ESPN has been at the cutting edge of sports coverage since its launch on September 7, 1979. Its slogan is "The Worldwide Leader in Sports". As a longtime ESPN customer, I have always been interested in the wide variety of programming that ESPN has to offer. From its news to its original series to its game telecasts, ESPN does an excellent job of covering the world of sports.
ESPN first created a Social Media Policy for its employees in August 2009. The network's initial policy was heavily criticized and within hours of it becoming public ESPN publicly explained the policy. Within the last couple of days, ESPN has has updated its Social Media Policy or as it is officially called, its "Social Networking For Talent and Reporters" Policy.
The new policy's first two guidelines make sense: "Think before you [sic] tweet" and "Think before you retweet". However, the third guideline, "Do not break news on Twitter", demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of the Social Media Age. In addition, this guideline does not make sense because it further states, "In most cases, you [sic] tweet will also appear on ESPN.com". Since ESPN Talent and/or Reporters' Twitter feeds will be on ESPN.com it makes no sense to tell them they can't break news on their Twitter feeds. I understand the desire to drive as much traffic as possible onto ESPN or ESPN.com to keep the Nielsen Ratings or Alexa.com figures as high as possible which may increase advertising dollars. However, this policy will only harm its ability to compete in the fast changing digital landscape.
During the last several years, many major news stories have been reported first on Twitter. Some of these stories include: the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, the 2009 Hudson River plane crash, and the death of Osama Bin Laden. During the NFL lockout earlier this year, sports reporters regularly posted breaking news updates on Twitter and then followed them up by more in depth articles at a later time.
Therefore, unless ESPN eliminates its "Do not break news on Twitter" guideline, ESPN's reporters will risk other news outlets breaking news before ESPN has the ability to do so. The leaders of ESPN may want to rethink their new policy because as it stands it only hurts its ability to compete in the Social Media Age.
To learn how your organization may create a Social Media Policy that does not harm your brand or bottom line you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
UK government pledges not to ban social media
According to the Guardian newspaper, the British government has pledged not to shut down social media during civil unrest. Home Secretary Theresa May told representatives of Research in Motion, Facebook, and Twitter that they have no intention of restricting internet services during public demonstrations.
This is a win for free speech and a major statement against censorship and totalitarianism. Dictators restrict the freedom of ideas when they do not agree with them but democracies do not. Blaming the UK's recent riots on social media would be the same as blaming the Arab Spring on social media.
The Gutenberg press, the telegraph, the telephone, radio, television, etc... never made people riot against their government. These technologies only enabled people to more freely connect and express their opinions with one another. Social Media may allow complete strangers with similar interests to interact with each other; however, social media does not make a person throw a Molotov cocktail at a government building.
Shutting down social media platforms and/or other forms of electronic communications during civil unrest may have unintended consequences. What if someone who is injured during a riot is unable to call for help because their communication device has been rendered inoperable due to a government shut down? In addition, a recent study by the Guardian has shown that it appears that social media was mainly utilized to react to the riots in the UK.
The bottom line is that governments should work to cure the problems that may cause civil unrest instead of blaming new electronic technologies that they do not fully understand.
To learn more about this issue you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
This is a win for free speech and a major statement against censorship and totalitarianism. Dictators restrict the freedom of ideas when they do not agree with them but democracies do not. Blaming the UK's recent riots on social media would be the same as blaming the Arab Spring on social media.
The Gutenberg press, the telegraph, the telephone, radio, television, etc... never made people riot against their government. These technologies only enabled people to more freely connect and express their opinions with one another. Social Media may allow complete strangers with similar interests to interact with each other; however, social media does not make a person throw a Molotov cocktail at a government building.
Shutting down social media platforms and/or other forms of electronic communications during civil unrest may have unintended consequences. What if someone who is injured during a riot is unable to call for help because their communication device has been rendered inoperable due to a government shut down? In addition, a recent study by the Guardian has shown that it appears that social media was mainly utilized to react to the riots in the UK.
The bottom line is that governments should work to cure the problems that may cause civil unrest instead of blaming new electronic technologies that they do not fully understand.
To learn more about this issue you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Social Media, Sports Media, NCAA Compliance, and Student-Athletes
When posting content on the Internet/Social Media it is imperative to be very careful what you say and how you say it. Everyone is capable of a slip of the tongue once in awhile. However, when comments are put online they become permanent. After one has been notified of an Internet/Social Media slip of the tongue he/she may want to quickly apologize and/or correct the record because in the Social Media Age you must realize that everything you put online has the ability to go viral and cause damage to your reputation very quickly.
On August 24, 2011, I read a Foxsports.com article by Jennifer Floyd Engel, entitled, "If the NCAA won't police self, NFL should". The article discussed Terrelle Pryor's five game suspension that was handed down by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for what appears to be Pryor's behavior while a student-athlete at Ohio State. The NFL's disciplinary system is covered by its collective bargaining agreement and Goodell has wide latitude in punishing NFL players for their conduct on and off the field.
Ms. Engel brings up some interesting points regarding whether the NFL should discipline NCAA student-athletes for transgressions that occurred before they join the NFL. The NCAA has a problem on its hands regarding enforcement of its rules and regulations and Goodell's suspension of Pryor with what may be the blessing of the NFLPA could deter student-athletes from allegedly violating NCAA rules in the future. The recent problems at the University of Miami, the University of North Carolina, the University of Southern California, and Ohio State demonstrate that something needs to be done to deter NCAA violations.
However, Ms. Engel states, "Roger [NFL Commissioner] sent a clear message that the NFL will no longer be a safe harbor for college football terrorists"and "[w]hile the little terrorists (or those so accused by a very-little, admitted money terrorist, Shapiro) all have cushy landing spots — at Texas Tech and Missouri and the NFL..."
Calling student-athletes terrorists who may have violated NCAA rules demonstrates ignorance. Those who Ms. Engel refers to may be NCAA rule violators, rule breakers, or *$&#(@!%, but they are not terrorists. Ms. Engel has every right to refer to student-athletes who may violate NCAA rules and create very difficult situations for the schools, their fellow students, alumni, coaches, etc... as terrorists if she chooses to do so. I notified Ms. Engel that her online comments were inappropriate and her response appears to demonstrate ignorance of the situation. Ms. Engel should really think about the definition of a terrorist before calling some-student athletes terrorists and then defending her position.
On August 24, 2011, I read a Foxsports.com article by Jennifer Floyd Engel, entitled, "If the NCAA won't police self, NFL should". The article discussed Terrelle Pryor's five game suspension that was handed down by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for what appears to be Pryor's behavior while a student-athlete at Ohio State. The NFL's disciplinary system is covered by its collective bargaining agreement and Goodell has wide latitude in punishing NFL players for their conduct on and off the field.
Ms. Engel brings up some interesting points regarding whether the NFL should discipline NCAA student-athletes for transgressions that occurred before they join the NFL. The NCAA has a problem on its hands regarding enforcement of its rules and regulations and Goodell's suspension of Pryor with what may be the blessing of the NFLPA could deter student-athletes from allegedly violating NCAA rules in the future. The recent problems at the University of Miami, the University of North Carolina, the University of Southern California, and Ohio State demonstrate that something needs to be done to deter NCAA violations.
However, Ms. Engel states, "Roger [NFL Commissioner] sent a clear message that the NFL will no longer be a safe harbor for college football terrorists"and "[w]hile the little terrorists (or those so accused by a very-little, admitted money terrorist, Shapiro) all have cushy landing spots — at Texas Tech and Missouri and the NFL..."
Calling student-athletes terrorists who may have violated NCAA rules demonstrates ignorance. Those who Ms. Engel refers to may be NCAA rule violators, rule breakers, or *$&#(@!%, but they are not terrorists. Ms. Engel has every right to refer to student-athletes who may violate NCAA rules and create very difficult situations for the schools, their fellow students, alumni, coaches, etc... as terrorists if she chooses to do so. I notified Ms. Engel that her online comments were inappropriate and her response appears to demonstrate ignorance of the situation. Ms. Engel should really think about the definition of a terrorist before calling some-student athletes terrorists and then defending her position.
Every time a student-athlete or professional athlete posts something online that may be deemed inappropriate members of the media attack them for their online behavior. Should the media call out Ms. Engel in the same manner that it castigates student-athletes and professional athletes when they make what some may deem inappropriate online comments?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Telephone Flash Mobs, Celebrities, the Police, and Social Media
Is a telephone flash mob criminal? How do you prove that a series of Tweets directly caused a telephone flash mob? The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is trying to answer these questions after an artist who goes by the stage name, "The Game" allegedly tweeted the phone number of a sheriff's station on August 12th. It is alleged that The Game's tweets were directly responsible for a sheriff's station receiving hundreds of calls that tied up its phone lines for a few hours.
According to Mike Parker of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, The Game may be charged with "making annoying or harassing phone calls via [an] electronic device or the Internet,"delaying or obstructing peace officers in the performance of their duties," and "knowingly and maliciously disrupting or impeding communications over a public safety radio frequency".
The Game alleged in at least one of his Tweets that his account was hacked. If The Game's allegations are true he should file a complaint with the police because hacking is a violation under federal and state law.
Charging The Game for violating the law based on his alleged Tweets is one thing but proving it is another. A prosecutor may have to prove that The Game had the mens rea to jam the Sheriff Department's communications system. This may be extremely difficult unless there is a smoking gun that indicates that The Game intended to disrupt the sheriff department's phone lines.
I highly doubt that The Game will be successfully prosecuted for his alleged ill conceived tweets. However, this episode may encourage California and other states to create guidelines on how to respond to these situations in the future.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to Mike Parker of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, The Game may be charged with "making annoying or harassing phone calls via [an] electronic device or the Internet,"delaying or obstructing peace officers in the performance of their duties," and "knowingly and maliciously disrupting or impeding communications over a public safety radio frequency".
The Game alleged in at least one of his Tweets that his account was hacked. If The Game's allegations are true he should file a complaint with the police because hacking is a violation under federal and state law.
Charging The Game for violating the law based on his alleged Tweets is one thing but proving it is another. A prosecutor may have to prove that The Game had the mens rea to jam the Sheriff Department's communications system. This may be extremely difficult unless there is a smoking gun that indicates that The Game intended to disrupt the sheriff department's phone lines.
I highly doubt that The Game will be successfully prosecuted for his alleged ill conceived tweets. However, this episode may encourage California and other states to create guidelines on how to respond to these situations in the future.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, August 15, 2011
U.S. Government May Have Legal Authority To Shut Down Social Media During a State of Emergency
May the U.S. government ban social media during a state of emergency? This is a question that I have been mulling since the United Kingdom's Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he was exploring banning social media access during the recent riots in London.
It is questionable whether the President has the authority to shut down social media platforms or electronic communication systems. Under Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), which is still the foundation for checking presidential power during a state of emergency, I believe the President would have a difficult time defending banning or shutting down a communications platform for an extended period of time. The Youngstown decision does not provide a clear cut analysis of when and how a President may use his powers in a national emergency. Due to the advances in technology since 1952, I believe there may be situations where a valid argument may exist for the President to have the authority to shut down an electronic communications system.
Under Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court created the imminent lawless action test which has intent, imminence and likelihood as its three prongs. In essence, the government can't punish hate speech unless it is incitement to "imminent lawless action." When determining the constitutionality of First Amendment regulation, courts generally utilize a balancing test in which the rights of the speaker are weighed against a substantial or compelling government interest.
The government may argue that under the National Emergencies Act it has the ability to temporarily shut down an electronic communications platform. According to the Congressional Research Service Report for Congress on National Emergency Powers (CRS 4), "There are perhaps at least four aspects of an emergency condition. The first is its temporal character: an emergency is sudden, unforeseen, and of unknown duration. The second is its potential gravity: an emergency is dangerous and threatening to life and well-being. The third, in terms of governmental role and authority, is the matter of perception: who discerns this phenomenon? The Constitution may be guiding on this question, but not always conclusive. Fourth, there is the element of response: by definition, an emergency requires immediate action, but is, as well, unanticipated and, therefore, as Edward S. Corwin notes, cannot always be “dealt with according to rule.”
One situation where I believe that it may be permissible to shut down an electronic communications platform whether it be mobile cell service or a social media website is if there is actionable intelligence that there is a terrorist with a nuclear or biological weapon who is waiting to attack our country via a signal received through one of these services.
The government's authority to ban or temporarily shut down an electronic communication platform is extremely limited. Even though the government may have the legal authority to shut down social media platforms under very limited circumstances, it would be immediately challenged in court after a government shut down. The recent Bay Area Rapid Transport System (BART) action in San Francisco that shut down underground cell service because of a threatened protest may lead to legal proceedings against BART based upon First Amendment grounds. The threatened protest demonstrated government electronic media censorship that appeared to be taken directly from the playbook of a Middle Eastern dictator. A threatened protest and/or actual protests, and/or riots like the ones recently in London do not rise to the level where the federal or a state government should shut down an electronic communications platform.
As we have seen throughout the world in the past couple of years, governments are grappling with trying to figure out how to respond to protests/riots against their policies that may be fueled by social media and/or other electronic communication platforms. The response by some governments around the world has been to stop their people from being heard. The United States should not proceed down this slippery slope and instead must utilize social media to effectuate positive change at home and abroad.
To learn how to avoid a social media lawsuit you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
It is questionable whether the President has the authority to shut down social media platforms or electronic communication systems. Under Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), which is still the foundation for checking presidential power during a state of emergency, I believe the President would have a difficult time defending banning or shutting down a communications platform for an extended period of time. The Youngstown decision does not provide a clear cut analysis of when and how a President may use his powers in a national emergency. Due to the advances in technology since 1952, I believe there may be situations where a valid argument may exist for the President to have the authority to shut down an electronic communications system.
Under Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court created the imminent lawless action test which has intent, imminence and likelihood as its three prongs. In essence, the government can't punish hate speech unless it is incitement to "imminent lawless action." When determining the constitutionality of First Amendment regulation, courts generally utilize a balancing test in which the rights of the speaker are weighed against a substantial or compelling government interest.
The government may argue that under the National Emergencies Act it has the ability to temporarily shut down an electronic communications platform. According to the Congressional Research Service Report for Congress on National Emergency Powers (CRS 4), "There are perhaps at least four aspects of an emergency condition. The first is its temporal character: an emergency is sudden, unforeseen, and of unknown duration. The second is its potential gravity: an emergency is dangerous and threatening to life and well-being. The third, in terms of governmental role and authority, is the matter of perception: who discerns this phenomenon? The Constitution may be guiding on this question, but not always conclusive. Fourth, there is the element of response: by definition, an emergency requires immediate action, but is, as well, unanticipated and, therefore, as Edward S. Corwin notes, cannot always be “dealt with according to rule.”
One situation where I believe that it may be permissible to shut down an electronic communications platform whether it be mobile cell service or a social media website is if there is actionable intelligence that there is a terrorist with a nuclear or biological weapon who is waiting to attack our country via a signal received through one of these services.
The government's authority to ban or temporarily shut down an electronic communication platform is extremely limited. Even though the government may have the legal authority to shut down social media platforms under very limited circumstances, it would be immediately challenged in court after a government shut down. The recent Bay Area Rapid Transport System (BART) action in San Francisco that shut down underground cell service because of a threatened protest may lead to legal proceedings against BART based upon First Amendment grounds. The threatened protest demonstrated government electronic media censorship that appeared to be taken directly from the playbook of a Middle Eastern dictator. A threatened protest and/or actual protests, and/or riots like the ones recently in London do not rise to the level where the federal or a state government should shut down an electronic communications platform.
As we have seen throughout the world in the past couple of years, governments are grappling with trying to figure out how to respond to protests/riots against their policies that may be fueled by social media and/or other electronic communication platforms. The response by some governments around the world has been to stop their people from being heard. The United States should not proceed down this slippery slope and instead must utilize social media to effectuate positive change at home and abroad.
To learn how to avoid a social media lawsuit you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
NCAA Student-Athlete Social Media Bans May Be Unconsitutional
In the past year, multiple NCAA colleges and universities have banned some of their student-athletes from using Twitter and other social media platforms. Some of the student-athlete social media bans that I have heard about may be unconstitutional. Schools and teams who have Twitter bans include: Villanova men's basketball, Mississippi State men's basketball, New Mexico men's basketball, Miami men's football, South Carolina men's football, Iowa men's football, Boise State men's football, and Kansas men's football.
Generally, private colleges and universities have more leeway to regulate their student's activities than public institutions. For example, Brigham Young University (BYU) has a blanket ban for all of its students against pre-marital sex. Before attending BYU, students know about the school's pre-marital sex ban and it is part of the university honor code. In addition, every student signs an annual pledge to refrain from engaging in premarital sex while enrolled at the school. The ban does not single out one group of students over another and is equally applied across the board. Students who break this rule are punished according to the school's honor code.
Institutions have the right to create reasonable rules and regulations that are not discriminatory regarding social media usage. For example, some professional sports leagues have rules that disallow social media usage for a certain time period before a game starts, during a game, and for a period of time after the game. Generally, these rules are reasonable and should not infringe upon First Amendment rights.
Setting reasonable rules regarding social media usage that don't infringe upon a student's First Amendment rights is permissable and may be prudent for both public and private institutions. However, creating an outright ban on using Twitter and/or other social media platforms for a select group of students at a public institution is a clear violation of the First Amendment and may be discriminatory against both the students and/or the social media platforms.
Schools may punish their student-athletes for social media misbehavior that in the real world would also be punishable. For example, if a student-athlete acts in a manner that is deemed inappropriate either online or in the real world he may punished. However, I believe it would be very difficult for a school to argue that a student's social media/virtual activity be punished differently than his or her real world activity.
If the school is a public institution, in addition to the First Amendment the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may also be infringed upon by a student-athlete social media ban. According to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Schools District 393 U.S. 503 (1969), students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate and that in order for public schools to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint."
I do not see how a public academic institution would be able to defend banning its men's football or men's basketball student-athletes from Tweeting during a season while the women's basketball team, the engineering club, or members of the student government are able to utilize Twitter or other social media platforms. In addition, it would be very difficult for a public academic institution to defend a social media ban.
If NCAA coaches are allowed to ban their student-athletes from Tweeting for an entire season/academic semester what will stop them from banning their student-athletes from utilizing email, cell phones, and taking digital photographs and/or videos? How does a coach justify banning Twitter but not Facebook, MySpace, Google +1, YouTube, blogging, posting opinions on other blogs or creating other types of user generated content? Could a university administration enforce a social media ban against certain student groups who it considers too radical or conservative? How are social media bans being enforced? What stops students from creating secret Twitter or other social media accounts?
Banning public school students from utilizing social media or requiring them to install invasive social media monitoring software (aka "cyberstalking" software) onto their personal computers/personal accounts or to Facebook friend a third party so that the third party can monitor their social media posts may create tremendous legal liability.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Generally, private colleges and universities have more leeway to regulate their student's activities than public institutions. For example, Brigham Young University (BYU) has a blanket ban for all of its students against pre-marital sex. Before attending BYU, students know about the school's pre-marital sex ban and it is part of the university honor code. In addition, every student signs an annual pledge to refrain from engaging in premarital sex while enrolled at the school. The ban does not single out one group of students over another and is equally applied across the board. Students who break this rule are punished according to the school's honor code.
Institutions have the right to create reasonable rules and regulations that are not discriminatory regarding social media usage. For example, some professional sports leagues have rules that disallow social media usage for a certain time period before a game starts, during a game, and for a period of time after the game. Generally, these rules are reasonable and should not infringe upon First Amendment rights.
Setting reasonable rules regarding social media usage that don't infringe upon a student's First Amendment rights is permissable and may be prudent for both public and private institutions. However, creating an outright ban on using Twitter and/or other social media platforms for a select group of students at a public institution is a clear violation of the First Amendment and may be discriminatory against both the students and/or the social media platforms.
Schools may punish their student-athletes for social media misbehavior that in the real world would also be punishable. For example, if a student-athlete acts in a manner that is deemed inappropriate either online or in the real world he may punished. However, I believe it would be very difficult for a school to argue that a student's social media/virtual activity be punished differently than his or her real world activity.
If the school is a public institution, in addition to the First Amendment the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may also be infringed upon by a student-athlete social media ban. According to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Schools District 393 U.S. 503 (1969), students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate and that in order for public schools to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint."
I do not see how a public academic institution would be able to defend banning its men's football or men's basketball student-athletes from Tweeting during a season while the women's basketball team, the engineering club, or members of the student government are able to utilize Twitter or other social media platforms. In addition, it would be very difficult for a public academic institution to defend a social media ban.
If NCAA coaches are allowed to ban their student-athletes from Tweeting for an entire season/academic semester what will stop them from banning their student-athletes from utilizing email, cell phones, and taking digital photographs and/or videos? How does a coach justify banning Twitter but not Facebook, MySpace, Google +1, YouTube, blogging, posting opinions on other blogs or creating other types of user generated content? Could a university administration enforce a social media ban against certain student groups who it considers too radical or conservative? How are social media bans being enforced? What stops students from creating secret Twitter or other social media accounts?
Banning public school students from utilizing social media or requiring them to install invasive social media monitoring software (aka "cyberstalking" software) onto their personal computers/personal accounts or to Facebook friend a third party so that the third party can monitor their social media posts may create tremendous legal liability.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
California bans jurors from utilizing social media to discuss their cases
California recently banned jurors from texting, Facebook posting, and Tweeting about their cases. Specifically Bill AB 141, "requires the court, when admonishing the jury against conversation pursuant to these provisions, to clearly explain, as part of the admonishment, that the prohibition of the use of electronic or wireless devices applies to all forms of communication, electronic research, or dissemination of information about a case. The bill would require the officer in charge of a jury to prevent any use of an electronic or wireless device to communicate, research, or disseminate information about a case".
In September of 2009, I wrote about San Francisco Superior Court's rule that went into effect in January of 2010 that addressed most of the issues that California's new law covers. In December of 2009 and January of 2010, I discussed how Facebook Friending by the jury in Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon's corruption trial may have affected the final outcome of the matter. Therefore, the passage of this type of law is overdue.
California's new law will take effect in January 2012 and it will make it a misdemeanor for jurors to use electronic or wireless devices to research or communicate with others about their cases during jury duty. Other states may want to review this law to determine if it makes sense for their jurisdiction.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In September of 2009, I wrote about San Francisco Superior Court's rule that went into effect in January of 2010 that addressed most of the issues that California's new law covers. In December of 2009 and January of 2010, I discussed how Facebook Friending by the jury in Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon's corruption trial may have affected the final outcome of the matter. Therefore, the passage of this type of law is overdue.
California's new law will take effect in January 2012 and it will make it a misdemeanor for jurors to use electronic or wireless devices to research or communicate with others about their cases during jury duty. Other states may want to review this law to determine if it makes sense for their jurisdiction.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Cleveland Mayor Vetoes Social Media Flash Mob Law
Cleveland's Mayor Frank Jackson vetoed an ordinance that would have allegedly prohibited Flash Mobs and Tweet Ups. The law was suppose to put an end to the improper use of social media that was used to violate ordinances on disorderly conduct, public intoxication and unlawful congregation by promoting illegal flash mob activity.
When I first discussed this issue a few weeks ago, I stated that this ordinance was an over-reaction and that the best course of action is to enforce the current laws on the books. The law was vague and clearly violated the First Amendment.
Some jurisdictions are trying to legislate social media usage because they do not understand the medium. I believe that the ACLU's publicity of the ordinance was instrumental in Mayor Jackson's decision to veto the law. Unfortunately, I predict that the ACLU will need to spend a tremendous amount of resources over the next few years to protect our Social Media First Amendment rights.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
When I first discussed this issue a few weeks ago, I stated that this ordinance was an over-reaction and that the best course of action is to enforce the current laws on the books. The law was vague and clearly violated the First Amendment.
Some jurisdictions are trying to legislate social media usage because they do not understand the medium. I believe that the ACLU's publicity of the ordinance was instrumental in Mayor Jackson's decision to veto the law. Unfortunately, I predict that the ACLU will need to spend a tremendous amount of resources over the next few years to protect our Social Media First Amendment rights.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Missouri Law Bans Social Media Contact Between Teachers and Students
Missouri's new social media law was created to protect students from sexual misconduct by teachers. The law bans direct contact between educators and students on social media and is also known as the "Amy Hestir Student Protection Act".
If a teacher is not able to interact with a student privately online why should a teacher be able to interact with a student privately in the real world? This new law is an over-reaction and will most likely soon be challenged and eventually overturned.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
If a teacher is not able to interact with a student privately online why should a teacher be able to interact with a student privately in the real world? This new law is an over-reaction and will most likely soon be challenged and eventually overturned.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Baltimore Law Dean Should Be Reinstated and State Legislature and Board of Regents Must Investigate
Below is an open letter that I posted earlier to the Facebook Page, "Concerned UB Law Alumni"
Dear Governor O'Malley, the Board of Regents, Maryland Senators and members of the House of Delegates:
I am writing to request that your offices work to reinstate the former University of Baltimore Law School Dean Phil Closius and to open an investigation into how the University of Baltimore spends law school revenue. On July, 28, 2011, the President of the University of Baltimore Robert Bogomolny demanded that Dean Closius resign soon after receipt of the school's ABA accreditation report. Since Dean Closius' forced resignation there has been conflicting information regarding the issues behind this action that need to be fully investigated.
According to the Maryland Daily Record's Editorial Advisory Board, "overall, the report was excellent, but with one critical exception. That exception related to money and how the law school’s tuition receipts are spent: not by the law school or for its benefit, but by the university administration for programs and expenditures unrelated to the law school, in a way that is far in excess of the situation of other universities’ economic relationships with their law schools." Here is a link to the entire Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board Opinion.
Dean Closius' tenure has been highly successful. For example, the school's U.S. News and World Report ranking has jumped from 170 to 117, he has revamped the Career Services Office, he has worked with Johns Hopkins to create the Center for Law and Medicine, he has created the nationally renown Center for Sport and Law, etc... Dean Closius is a tireless advocate for the University of Baltimore community. His enthusiasm has infected the students, professors, alumni, and law school supporters. If you speak with the majority of the school's students, faculty, alumni, and donors they will resoundingly support Dean Closius' reinstatement.
There are too many questions left unanswered. Why is President Bogomolny upset that Dean Closius discussed his concerns about the law school's funding with the ABA and other interested parties? What are all the indirect costs and expenses that President Bogomolny cites are necessary to operate the law school? If President Bogomolny was correct in his assertion that the new law school's naming opportunity was worth more than $10,000,000 why wasn't this figure achieved? If law school tuition increased in the last school year by $1.4 million why did the law school’s budget only increase by $80,000? Why did the state of Maryland Office of Legislative Audit find that University of Baltimore did not have proper internal controls regarding the processing of purchases and disbursements?
The concerns that Dean Closius brought up in his email to the University of Baltimore Law School community must be reviewed. President Bogomolny's follow up email failed to respond in any meaningful way to Dean Closius' concerns. Therefore, as the Daily Record's Editorial Advisory Board states, Dean Closius deserves to be reinstated. And his forced resignation and the events leading up to it must be investigated by the Legislature as well as the Board of Regents.
Respectfully,
Some background articles
Daily Record Articles
http://thedailyrecord.com/2011/08/01/editorial-advisory-board-dean-closius-deserves-to-be-reinstated/
http://thedailyrecord.com/2011/07/29/closius-resigns-as-ub-law-dean/
http://thedailyrecord.com/2011/08/01/ub-president-responds-to-closius-resignation/
Baltimore Sun Articles
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-law-dean-letter,0,3949860.story
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ub-president-letter,0,6573608.story
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-ub-law-dean-resigns-20110729,0,2224528.story
Baltimore Business Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2011/07/29/university-of-baltimore-school-of-law.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2011/07/29/ub-law-school-dean-closius.html
Blogs
Maryland Senate Education, Health & Environmental Affairs Committee http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/com/02eco.html
Dear Governor O'Malley, the Board of Regents, Maryland Senators and members of the House of Delegates:
I am writing to request that your offices work to reinstate the former University of Baltimore Law School Dean Phil Closius and to open an investigation into how the University of Baltimore spends law school revenue. On July, 28, 2011, the President of the University of Baltimore Robert Bogomolny demanded that Dean Closius resign soon after receipt of the school's ABA accreditation report. Since Dean Closius' forced resignation there has been conflicting information regarding the issues behind this action that need to be fully investigated.
According to the Maryland Daily Record's Editorial Advisory Board, "overall, the report was excellent, but with one critical exception. That exception related to money and how the law school’s tuition receipts are spent: not by the law school or for its benefit, but by the university administration for programs and expenditures unrelated to the law school, in a way that is far in excess of the situation of other universities’ economic relationships with their law schools." Here is a link to the entire Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board Opinion.
Dean Closius' tenure has been highly successful. For example, the school's U.S. News and World Report ranking has jumped from 170 to 117, he has revamped the Career Services Office, he has worked with Johns Hopkins to create the Center for Law and Medicine, he has created the nationally renown Center for Sport and Law, etc... Dean Closius is a tireless advocate for the University of Baltimore community. His enthusiasm has infected the students, professors, alumni, and law school supporters. If you speak with the majority of the school's students, faculty, alumni, and donors they will resoundingly support Dean Closius' reinstatement.
There are too many questions left unanswered. Why is President Bogomolny upset that Dean Closius discussed his concerns about the law school's funding with the ABA and other interested parties? What are all the indirect costs and expenses that President Bogomolny cites are necessary to operate the law school? If President Bogomolny was correct in his assertion that the new law school's naming opportunity was worth more than $10,000,000 why wasn't this figure achieved? If law school tuition increased in the last school year by $1.4 million why did the law school’s budget only increase by $80,000? Why did the state of Maryland Office of Legislative Audit find that University of Baltimore did not have proper internal controls regarding the processing of purchases and disbursements?
The concerns that Dean Closius brought up in his email to the University of Baltimore Law School community must be reviewed. President Bogomolny's follow up email failed to respond in any meaningful way to Dean Closius' concerns. Therefore, as the Daily Record's Editorial Advisory Board states, Dean Closius deserves to be reinstated. And his forced resignation and the events leading up to it must be investigated by the Legislature as well as the Board of Regents.
Respectfully,
Some background articles
Daily Record Articles
http://thedailyrecord.com/2011
http://thedailyrecord.com/2011
http://thedailyrecord.com/2011
Baltimore Sun Articles
http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne
http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne
http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne
Baltimore Business Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2011/07/29/university-of-baltimore-school-of-law.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2011/07/29/ub-law-school-dean-closius.html
Blogs
Maryland Senate Education, Health & Environmental Affairs Committee http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/com/02eco.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)