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.

The Florida Supreme Court has rejected the false light tort in Florida because it is duplicative of defamation and likely to impede constitutionally protected free speech. Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, SC06-2491 (Fla. Oct. 23, 2008); Anderson v. Gannett Co., Inc., SC06-2174 (Fla. Oct. 23, 2008). Five justices unanimously agreed to reject the tort. Two justices, new to the court since oral argument in the cases, did not participate in the decisions.

We launch this new section with materials from our Presidential Showcase at the 2008 ABA Annual Meeting.

In Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), a California court of appeals held that a plaintiff seeking to subpoena an Internet service provider to learn the identify of anonymous posters had to first make aprima facie showing of defamation before the subpoena would issue. In Krinsky, a corporate president filed suit for damages and injunctive relief against 10 fictitiously named individuals who had posted allegedly defamatory statements on an Internet site.