Mediaboss Marketing

The indictment of rapper Young Thug on gang-related charges in May 2022 sparked a movement in the music industry against the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal proceedings. Now as the hip-hop star awaits trial in Georgia, the issue is gaining bipartisan support from lawmakers across the country, who are introducing bills on the federal and state level to limit the controversial practice.

Missouri state Rep. Phil Christofanelli, a Republican sponsoring the bill in his state, told ABC News on Tuesday that using artistic expression in court proceedings could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and his bill is designed to regulate the practice and protect the First Amendment.

For me, it's about free speech, he said.

If you have a criminal system where your unrelated artistic creations can be brought against you as evidence to take away your life or liberty, that's about as chilling an effect as you can get, he added.

Rap lyrics have been used by prosecutors in the U.S. for decades as alleged evidence in criminal cases, but their inclusion in the indictment of Grammy-winning rapper Young Thug in Georgia brought national attention to the practice and sparked a movement across the music industry to Protect Black Art.

Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason, Jr. told ABC News on Wednesday that using artistic expression in court is a slippery slope and sets a dangerous precedent. Bills like this are opportunities to stand up, Mason said, adding that legislation that limits the use of artistic expression in court will have repercussions across all the creative areas and will protect the rights of creators across genres and disciplines.

Missouri House Bill No. 353 or the Restoring Artistic Protect Act is known as the Rap Act and is named after the federal bill introduced in Congress last year.

Christofanelli said the bill got unanimous bipartisan support in committee and groups across the ideological spectrum testified in favor of the bill, including right-leaning organizations dedicated to protecting the First Amendment and progressive groups focused on criminal justice reform and racial justice.

The bill, which was included as an amendment to a Senate bill on judicial proceedings, passed the Missouri House on Tuesday and is expected to go up for a vote in the Senate before the legislative session ends on May 12.

There's a little bit for everybody to love in this issue, and I think that's why it's done pretty well, even in a very conservative state like Missouri and a liberal state like California, Christofanelli said.

California became the first state to adopt a law limiting the use of lyrics in court when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law in Oct. 2022.

Democratic Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Jamaal Bowman of New York reintroduced the The Rap Act on Capitol Hill last week a bill that was first introduced last year and helped inspire legislation on the state level.

A similar bill in Louisiana sponsored by Republican Rep. and Speaker Pro Tempore Tanner Magee passed in the House last week and is also expected to go up for a vote in the Senate this month.

In New York, Democratic Sens. Brad Hoylman and Jamaal Bailey co-sponsored the Rap on Trial bill last year. The bill passed in the Senate, but never made it to the state assembly and is up for a Senate vote again this year. Similar bills have also been introduced in Maryland and Illinois.

The bills would essentially require prosecutors to prove to a judge without the presence of a jury, that the lyrics in question have a factual nexus to an alleged crime and were intended to be taken literally as a representation of the defendants true thoughts or statements.

We want there to be a hearing before a judge outside of the jury's presence to make sure that this type of evidence isn't used to unfairly prejudice jurors against artist defendants, Christofanelli said.

Although the legislation addresses all artistic genres, research outlined in the 2019 book "Rap on Trial" by Erik Nielson and Andrea Dennis shows that the practice of using lyrics in court disproportionately impacts rap musicians.

"Rap music is the only fictional form -- musical or otherwise, that is targeted this way in the courts," Nielson previously told ABC News.

"It's absolutely racist," he added. Essentially what's happening is rap music is being denied the status of art."

Mason said that the Recording Academy is deploying its members to states across the country to provide grassroots support and meet with lawmakers to advocate for the issue.

This is exactly what the Academy is for, Mason said.

Anytime we can jump into action to protect or support or uplift our music community to enable them to do what they do, that's what we are here for.

Visit link:
As Young Thug awaits trial, the push to limit the use of rap lyrics in court gains bipartisan support - ABC News

From Wednesday's decision by New York trial court judge Robert R. Reed; (for a similar case from the California courts, though not involving the Trumps, see here):

In this lawsuit, Donald J. Trump , a former president of the United States, asserts various claims against his niece, Mary L. Trump , The New York Times Company d/b/a The New York Times [and] journalists Susanne Craig , David Barstow and Russell Buettner , for their actions related to the publishing of The Times' 2018 article, "Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches from His Father."

The crux of plaintiff's claim is that a reporter for The Times caused his niece, Mary Trump, to take 20-year-old tax and financial documents held by her lawyer and disclose them in violation of a 2001 settlement agreement. The Times, it is alleged, then used those documents to publish a lengthy article in 2018 that reported that plaintiff had allegedly participated in dubious tax and other financial schemes during the 1990s. In this action, plaintiff does not specifically dispute the truth of any statements made in the article. Rather, plaintiff alleges that The Times defendants' interaction with Mary Trump resulted in her breach of certain confidentiality provisions of the 2001 settlement agreement, rendering The Times and its journalists liable for tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, and/or negligent supervision. Plaintiff demands $100 million in damages.

Plaintiff's claims against The Times defendants, as an initial matter, fail as a matter of constitutional law. Courts have long recognized that reporters are entitled to engage in legal and ordinary newsgathering activities without fear of tort liabilityas these actions are at the very core of protected First Amendment activity.

Plaintiff's claims also fall short inasmuch as they fail to assert the necessary elements of tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and negligent supervision. More particularly, plaintiff's tortious interference claim is dismissed because The Times' purpose in reporting on a story of high public interest constitutes justification as a matter of law. Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails because it is duplicative of his other claims. His claim for negligent supervision, moreover, is dismissed due to the lack of any allegations that The Times reporters committed any wrongful act falling outside of the scope of their normal work duties. Finally, the newly amended anti-SLAPP law mandates that plaintiff pay defendants' attorneys' fees and costs because plaintiff's claims plainly constitute a strategic lawsuit against public participation, and, contrary to plaintiff's argument, New York's anti-SLAPP law is directed to more than just defamation-based lawsuits.

An excerpt from the free speech analysis:

Plaintiff argues that The Times' conduct is not constitutionally protected because its actions were tortious in nature and it is well established that "[c]rimes and torts committed in news gathering are not protected by the First Amendment." According to plaintiff, The Times defendants' activities, even if considered within the scope of activities covered by the New York Constitution, were nonetheless coercive, harassing, vindictive, misleading, purposeful, and in blatant disregard of the plaintiff's contractual rights, and, as such, deserve no protection.

Plaintiff is mistaken. His characterization of The Times' actions as tortious does not, on its own, remove the constitutional protections that are extended to the press during the process of ordinary newsgathering (see, e.g., Nicholas v. Bratton, 376 F Supp 3d 232, 279 [SDNY 2019] ["[E]ntrenched in Supreme Court case law is the principle that the First Amendment's protections for free speech include a constitutionally protected right to gather news"]; Higginbotham v. City of NY, 105 F Supp 3d 369, 379 [SDNY 2015] "[T]he First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw" quoting First Nat'l Bank of Bos v. Bellotti, 435 US 765, 783 [1978]). This protection is based on the longstanding recognition that "without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated" (Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 US 665, 681 [1972]).

Plaintiff principally relies on two cases to support his argument that The Times' conduct qualifies as a tort. Plaintiff argues that The Times' conduct is not constitutionally protected under Le Mistral, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, a case that established that "[c]rimes and torts committed in news gathering are not protected by the First Amendment" (61 AD2d 491, 494 [1st Dep't 1978]). But other than offering one selective quote from Le Mistral, plaintiff does not engage further with the decision. In Le Mistral, the Appellate Division held that the First Amendment does not protect a defendant, who in order to report on a story, entered the plaintiff's private premises without permission, thereby committing a trespass. Despite numerous requests to leave, the reporter continued recording plaintiff's premises, and later claimed that the First Amendment protected his actions. The Appellate Division, in reviewing the lower court's order, disagreed with the defendant, holding that, considering the facts of the case, the reporter was not allowed to commit a trespass and then rely on the First Amendment to excuse his conduct (id.). Plaintiff also relies on United States v. Sanusi for a similar proposition (813 F Supp 149, 155 [EDNY 1992] [ordering CBS to disclose a videotape made when a reporter illegally trespassed in a criminal defendant's home to film the execution of a warrant)].

Here, plaintiff has not alleged any remotely similar facts. Plaintiff attempts to make an analogy between this action and the trespass cases by arguing that Craig engaged in illegal activity because she "directed" Mary Trump to pilfer documents against the advice of her attorney. But Mary Trump's bookwhich plaintiff concedes is incorporated into the complaintdemonstrates that Mary Trump's attorney gave her permission to take those documents (opening br. ex. B at 187). More importantly, plaintiff does not dispute this critical point: Mary Trump owned the files she disclosed to The Times, and thus there was nothing wrongful about Craig requesting them (Bronx Jewish Boys v. Uniglobe, Inc., 633 NYS 2d 711, 713 [Sup Ct NY Cnty 1995] ["[A]ttorneys have no possessory rights in the client files. In other words, the file belongs to the client"]). Given these facts, the trespass cases that plaintiff relies on are inapposite.

Plaintiff does not cite a single case where any court, whether state or federal, has held that a reporter is liable for inducing his or her source to breach a confidentiality provision. In fact, New York courts have consistently rejected efforts to impose tort liability on the press based on allegations that a reporter induced a source to breach a non-disclosure agreement. In Highland Capital v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., the First Department affirmed dismissal of an investment adviser's claim that a Wall Street Journal reporter engaged in tortious conduct by obtaining information from employees bound by non-disclosure agreements (178 AD3d 572, 574 [1st Dep't 2019]). In doing so, the court highlighted that dismissal was appropriate because "defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint was incidental to the lawful and constitutionally protected process of news gathering and reporting" (Highland Cap., 178 AD3d at 574 citing Bartnicki v. Vopper 532 US 514, 534]). Other New York decisions dismissing tortious interference claims against the press are in accord (see, e.g., Huggins v. NBC, 1996 WL 763337, at [Sup Ct NY Cnty 1996] [dismissing tortious interference claims against NBC because "any interference that occurred was merely incidental to defendants' exercise of their constitutional right to broadcast newsworthy information"]).

And some more from the court's analysis of the elements of the interference with contract tort, which forms an independent basis for the court's decision:

To state a claim for tortious interference, a plaintiff must allege "[i] the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party, [ii] defendant's knowledge of that contract, [iii] defendant's intentional procurement of the third-party's breach of the contract without justification, [iv] actual breach of the contract, and [v] damages resulting therefrom." Plaintiff's tortious interference claim is dismissed because The Times defendants' purpose in reporting on a newsworthy story constitutes justification as a matter of law.

Justification provides an absolute defense to a tortious interference claim. New York courts have consistently held that the right to engage in newsgathering activities constitutes such justification. In Povitch, the court dismissed a tortious interference claim against Maury Povitcha syndicated talk show hostfor inducing plaintiff's ex-wife to speak about their divorce proceedings during his talk show, in violation of a confidentiality provision in the couple's divorce settlement. Defendant Povitch was previously put on notice as to the non-disclosure provision but decided to disregard the notice and proceed with the interview. In dismissing the claim against Povitch, the court adopted the defendant's argument that the First Amendment freedom of the press to report on newsworthy subjects is an appropriate justification that will preclude a claim of tortious interference. More specifically, the court declared that it agreed that:

"a broadcaster whose motive and conduct is intended to foster public awareness or debate cannot be found to have engaged in the wrongful or improper conduct required to sustain a claim for interference with contractual relations. Here the broadcaster's first amendment right to broadcast an issue of public importance, its lack of any motive to harm the plaintiff, and the obvious societal interest in encouraging freedom of the press, negate essential elements of the tort."

Previously, and utilizing the same reasoning, the court also dismissed a tortious interference claim against NBC for purportedly inducing the same woman to breach the same confidentiality provision and discuss publicly her divorce proceedings with the same plaintiff (Huggins v. NBC, 1996 WL 763337, at [Sup Ct NY Cty 1996]). Other jurisdictions are in accord with the New York law (see, e.g., Seminole Tribe of Fla v. Times Publ'g Co., 780 So2d 310, 317-18 (Fla Ct App 2001) [dismissing a tortious interference claim against reporters for soliciting tribal employees to reveal confidential documents about the tribe's gambling operations and explaining that reporters' conduct was "routine news gathering"]; Jenni Rivera Enters., LLC v. Latin World Ent Holdings, Inc., 36 Cal App 5th 766, 800 [Ct. App. 2019] [dismissing a tortious interference claim against a broadcaster for reporting confidential information obtained from the plaintiff's former manager in violation of a nondisclosure agreement, because the broadcaster's actions were "not sufficiently 'wrongful' or 'unlawful' to overcome the First Amendment newsgathering and broadcast privileges"]).

In his opposition papers, plaintiff does nothing to contradict or distinguish any of the cited cases. Instead, plaintiff cites a single case, Lindberg v. Dow Jones, in which a federal judge permitted the plaintiff to amend his complaint as it relates to a tortious interference claim, on the basis that factual questions may exist regarding whether the defendant publishers' conduct was justified (2021 WL 5450617). In Lindberg, however, the district judge applied the federal pleading standardnot CPLR 3211(g)and expressly declined to apply the First Department's protection for conduct that is "incidental to the lawful and constitutionally protected process of news gathering and reporting," in favor of a balancing test set forth in Jews for Jesus v. Jewish Cmty Rels Council (Lindberg, 2021 WL 5450617 at n.92).

This court, however, must, and will apply the reasoning of the First Department's decision in Highland, which is also in accord with other New York decisions, holding that "the First Amendment freedom of the press to report on newsworthy subjects is an appropriate justification that will preclude a claim of tortious interference." Accordingly, because The Times defendants were undisputedly engaged in routine newsgathering, plaintiff's tortious interference claim is dismissed.

Congratulations to David E. McCraw & Demetri Blaisdell, who represent the NYT Company, and Chris Duffy (Vinson & Elkins) and Thomas S. Leatherbury, who represent David Barstow.

Read the original:
Trump v. Trump: Journalists' Urging Source to Breach Nondisclosure ... - Reason

The Columbus Dispatch and staff members won 20 awards at the Ohio Associated Press Media Editors Awards on Sunday for work in 2022, including first place awards for public service, best daily sports section, best digital project and best spot news coverage.

Dispatch reporter Cole Behrens won the APME's Rising Star-Newspaper award which recognizes achievement and ability by an individual with five years or less experience in journalism during the awards ceremony held Sunday at the Villa Milano Banquet & Conference Center in Columbus.

"Every day our journalists, our photojournalists, and digital staff work to provide the kind of journalism worthy of your time and investment, said Edwina Blackwell Clark, executive editor of The Dispatch. These awards are recognition of their great work and a result of our commitment to this community.

The Dispatch staff, led by public safety reporter Bethany Bruner and members of the Dispatch/USA Today Network Ohio Statehouse bureau, won first place for Best Public Service for 10-year-old rape victim and new Ohio abortion law."

The Dispatch won first place for Best Daily Sports Section for a collection of the staff's work.

Erica Thompson, features editor, and Dispatch staff won first place for best digital project with "Gone But Not Forgotten: The legacy of Black-owned businesses in Driving Park."

Dispatch staff members won first- and third-place awards for Best Spot News Coverage. The first-place award was for "Ohio State president suddenly resigns," and the third-place award went to business reporter Mark Williams for coverage of AEP blackouts.

Dispatch.com, led by Michelle Everhart-Sullivan, managing editor-digital, won second place for Best Digital Presence.

Photojournalist Fred Squillante won two second-place awards, one for Best Photographer, and the other for Best Photo Story for The Homeless of Heer Park." Third place in that latter category was won by photojournalist Barbara J. Perenic for "Body Painter."

Jose D. Enriquez III won second place for Best Illustration or Informational Graphic for a front-page graphic on guns in schools, and also won second place with fellow designer Aja Diffin for Best Front Page Design.

Other award-winners in the statewide competition for 2022 work were:

Amelia Robinson, Dispatch opinion and community engagement editor, second place, Best Editorial Writer; Bethany Bruner, second place, Best News Writer; Adam Jardy, second place, Best Sports Feature Writer; Laura Bischoff, second place, Best Investigative Reporting for "Ohio youth prison system struggles with violence, staff vacancies;" Ceili Doyle, second place, Best Feature Writer; Bailey Johnson, third place, Best Sports Writer; Bill Rabinowitz, third place, Best Sports Enterprise for his profile on Ohio State quarterback C.J. Stroud; Sports staff, third place, Best Special Sports Section for "Ohio Stadium Turns 100;" and Courtney Hergesheimer, third place, Best Video for "Burning House."

The Dispatch also won a third-place award for general excellence competing in Division V, which represents the largest newspapers in Ohio.

The reporters behind the Dispatch's Preying on Patients series Max Filby, Mike Wagner and Jennifer Smola Shafferwere awarded the Society of Professional Journalists Central Ohio chapter's First Amendment Award. The series investigated the operation of the State Medical Board of Ohio and doctors who sexually abused and harassed patients for decades. The SPJ recognition is the chapter's top honor, and is awarded for work thatis "vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable."

The Dispatch sports staff won the coveted Associated Press Sports Editor (ASPE) Triple Crown award, finishing in the top 10 nationally in three of these categories: print portfolio, digital, event coverage and projects. Only nine media outlets nationally accomplished the fete.

The sports staff was recognized by the ASPE with Top 10 designations for digital coverage, print section, projects ("Ohio Stadium at 100"), special section (a commemoration of Rick Nash), and action and feature sports photos by photojournalist Adam Cairns.

Dispatch reporter Danae King was honored by the Ohio Association for Justice, with its 2023 Outstanding Journalist Award for her work in 2022 building asexual abuse database of priests in the Columbus diocese who have been accused of sexual abuse of children.

"... I wanted those survivors and others to be able to find our when and where accused priests worked," King said.

Read the original post:
Dispatch wins 20 awards in Ohio Associated Press Media Editors ... - The Columbus Dispatch

A book-banning bill that passed the Indiana General Assembly had the support of local lawmakers even as critics warned of alarming consequences.

Under the banner of protecting Hoosier schoolchildren from harmful material, Indianas lawmakers fashioned a Pandoras box. Legislation passed in the just-concluded session makes every item in every school library subject to potential challenge for virtually any reason.

The astonishingly poorly crafted House Enrolled Act 1447 signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb on Thursday allows anyone in the community to file a complaint if they think something in a school library is harmful to a minor or obscene. HEA1447 then requires the school board to review the request at the next public meeting.

You dont have to be Magellan to know where this is heading.

Books dealing with LGBTQ themes or those that provide an unfiltered view of race relations or other aspects of this countrys sometimes troubled history already have been canceled by self-serving politicians around the country. People who have convinced themselves that they know best feel newly empowered to restrict what everyones kids can read.

A story by The Republics Andy East last week shared the views of local parents, school officials and many others about this bill, which is part of a nationwide effort. Raymond Haberski, professor of history and director of American studies at IUPUI, who is part of the Center for the Study of Religion and American Studies, said this last October:

Banning these books or having them removed from libraries is simply another way to say that these groups oppose the way people are, their identities. Instead of coming out and being bigoted to peoples faces, theyre going after the books in libraries and saying that those books exist or if my children come across them, somehow, theyre going to be hurt by them, which basically means that theyre saying that children would be hurt by simply living in the same community with people who are not necessarily like them. To me, that is incredibly disturbing.

As an institution that stands for the First Amendment, we have tirelessly advocated against this kind of dangerous legislation. We are not lawyers, but we can see the First Amendment violations in HEA1447. We wont be surprised to see a court nullify it.

Having said that, the legislation does have a silver lining. Recall we mentioned that HEA1447 requires the school board to review book-ban requests at the next public meeting?

After this bill takes effect Jan. 1, we intend to track these requests and report who is challenging books in our community, and why, and what your elected school board members are doing about it. We intend to shine light on every effort to ban books under this law.

Would-be book banners never seem to grasp a basic concept: When they try to ban books, it simply spurs greater interest. Well give oft-banned (and wildly popular) author Steven King the last word:

What I tell kids is dont get mad (about censorship), get even. Run, dont walk, to the first library you can find, and read what theyre trying to keep out of your eyes. Read what theyre trying to keep out of your brains. Because thats exactly what you need to know.

Continue reading here:
Editorial: Book-banning bill has unintended consequences - The Republic

Natalie Behring, Special to the Daily Herald

While Americas Freedom Festival in Provo officially began Thursday with a day of prayer, the festivals annual return is most felt with Hope of America. The three-day event brings together hundreds of elementary-ages students from Utah County and beyond to perform in a thousands-strong chorus singing patriotic tunes.

In 2023, like years past, the children will be present and ready to sing on Tuesday night. As they have done before, the national Freedom from Religion Foundation released a letter last week decrying the use of public school time and attention prepare for the festival, which they call a religious concert.

Lawyers for the Freedom Festival disagree and will continue the event as planned. Bill Fillmore, an attorney representing the Freedom Festival, sent a letter to FFRF on Friday in response to the complaint. While he and his law firm, Fillmore Spencer, only represent the festival, the letter stated it was sent with the approval of the Superintendents and legal counsel for each of the Provo School District, Nebo School District and Alpine School District.

In its initial complaint, FFRF questioned the use of school time to prepare for the festival due to the overtly Christian prayer opening 2022s event and religious overtones in several pieces of music, along with the events location. Hope of America is traditionally held at the Marriott Center on Brigham Young Universitys campus.

The location complaint was disputed due to logistics the location has nothing to do with the universitys affiliation with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Fillmore wrote, but because its the only facility in the county large enough for the expected attendance.

In response to FFRFs other complaints, lawyers argued that references to God in songs are incidental and that participating students do so voluntarily and pursuant to writtenparental consents.

Lawyers also responded to what they call blatant misrepresentations by the group, including reemphasizing the assertion that teachers and students participate voluntarily and that Although some school resources may be involved, it is dishonest to misrepresent that a vast amount of public school resources are spent annually in preparation for HOA.

Disagreements continue over Supreme Court precedent regarding public acknowledgments of religion in society. FFRF cites a series of cases including School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, which ruled mandatory Bible readings in school unconstitutional, and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which ruled a policy allowing student-delivered prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Fillmore responded that the groups citations applied to in-school and school-sponsored events, as opposed to a public schools ability to facilitate or participate in community events that themselves involve prayer or other religious expression.

In turn, they cite recent cases Kennedyv.Bremerton School District, allowing a high school football coach to lead Christian prayers after games, and The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, allowing Christian crosses to be placed in public spaces.

FFRF has taken umbrage with the Freedom Festival over the event in recent years. Jim Evans, executive director of Americas Freedom Festival, told the Daily Herald last week the group was looking at our previous responses in prior years to see if updates were necessary to their response. In addition to seeking that the Freedom From Religion Foundation immediately cease and desist hereafter from any such recklessly false and defamatory public statements, the lawyers threatened potential future recourse.

If it becomes necessary, FFRF will be held accountable for any damages suffered and all attorneys fees incurred in enforcing or defending our rights under the First Amendment, the letter reads.

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Read more:
Freedom Festival responds to criticism of student involvement by ... - Daily Herald