Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Alternate Theory of Liability Against the New York Times - The Lanham Act (NYT Vulnerable NOW)
FR ^ | 5-18-04

Posted on 05/18/2004 1:51:34 PM PDT by jmstein7

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: FlipWilson

The Lanham Act provides a Federal cause of action for unfair competition. It is inapplicable to this case and, at any rate, the first amendment is a defense to this provision. I think the NY Times Standard would save the NY Times yet again. Moreover, although the Lanham Act states "anyone" most courts have held that not just anyone has a cause of action, i.e. only competitors who are injured have a cause of action under Section 43(a)

While the first amendment may be a defense, I think the staus is that there shall be no prior rrestraint and that the press is still liable for any wrongdoing after they publish or broadcast...libel and slander are clear examples...maybe the actors could sue the Globe...LOL...then again maybe the actors would be covered under NYTimes v Sullivan as public figures...I do believe the Globe was negligent in not properly sourcing the photos and that the pics were already suspect prior to publication...



21 posted on 05/18/2004 2:38:49 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm


22 posted on 05/18/2004 2:41:23 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

BTTT!!!!!!


23 posted on 05/18/2004 2:41:41 PM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Shouldn't you be studying for finals?

You're first cause of action -- a shareholders derivative suit -- probably wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss because in most jurisdictions, the plaintiff must be a shareholder at the time the board of directors committed the wrong. Buying the shares now, after the NY Slimes has already lied its way into the toilet wouldn't work. Even if you survived a motion to dismiss you probably wouldn't survive a motion for summary judgment because of the "business judgment rule," which ordinarily will insulate directors from liability for decisions that seemed reasonably prudent at the time even if that decision seems imprudent in retrospect or others would have reached a different decision at the time of the initial decision. You would also have to show that the drop in advertizing revenues was the result of really bad judgment as opposed to other economic factors, the Internet, etc. In other words, if not for the bad judgment of the B of D, the bottom line would have increased or at least stayed the same.

Your second cause of action under the Latham Act would probably not survive a motion to dismiss because you need to show harm, that is, that the plaintiffs would not have purchased the newspaper if they had known the photos were fake. I bet that most people purchased the Boston Globe, not because of the photos, but because they have a subscription or buy the paper out of habit and therefore, they would have paid the $.75 regardless of the photos. You would also have to show that the plaintiffs were, in fact, deceived by the photos, which pretty much eliminates all Freepers from the named plaintiffs or plaintiff class because we don't read the NY Slimes or the Boston Globe for truth or accuracy in the first place. Third, the NY Slimes/Boston Globe would have an absolute defense if it was simply reporting what others had reported as being authentic photos, as opposed to being the source of the fake photos.

24 posted on 05/18/2004 2:48:23 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I believe it had to do with defaming the reputation of a military officer, and they lost.

Westmoreland v. CBS

25 posted on 05/18/2004 2:52:25 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

I finished finals last week.


26 posted on 05/18/2004 3:02:17 PM PDT by jmstein7 (Real Men Don't Need Chunks of Government Metal on Their Chests to be Heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Your memory is correct. The Commander of American forces in Vietnam sued Time magazine, and succeeded. (It is VERY difficult to win such a case, however, because of the Sp. Ct. case of NY Times v/ Sullivan.)

John / Billybob

27 posted on 05/18/2004 3:05:17 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Then you need a job. Where in NY are you?


28 posted on 05/18/2004 3:06:06 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

By that reasoning, almost every lawsuit filed by the ACLU is "frivolous."


29 posted on 05/18/2004 3:06:21 PM PDT by jmstein7 (Real Men Don't Need Chunks of Government Metal on Their Chests to be Heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

You really are hitting the law books, eh? Unfortunately, the Globe printed a retraction for the prisoner photos. Its wording may not satisfy us, but it would satisfy the courts. You'll never pin liability on a newspaper when it prints any kind of retraction, that's just how the world works. Nice tries on your part, though.


30 posted on 05/18/2004 3:11:27 PM PDT by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

good luck


31 posted on 05/18/2004 4:26:04 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (it's coming and if you don't get off the tracks it will run you down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

You are giving out law jobs? J and I are all ears!


32 posted on 05/18/2004 5:07:17 PM PDT by Mich0127 (Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Everything comes back to TMs!

How bout libel?


33 posted on 05/18/2004 5:07:54 PM PDT by Mich0127 (Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

btt


34 posted on 05/18/2004 7:27:42 PM PDT by GailA (Kerry I'm for the death penalty for terrorist, but I'll declare a moratorium on the death penalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marty60
"I firmly believe in the first amendment, but, that does not give them the constitution right to lie in their stories. "

Maybe Congress should start regulating the "interstate commerce" of lies.

Most of the federal gun control laws are based on "interstate commerce."

35 posted on 05/18/2004 7:58:04 PM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mich0127

We already hired for the summer. Sorry.


36 posted on 05/18/2004 9:28:21 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: gatex

I have recently been having thoughts that the freedom of the press to dissemenate provably false statements needs to be regulated. The existing libel/slander law is clearly inadequate for the current environment.

As a recovering libertarian, I find these thoughts exceptionally disturbing, but they persist.

In a world where "Congress shall make no law" doesn't mean what it plainly says, how can normal men (and, women, too) of good will come to any agreement on what, oh, for instance, "is" is?

More beer, then sleep, I guess . . .


37 posted on 05/18/2004 9:37:38 PM PDT by filbert (Live Free or Die. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson