The First Amendment and Media Litigation Committee takes an active interest in virtually every aspect of First Amendment and media litigation, including defamation, rights of privacy and publicity, media access to information and news events, reporters’ and authors’ rights, news gathering torts, injunctions, gag orders, and prior restraints. The Committee focuses on practical litigation strategies and techniques relevant to these issues and advocates positions within the ABA on legal matters that may affect First Amendment rights.

With a new team of co-editors for this website, we will strive to provide the most recent and relevant information for our members’ First Amendment and media law practices. In addition to frequent case law and legislative updates, we will regularly highlight individual members’ accomplishments and provide resources, including a Brief Bank focused on First Amendment and media law issues. We strongly encourage your comments, suggestions, and contributions.

We also encourage you to get involved in the Committee. Together with the ABA Forum Committee on Communications Law, and the Media Law and Defamation Torts Committee of the ABA Torts and Insurance Practice Section, the Committee co-sponsors an annual media litigation conference each winter, which typically brings together more than 200 media lawyers from all over the country. The Committee also sponsors continuing legal education programs at the ABA Annual Meeting and Section Annual Conference on a variety of issues affecting First Amendment and media interests.

In Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B., the California Supreme Court held that a shopping mall's rule prohibiting individuals from urging a boycott of certain mall merchants violated the free speech provisions of the state Constitution. In a sharply divided 4-3 opinion, the Court reaffirmed its landmark ruling in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, affirmed sub nomine Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.

In a unanimous decision last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit interpreted the Communications Decency Act of 1996, to provide immunity to craigslist for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act. In Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., Judge Easterbrook dismissed all claims against the popular website based on allegations that several postings for housing violate federal law prohibiting discrimination.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has issued a widely anticipated decision concerning the scope of immunity afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). In a lengthy opinion issued late last week, the court reaffirmed prior rulings that interpreted the statute as broadly immunizing website owners from liability based on content posted by third parties.