Search

At a time when many U.S. newspapers find themselves at the edge of a financial precipice, The Salt Lake Tribune’s recent transformation into a 501(c)(3) public charity presents a potentially promis...

Contemporary attacks of various types have prompted calls for stronger public support and legal protections for journalism. Around the world, journalism faces not only government regulation that af...

International law took a significant step in recent years toward protection of journalists' sources and newsgathering processes. The international law journalistic privilege previously had been upheld by international tribunals, but it was not until 2011 that the United Nations Human Rights Committee adopted an interpretation of freedom of expression that included journalistic privilege. The presence of the privilege within freedom of expression, as recognized in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is important for several reasons. As part of freedom of expression, the privilege may not be overcome without a showing of necessity and proportionality, is not subject to a margin of appreciation, and is entitled to full realization by the 168 nations that have signed and ratified ICCPR.

Government officials in various parts of the world use defamation to silence critics, but defamation liability may curtail freedom of expression on topics of public interest and undermine human rights generally. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of expression unless a state can show need to protect individual reputation and acts proportionally. In its adjudication of complaints for violations of Article 19, and in its General Comment 34, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has crafted the principle that defamation liability may not be imposed if an erroneous statement about a public official was made in “error but without malice.” Although soft law, General Comment 34 represents the committee's most compelling articulation of the values animating freedom of expression in international human rights law, and chief among the values is the role played by free expression to promote realization of all human rights.

The academic and policy debates over the right to be forgotten primarily focus on a zero-sum game pitting privacy versus freedom of expression. However, a more nuanced approach could satisfy the various important interests at stake. This article contends that Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights allows individuals to define their own online identities while also accounting for the public interest in freedom of information and expression. Given Chile's historical and contemporary role in crafting and promoting economic, social and cultural rights, the article examines that country's experience with, and approach to, remembering and forgetting. The legal and cultural experience of Chile provides support for an international human rights-based alternative to the right to be forgotten based on Article 15 of ICESCR.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights decided four cases in recent years that represent a positive step for freedom of expression in nations that belong to the Organization of American States. In 2004 and again in 2008, the court stopped short of adopting a standard that would require proof of actual malice in criminal defamation cases brought by public officials. In 2009, however, the court seemed to adopt the actual malice rule without calling it that. The court's progress toward actual malice is chronicled in this article. The article concludes that the court's decision not to explicitly use the phrase “actual malice” may be a positive development for freedom of expression in the Americas.

Several federal district courts in 2009 and 2010 interpreted a relatively obscure provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to grant a potentially broad right of attribution to owners of copyright in creative works. The statutory provision prohibits removal or alteration of copyright management information. The law gives reason for both hope and fear for news organizations. On one hand, an attribution requirement is seen by some in the news industry as relief from negative effects of technology, including online news aggregators. On the other hand, news organizations already have been sued under the copyright management provision for their conduct in newsgathering. This article examines the copyright management information provision and concludes that transformation will be a key consideration in balancing the interest in attribution with preservation of newsgathering's reliance on access to and fair use of copyright-protected works.

Federal, state and local governments have realized that an effective way to counter an undesirable private message is to swallow it up within the government's own speech. So far, the Supreme Court of the United States has acquiesced, including its February 2009 opinion in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. This article explores the roots, definition and limits of government speech through a close examination of not only Summum but two other recent Supreme Court opinions granting the government a right to communicate even when others contend that the speech conflicts with their own messages. The article concludes that the government speech doctrine needs further explanation with regard to its justification and contours. The rational basis test and political process may not be sufficient to contain government speech within desirable bounds; instead, government speech should be subjected to judicial scrutiny to ensure it remains germane and proportional.

At least thirty non-U.S. journalists in the last decade have argued in U.S. Courts of Appeal that U.S. immigration authorities erroneously denied their asylum applications based on persecution in their native countries. However, only about 20% of journalists were successful, mirroring the approximate national asylum success rate for all applicants. The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act does not include journalism as a basis for asylum, but some circuit court judges have stated that reporting on systemic official corruption is inherently political and, as a result could be grounds for asylum for persecuted journalists. A 2007 opinion from the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals defining “particular social group,” a key requirement for asylum, is examined for its application to journalists.

In recent years, federal courts eroded the procedural safeguards required for prior restraint licensing schemes established in Freedman v. Maryland. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that the dangers of prior restraint were accounted for by content neutrality. But a close examination of federal courts of appeals opinions since 2002 reveals that erosion of procedural safeguards may threaten speech interests. First, procedural safeguards have not been required, in some cases, even for content-based prior restraints. Second, courts of appeals have held that, in the context of content-neutral prior restraints, the First Amendment no longer requires a time limit on the initial administrative censor's decision about whether to allow speech. This limit was key to ensuring due process, and its absence allows government to stifle speech it disfavors even while maintaining the appearance of content neutrality.

For more than fifty years, the U.S. Code has authorized the federal government to disseminate messages about America to international audiences. For at least thirty years, federal law has also prohibited those international propaganda messages from being disseminated within the United States. Given the realities of the acceleration and dispersion of information flow across international borders in the twenty-first century, a ban on dissemination of information that is tied to geographic boundaries raises both practical and policy issues. The domestic dissemination ban may have outlived its usefulness and relevance. Further, futile enforcement of the statute contradicts general U.S. policy promoting transparency and encouraging the free and open flow of information.