Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Thoughts on insurance, websites, and constitutional rights (that have nothing to do with Obamacare)

Insurance jingles are terribly catchy. The other day, I was trying to explain the concept of a slogan to my nine-year-old, and the first three examples that came to mind were from insurance commercials. All together, now: “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there,” “Nationwide is on your side,” and “We are Farmers. Bum ba dum, bum bum bum bum.”

She sang that darn Farmers riff all day long.

Needless to say, the insurance companies have our attention, and that is by design.  With the world changing as rapidly as it is, there is a whole new spectrum of assets in need of protection—SpaceShipOne, Troy Polamalu’s locks, blogs—and a whole new spectrum of risky, audacious behaviors being incentivized as a result—space tourism, tackling by hair, journalism.

Last week, the University of North Carolina School of Journalism and Mass Communication announced that it purchased multimedia liability insurance for all of its students.  This million-dollar policy protects against claims of libel, copyright infringement, and invasion of privacy filed against student work.

“It used to be that occasionally students would be published, but students are blogging, tweeting and everybody is a publisher,” Media Law professor Cathy Packer told The Daily Tarheel.

In journalism and communication schools all over the country, assignments that once were for professors’ eyes only are now published on class websites.  Some programs mandate an online digital portfolio as part of the capstone project or graduation requirements; most employers expect to be able to link to sample work.

“Every student who wants to work in media should put together an online portfolio,” writes Dan Reimold of Saint Joseph’s University.  Which means that every student who learns-by-doing finds herself at risk.

Last July in Durham, North Carolina, just down the road from UNC, attorney John D. Haywood filed a lawsuit against two students at St. Michael’s College in Vermont for a profile that appeared on their class website at the beginning of the year.  Haywood, one of thirteen candidates who ran against Barack Obama in the 2012 New Hampshire Democratic primary, claimed the profile was damaging and “without a doubt” cost him votes.  According to the Student Press Law Center, the case was dismissed in January 2013 under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, which attempts to control the chilling effect of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. 

This type of statue protects journalists in twenty-seven states.  There is no federal anti-SLAPP law.  Insurance protects against court costs for libel and invasion of privacy suits in jurisdictions where legislature or judicial precedence do not.  “It’s becoming more important for everyone who practices journalism to be familiar with the laws,” David Ardia of UNC’s Center for Media Law and Policy told The Daily Tarheel.

Learning the core laws, ethics, and standards of the profession, writes the Knight Foundation’s Eric Newton in Searchlights and Sunglasses, “is even more important now because new technology allows everyone to act as a journalist.” For those who create digital media at home (or at school) without the protections of a parent company, homeowner’s or renter’s insurance, or a personal-injury or umbrella policy, may cover content-based lawsuits, safeguarding uncompensated journalists in somewhat the same manner as UNC’s new insurance policy protects student reporters.

The pilot program at UNC will be one to watch, and hopefully faculty there will use this investment as an opportunity to educate not only journalism students but also other community members about changing laws and potential pitfalls in the tech-based reporting landscape.  Craig Newman, who chairs of the National Board of Advisors of the Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Communication at Arizona State University, has called for  this type of legal instruction in both journalism and law schools.  In an opinion piece for the Columbia Journalism Review, Newman wrote, “It is imperative that schools provide this help if the media are to remain independent watchdogs, keeping government honest and the public informed.”

There is no moral hazard here, although there is risky, audacious behavior. UNC is creating incentives for students not only to learn about journalism but also to commit acts of journalism. By insuring students, UNC helps ensure that they will have freedom—freedom, as Newton puts it, to “practice innovative real-world digital newsgathering” and “report stories that help right wrongs.”

Not to sound like a commercial, but it's good to know these student journalists are in... good hands. Bum ba dum, bum bum bum bum.


Tuesday, January 24, 2012

The Scoop on SOPA*

This piece was also published as Reflections on the SOPA Opera by Queens University of Charlotte (1/30/12).

Wikipedia was dark.  Google redacted its iconic homepage doodle.  And I was watching for rain.  Well, I was listening to “Watching for Rain,” my friend Anne Trenning’s 2009 album.  It seemed the proper background music as I pondered Anne's latest Facebook status on Wednesday, January 18, 2012:

‎"Illegally downloading music is no different than going to Starbucks and buying a coffee, and then stealing a CD when you leave."

Anne was making a point about intellectual property rights.  As a composer and pianist, she wants to receive some type of payment whenever people download, buy, sell, or otherwise enjoy her work.

Other parties much larger and wealthier than Anne, such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) want the same thing.  Within the United States, these artists and producers have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to protect their interests.  But they are concerned about rogue international websites, virtual pirates outside the reach of U.S. copyright law whose actions “are harmful to consumers and threaten American jobs.”

So these parties asked Congress for help.  And by asked, I mean gave money to those in a position to legislate for their cause, such as House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX), who received more campaign contributions from television/movies/music industries over the last two years than any other interest group.

Help came in the form of H.R. 3261, otherwise known as the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.  Originally introduced on October 26, 2011, by Representative Smith and twelve co-sponsors, SOPA went through a hearing and a “mark-up period” late last year.  It’s partner legislation in the Senate, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (S. 968 or PIPA – pronounced like Kate Middleton’s paparazzily challenged sister), was scheduled for a vote on January 24.

SOPA is now best known as the bill that sparked a World Wide Wail.  On that Wednesday, Wikipedia shuttered their English language site – a move that the Wall Street Journal reported could block 10 million viewers. Google, BoingBoing, Reddit, Mozilla, Wordpress, and Twitpic also participated in the digital protest, which brings me back to my friend’s Facebook status.

SOPA’s creators say they designed the act to stop illegal activity – the shoplifting of CDs in Anne’s analogy.  The protestors, on the other hand, argue that the bill goes too far.  It allows music labels to demand that Starbucks barricade the door, suppliers cease deliveries (no more Cranberry Bliss® bars!), and others remove the coffee shop from the white pages, the Yellow Pages, Yelp, Foursquare, and Google maps.  All of this without proof of any actual thievery.

Unlike PIPA, which focuses on advertisers and financial conduits like PayPal that support rogue sites, SOPA goes after Internet service providers.  ISPs that receive a court order must take action to prevent access to a targeted site within five days. The goal is to make the infringer vanish altogether.  However, tech companies argue, this can only occur at great cost to established companies and perhaps prohibitive cost to smaller ones.

Aside from cost, the main questions that anti-SOPA protestors want pro-SOPA lawmakers to address are those of collateral damage:  law-abiding websites, privacy, security, and free expression may all be at risk with this Act.

Under SOPA, ISPs may cut off websites believed to violate copyright without a court order – online blacklisting.  SOPA could also demand Internet service providers block specific URLs suspected of piracy, which experts say requires them “to intercept and analyze customers' Web traffic.”  And, since SOPA targets any Website that offers goods or services to users within the U.S., there is a good chance that it will sweep up expression beyond just “incidental speech” (which, as MPAA’s attorney, the venerated Floyd Abrams, points out, is OK to block).  For example, a whistleblower site that posts internal corporate documents could easily land on the blacklist.  Chilling.

Anne was in the minority among my Facebook friends on Wednesday.  Far more posted a link to Google’s anti-SOPA petition. But this debate is more than just musicians vs. techies.  It isn’t Los Angeles vs. Silicon Valley or even lobbyists vs. the 99%.  After all computer/Internet companies rank fifth among interest groups that donate to Lamar Smith.

The SOPA protests are instead highlight the difference between those holding onto the past vs. those embracing the present, if I may be so abstract.  The MPAA is reacting in the same way they did in 1982 when threatened by “a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape.”  When lawmakers make the mistake of trying to protect a minority that uses outdated distribution models – particularly one that is desperate to protect itself – at the expense of a more technologically progressive and democratically motivated community – and the Internet is a community – the result is 4.5 million signatures on Google’s petition and 300,000 citizens emailing or calling their representatives in one day.

The protest worked.  On Friday, January 20, 2012, Representative Smith tabled the bill with this statement:

“I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy. It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.”

The protestors won... for that week anyway.

And now the wired, world-is-flat, click-here community must prove it has an attention span that lasts beyond the present moment and into tomorrow.  If citizens value the open Web, as well as privacy, security, and freedom of expression, and if they determine that Congress is threatening those values, then the community must continue to care, and take action, even now that Wikipedia is live once again.

It’s something to think about every time you walk through the door of a Starbucks.


*with apologies to the Society of Publishers in Asia, who made page 1 of the Google search before 1/18/12