness regarding political decisions. Looking at decisions such as these support the "work in progress" for youth to become politically involved during Obama's presidency, hoping it will continue on after. 

As more youth can be considered knowledgeable about political concepts, perhaps the Supreme Court will believe that they have more of a right to reasonably express themselves politically as well as in other ways. However, the "Obama Effect" can be seen in a very negative light. The eery way in which youth publicly praise Obama makes me believe they are less reasonable and more programmed. Then again, programmed people would of course be less likely to cause disruption due to their freedom of expression as it would be the same expression as the rest of the children and therefore at least not cause disruption in the classroom. Additionally, the First Amendment is in existence to protect the speech others disapprove of. While its been discussed time and time again that speech in schools has much more reason to be regulated than speech outside of the classroom, the First Amendment should protect minors from being silenced if the majority of the school or of a class is expressing one opinion that people not within that class or school disapprove of. After all, if it is the majority belief, it is not causing as much of a disruption as the belief that may exist in majority outside of the school's walls (such as the YouTube video of students chanting for Obama in military uniforms that got their teacher suspended). This is of course assuming that the students were not forced to show support for Obama. The students were not silenced, but as the teacher was supposed to teach McCain's economic plan as well and appeared to have not, he was suspended. Teachers could possibly construe this as a sort of prior restraint. They may restrain their students from jointly expressing one belief in case others feel they are erring in not having diverse beliefs.

In support of student expression, the 5th Circuit of Texas decided on March 16th of this year that the moment of silence in Texas schools is constitutional. As this moment of silence is applicable in various ways, the moment is an expression of freedom for minors to openly practice their religion if they wish. While this item has been an issue in many states for the last couple of years, the decision to protect this could reflect the changing times for respect of minor rights.  While there have been numerous First Amendment case victories since the crucial months leading up to Obama's election, this has been the only case to specifically involve minors. So perhaps court rulings will loosen the ties of minor First Amendment cases. Only time will tell.

"A Coffin, a Flag, a Photograph" and the right to see it

It is clear that, since Obama took office, many changes have been put into effect. One such change was the removal of the ban on news media access of returning war dead, which was put into effect during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. This past Sunday evening, the Pentagon allowed the media to cover the return of Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip Myers. Those in favor of the ban believed censorship of such events would prevent the media from using deaths in a purely political way. In 2003, it was announced that reporters would be embedded within the army to report the war.  Initially, the media portrayed this in a positive light since the Pentagon seemed to agree that the war news should not be told by means of censored articles or censored footage. However, the fine print of the agreement stated that, "If media are inadvertently exposed to sensitive information, they should be briefed after exposure on what information they should avoid covering." The debate over the ban's relation to broadcast of the returning dead mainly dealt with the right of privacy to the families vs. the First Amendment right of the press to report newsworthy information. 

However, as discussed in class, the media makes things newsworthy by reporting it. While "...critics point to the First Amendment and have accused the government of trying to keep the public in the dark about the human toll of war," is true, I do not really see how this differs from the media reporting war deaths in general when looked at in a political aspect. I remember coming home from school each day after 9/11 and seeing lists of names on the television screen and watching as they scrolled across the screen as the reporter explained yet another bombing in Afghanistan had resulted in loss of life. I remember thinking how strange it was that when four soldiers died, there was a report on each one's life and how their families were coping-- but when thirty soldiers died, suddenly the news played into the flash-attention span broadcasts. The higher the number of deaths, the less the media cares about who died. 

By this reasoning, the media really only does what they wish to do with the news that comes there way. In that sense, maybe they don't deserve to report such political deaths as it is not for public interest that they do it, but rather to lead into their next story about how they feel about the war efforts, thus supporting the past ban's reasoning.

Additionally, reporting a death with pictures and background information gets the same message across to the public without grand emotional injury to the families as can be caused by a prime-time showing of their loved one being carried from airplane to hearse. 

However, such thinking is exactly why we have a First Amendment. It does not matter that I disagree with the way in which the reporters bring to light the deaths of citizens and soldiers. What matters is the ability for such news to come to light in any way.

Wars provide for much media coverage but usually result in fewer human rights and more censoring than ever. The movie Vantage Point I think demonstrates this quite well while Transformers nudges the issue in a comedic way. In summary, Vantage Point is a story of the assassination of the President, a plan concocted by numerous people of citizen to FBI qualifications. The beginning depicts a reporter arguing with her boss that she is reporting everyone is hopeful at the scene of a treaty while in reality the majority of people are protesting the President's presence. At the end, a reporter states that the one assassin had been killed. Transformers ends with the lead's mother stating that if there was something going, the government would definitely tell everyone so they could duck and cover. War causes more censorship as the government wants the public to support their decisions and believe that the war is a downhill battle. While this is a whole other issue to debate, such censorship does put Americans in the dark and so no censorship has to be the blanket decision to promote that free and unrestricted sharing of ideas.

For the Harper v Showler case, Robert Showler filed against Harper Magazine after the publication of open-casket photos of Sergeant Kyle Brinlee. Reporters were given consent to be present at the funeral and the funeral was "newsworthy" as the Sergeant was the first Oklahoma National Guardsman to be killed in the line of duty since the Korean War. After reporting the death of soldiers, it can be viewed that the actual filming of the return of the deceased is not needed to make such a report. The families are very distressed and if the deaths can simply be reported on the news, the public does not need to see the actual return of the soldier.

Then again, First Amendment cases are not decided based on the feelings of the plaintiffs. If the average reasonable person would not be upset by having their beloved's casket coming off an airplane be aired on prime-time television, then gosh darn it, it's going to be allowed on prime-time television. Honestly, though, what person can be considered the "average reasonable person" as any moment they are going to see the body of someone they love? The families and friends are very upset and most likely less reasonable than they usually are at such a moment. This shouldn't mean their feelings count for nothing, though. It should actually have the opposite effect: No one is truly rational during such a proceeding and so the "reasonable person" defense cannot be used. But then again a picture of a happy, living soldier with a capture stating his death is not quite as riveting as seeing his lifeless body before crying family and friends. If you're against a war and want people on your side, the later is definitely the way to go. But then I think your getting into using this event in a more commercial sense. No, there is no product being sold, but if you are anti-war and this is your station, you are selling your opinions.

This is slightly random but I just saw it and had to share. The New York Times posted numerous articles about Obama's unannounced visit, etc...But always call him "Mr. Obama," while they always referred to Bush as "President Bush"...I thought that was a bit strange, but it does emphasize my point that the Press can report things however they wish for people to view them. Personally, I think the article's lack of the use of "President" is disrespectful and that is just from one word.

If you are in a relationship, you aren't "free," but is your speech?

Is all free in love and war?

So of course everyone has heard how Chris Brown attacked Rihanna. According to four magazines I saw side-by-side at Walgreens, Rihanna married Chris Brown, she is pregnant, she did not marry him and instead checked herself into an institution to help herself battle depression and cutting, and she refuses to testify against him. Regardless of the true story, the abuse got me thinking...Yes; physical abuse is awful no matter the circumstances. But what about verbal abuse between married couples? No relationship is perfect and "fighting words" are occasionally extravagantly used in public places to the entertainment of those around to hear. There are abuse hotlines, but what if the verbal abuse is two-sided? Can such arguments actually be put to the end by the law? Clearly laws against physical abuse do not change just because the crime occurs between two people in a relationship, and while the thought process along the way may differ, the outcome for verbal or written abuse is no different.

An interesting divorce case was brought to light about one year ago. William Krasnansky, then-husband to Maria Garrido, decided to blog about the going-ons of his divorce. When the wife learned of the blog, she reported it to the judge currently over-seeing their divorce. The judge then ordered Krasnansky to "take down any and all internet postings about his wife and their marriage." The judge labeled the blog as harassment, which divorce judges are able to bar during proceedings. According to the New York Times, this ruling turned an ordinary divorce into a battle of free speech over the Internet. Prior restraint was Krasnansky's defense. While a blog between two individuals not going through a divorce would have never been silenced, this case does raise the issue of a difference of the terms of free speech for people related in an intimate way as opposed to a general acquaintance or so forth. The wife believed she was justified in her wishes for the blog to be removed, as it was defamation**...but then again can't divorce in general be considered defamation of the parties involved? By extremes, if one person does not want a divorce but their spouse does and defamation becomes an issue decided in family courts, then a divorce could be prevented by the claim that the other spouse wants a divorce to purposely cause defamation to their spouse. Thus, such issues are handled in separate courts. But then...do family members and married couples live by different rules than others? 

Back in the day, "crimes of passion" were leniently dealt with. If a wife walked in on her husband having an affair and stabbed him, it was considered a crime of passion and the wife could receive little to no punishment by the court. Today, it seems like the opposite occurs. When there is any reported defamation between people of an intimate nature, more serious actions are taken. After a relationship between a woman and a police office officer soured, restraining orders were filed, jobs were lost, and then in stepped the officer's lawyer to sue on the grounds of defamation. Prior to the suit, the woman, Taylor, had been talking to an acquaintance of Officer Doyle, the ex-boyfriend, when she commented that she could kill Doyle's female roommate Stuber (not in the literal sense). People generally say they "could just kill __." I guess one moral of the story is to not say such a thing when the people involved wear badges. The 911-dispatcher roommate heard of the comment and filed a restraining order and had it served to Taylor at her place of employment. Soon after, Taylor lost her job. Perhaps Stuber feared a crime of passion against her since most people would have little reaction to such a comment and perhaps give the woman some chocolate. However, the difference here is that Doyle and Taylor had been in an intimate relationship and so more aggressive actions were expected and thus dealt.

 While Taylor and family claim Doyle has exposed himself inappropriately to Taylor's mother, has threatened them, and has urinated on their lawn, Doyle has filed the defamation suit because he feels the family's actions to separate themselves from him have hurt his reputation. The hearing is to be held in April. The fact that the plaintiff is an officer clearly has its impact, but it must not go unnoticed the drastic actions that have been taken against Taylor for speaking ill of Doyle.

As in all court cases, it is not the plaintiff's expectations that decide what should have been an expected outcome but the average reasonable person's expectations. The average, reasonable person expects family members and couples to fight, occasionally in a public manner. 

According to the Young Lawyers Section of the Missouri Bar, civil relief can be filed for if the abused used to be the spouse of, is currently the spouse of, is related by blood, or has a child with the abuser. But once again two-way abuse is not mentioned. What can be done if someone is verbally abusing you after you abused them is never mentioned...I guess everyone just believes that solution would be for the two people to just stop talking to one another, get a divorce, or become one of those families that just talks every five to ten years. If a complaint was filed against a family or couple having an issue of a fighting-word-war, I suppose the result would just be a noise complaint or some such issue. If a court did hear a case where one person was arrested for public disturbance of peace but the argument was between a father and son, the fine would be held because when it gets down to it, the father still disturbed the peace, whether the argument was with his son or a mail man. If the son had also been using fighting words and aided in the disturbance and did not also receive a ticket, I guess his lawyer would just see him as lucky. In the end I suppose two people can just countersue each other until one finally wins or their claims get thrown out.

The People's Legal Front states about six times that fighting words inflict injury or lead to a breach of the peace. However, I do believe that people with an intimate relationship do have more of a right to use fighting words. As discussed in class, words allow for people to "let off steam" so that physical actions are not taken. Personally, I believe it is even more important for such physical abuse to be prevented in relationships than in general as such abuse is sometimes overlooked, either by those in the relationship or their friends and family. Additionally, family members or couples have more opportunity to be angered as they are generally together more than people that are not related in such a way. Through this logic, I believe that family members and those in relationships should have an understanding that fighting words will not get them arrested. While I do not believe such relation-oriented issues should be protected by an actual law, I do believe that there should be a more lenient way to deal with such things. 

**The issue was proclaimed "too broad to be constitutional" by the dean of the law school at Washington Lee University. Additionally, Krasnansky had stated a mixture of fictional and true information in his blogs, including some of his wife's old journal entries. Two weeks after the order filed against Krasnansky, the court declared that the blog did not constitute harassment and that his First Amendment rights had been violated. It was also decided that the family court had no jurisdiction to rule defamation in the case of blogs.

PS- Watch out for the computer virus that's supposed to hit....Happy April Fools!....

Freedom of speech...when your speech isn't like anyone elses?

Freedom of speech is rather broad...It is not simply the ability to say one thing or another or to hold some sort of demonstration. In actuality, the freedom to express oneself by any way regarding any topic and with any help, be it a poster or megaphone, can be held to the First Amendment to determine its "expression insurance." 

However, insurance companies have qualifications for their clients. If someone has caused or just been involved in numerous car accidents, an insurance company may not wish to represent them. In a way, immigrants are like insurance clients. --The next sentence is expressed in an extremist way so please understand I have nothing against immigrants personally, or anyone of any different background in any sense. This blog is not meant to address the issue of illegal immigration either.-- By the insurance metaphor, immigrants may be seen as the people that caused the accident while society has a slightly different attitude toward immigrants' children as if they were the drivers that were simply involved in an accident. Particular insurance companies may wish to not provide services to either while other companies will provide for those that were not at fault and, by this metaphor, the children of immigrants.

Allow me to clarify. What I am trying to propose is the question whether everyone deserves freedom of expression by the First Amendment the moment they step on American soil, or if they should dutifully become a citizen (though a sort of definition of "citizen" would have to be determined; is it based on documentation or a person's lifestyle?) before having the advantage of such freedoms, and if other citizens that have been here longer will truly respect the immigrants' acquired right. Such a topic seems more an issue of societal beliefs than law, but these issues leak into the minds of the justices deciding the cases...

The New York Times posted an article this past Saturday entitled "Where Education and Assimilation Collide." This article discusses the issue of race in schools being an issue of the past while the real issue today is whether a student speaks English or not. At Hylton High in Washington DC, "the calm in the hallways belies resentments simmering among students who barely know one another. They readily label one another "stupid" or "racist." The tensions have at times erupted into walkouts and cafeteria fights, including one in which immigrant students tore an American flag off the wall and black students responded by shouting, "Go back to your own country!"" As poignantly inserted by the author of the article, the issue of black versus white is not even the issue at this high school. The issue is whether a student is "American" enough. While the Texas v. Johnson case determined that using the flag to express one's opinion, whether it is a positive or negative one, is protected by the First Amendment, it must be pondered what the outcome and opinions may have been had the flag been burned by a recent immigrant rather than an American citizen. The article does not say what was done in response to the outburst, but as a minor committed the defamation the insurance metaphor probably would have applied once more; the child is simply involved in the accident. It is actually their parents' fault.

If a middle-age immigrant had been in a public area, such as a bank, and tore down an American flag shouting something in their first language, the first thought of many of the witnesses would probably be that this person is a terrorist. It is rather sad, but it is true. While the children of immigrants are less likely to receive such criticism, they do deal with others exiling them for their different culture and inability to speak "America's language"...which is ironic considering the US does not actually have a national language...

It has been tested by cases and verified that immigrants have freedom of speech, yet there have also been cases showing immigrants can be deported for exercising that "right."  All in all, it seems that the US government as well as US citizens are more willing to provide rights to those that have been here relatively longer than others...and exhibit an American lifestyle rather than one representative of their heritage.

In the Harisiades v. Shaughnessy Supreme Court case in 1952, the issue at hand was the Alien Registration Act that Congress had passed in 1940. It required anyone that had ever been a communist to be deported. This went against the First Amendment as the plaintiffs were being punished for exercising free speech as well as their right to freely assemble. However, the three plaintiffs were immigrants. 

According to Patrick Young, a professor at Hofstra Law School, this case was one of political infringement. He states the positions of the three ex-communists in a rather entertaining way; "So we have Harisiades, the hard core communist, Mrs. Coleman, who apparently joined for the parties, and Mascitti, who was anti-communist. Yet all of them were ordered deported. For something they had done before the law prohibiting it had been passed." Harisiades came to America with his father when he was thirteen, married, and had two children. Both his wife and his children were US citizens. Mascitti legally entered the US when he was 16, married another resident alien and they had a child. Mrs. Coleman was legally admitted to the US when she was thirteen as well, married a US citizen, and had three children that were citizens by birth. These people came to the US in 1916, 1920, and 1914, respectively. The law was passed in 1940 and this Supreme Court ruling was in 1953. Once again, I feel obligated to point out that the one thing these three had in common was that they were immigrants. The Supreme Court ruling: the First Amendment claim was denied.

The justices dissenting held that, "a resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. He therefore may not be deprived either by the National Government or by any state of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This is where things get fuzzy regarding free speech of "Americans" versus free speech of immigrants...The Supreme Court considered an immigrant to have the same rights as a naturally-born citizen. Such rights include those named under the First Amendment. All right. That sounds good....but why on earth is this stated within the dissenting opinion rather than the concurring decision of the court? The dissenting opinion of the Harisiades case believes the concurring opinion to regard once-dangerous immigrants to remain dangerous indefinitely. By such a rule, if a flag was burned by an immigrant from a terrorist nation, such an act could be considered by the court as evidence as their continued danger. Clearly there is discretion between immigrants and citizens as flag burning by a citizen has been tried and proven to produce no such imminent danger. So then America isn't truly the land of the free. It is the land of the free for those that have been here long enough and whose ancestors have already fought the battle for equal rights.

The students at Hylton High are separated from the rest of the school so that their classes can be focused on teaching them English so they can pass state exams. Other students look down on them because they do not belong. Little do these immigrant students know that the accident they have been involved in will be a reoccurring event, persuading the government's "insurance policy" to possibly refuse coverage.

This video showcases the difference today between racism and anti-immigration...Sorry, it does touch on illegal immigration but does mention speech and being a born citizen. And the person mocking a Mexican is of Spanish descent.

The Moss Muse

Perusing through recent articles, I came upon one reporting a suit filed by Kate Moss against News of the World because they had printed that she was three months pregnant. While it doesn't seem that big of a deal whether she is or isn't, and it's very unlikely that someone that read this had an epiphany concerning their feelings toward Moss (or anything else for that matter), she is of course very offended. The reason why isn't very clear, but this is the United States of America where everyone has a right to sue whether it is logical or not.

By typical standards, Kate Moss should not win her suit. Actual malice has not been proven and the newspaper stated that they, "now accept that [their] information was incorrect and that Kate is not pregnant."1 By this statement, they are expressing that they were not previously aware that their claim that Kate Moss was pregnant was false. Without intentionally spreading the rumor that she was pregnant, the newspaper cannot be held liable. Of course she still feels they owe her a sort of tangible proof of their apologetic feelings...

That celebrities sacrifice some of their privacy for their large paychecks is no secret, but whether they still have "equal rights" when it comes to defamation is debatable. While the celebrity may have negative things said about them, such rumors may actually improve their reputation while also providing advertisement for any upcoming ads, movies, or CDs that may be soon distributed. 2

The question therefore must always be in the back of one's mind whether "celebrity treatment" should carry into the courthouse, whether in favor of celebrities or not. In a case such as Moss's, News of the World would not be held liable for reporting that a civilian was three months pregnant if they had thought so. Then again, News of the World would never print something like that about a civilian. Which of course calls into question whether such a false rumor about a celebrity must have been done intentionally or not. It is possible that someone had it out for Moss and decided telling the world she was pregnant would somehow make them feel a little bit better about their less-than-celebrity-style lifestyle. Still, "actual malice" cannot be proved. Unless the publisher or author of the story states that they had known Kate Moss had not in actuality been pregnant when writing the story, no actual malice can be proven in court and the newspaper should not be sued.

No true damage other than a factor of annoyance can be derived from this case. People thinking that Kate Moss is three months pregnant should by no means alter their opinion of her. There is a slight possibility that some agency may have though Moss should not be hired given her appearance would not be as suited to Calvin Klein underwear ads as in the past, but whether the rumor had caused such a misunderstanding is not mentioned in the article.

In November of 2006, Britney Spears attempted to sue for 10 million dollars. The judge ruled that published rumors that Spears and her husband were trying to prevent the release of a sex tape were not enough to cause defamation since Spears "put her modern sexuality squarely, and profitably, before the public eye." 3 The judge never even addressed the issue of whether the rumor was true or not. While Moss had not put her sexuality "before the public eye," a report of her being pregnant is not of a prurient nature as the rumor of a sex tape can be considered. As Moss is married to her husband, it is not far from the public's mind to believe that the two would have "sexual relations," and so stating that she is pregnant is not defamatory in accusing her of having sex, either.

An interesting act passed in 1998 by the State of Washington was the "New Act," which "provides that every person (including individuals and entities) has a property right in the use of one's name, voice, signature, photograph or other likeness in any medium or any manner."4 Such an act puts to question the expanse to which this wording can be applied. If a person has property rights to their name, it is unclear whether this just applies to commercial usage of the name or use of the name in general. While Washington most likely refers to the commercial use of such personal property, it can be argued that using a story about a specific celebrity is in fat used to sell the newspaper. For the latter interpretation, any use of a person's name would then require an approval for that usage. in this case, Moss or any other celebrity would have the right to approve any use of their name. This right could be viewed as prior restraint. Any newspaper or tabloid would not want to report anything that could aggravate the person of whom it referred. While the "New Act" is not a federal law, it does open a whole new can of worms when it comes to First Amendment rights. By libertarian beliefs, anyone should be able to report anything and anyone should be able to report their own variation of a retraction of the material. By neoliberal terms, the government should monitor the usage of individual names and decide whether the information given is in the public's interest or not.

I wish I had lived in Washington and someone had for some reason plastered my name everywhere to sell...suncreen or something. I could've had one heck of a college fund.

1. Brooke, Stephen. "News of the World apolgises to Kate Moss for pregnancy rumour." Guardian News and Media Limmited 2009. 02 MAR 2009. Guardian Co. 09 Mar 2009 .

2. Mandela, Nelson. "Celebrity Lawsuits." Personal Injury. 2005. Personal Injury Info. 09 MAR 2009

3. Associated press, "Judge dismisses Britney Spears' libel suit; Pop star had accused US Weekly of fabricating story about sex video." Entertainment/Celebrities. 07 NOV 2006. msnbc. 09 MAR 2009 .

4. Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland, "Protection of One's Name, Voice, Signature, Photograph, or Other likeness." FindLaw Library. 1999. FindLaw. 09 MAR 2009 .