在当今的数字媒体环境下,联邦反slapp法的必要性

L. Bergelson
{"title":"在当今的数字媒体环境下,联邦反slapp法的必要性","authors":"L. Bergelson","doi":"10.7916/JLA.V42I2.2006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Note lays out the judicial protections granted to the traditional press and identifies new threats to non-traditional presses through the rise of third-party litigation financing for lawsuits targeting negative reporting. Part I distinguishes between libel and privacy lawsuits, explaining why one approach—particularly in the digital age—can be more fruitful for plaintiffs. Part I also draws from recent Supreme Court precedent to contextualize current attitudes regarding speech and privacy. Part II analyzes two recent new media cases with troubling results: specifically, million-dollar costs at best, and bankruptcy at worst. While ample protections exist for the traditional press, in light of these lawsuits, it is worth considering what more could and should be done to protect media outlets, especially the non-traditional presses. Part II also examines the chilling effect of potential billionaire-backed lawsuits. Because of threats from third-party litigation financiers and because judicial protections are intended for traditional presses, new publishers are left in a precarious position; Part III advocates for a federal anti-SLAPP law as a potential solution.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Need for a Federal Anti-SLAPP Law in Today’s Digital Media Climate\",\"authors\":\"L. Bergelson\",\"doi\":\"10.7916/JLA.V42I2.2006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Note lays out the judicial protections granted to the traditional press and identifies new threats to non-traditional presses through the rise of third-party litigation financing for lawsuits targeting negative reporting. Part I distinguishes between libel and privacy lawsuits, explaining why one approach—particularly in the digital age—can be more fruitful for plaintiffs. Part I also draws from recent Supreme Court precedent to contextualize current attitudes regarding speech and privacy. Part II analyzes two recent new media cases with troubling results: specifically, million-dollar costs at best, and bankruptcy at worst. While ample protections exist for the traditional press, in light of these lawsuits, it is worth considering what more could and should be done to protect media outlets, especially the non-traditional presses. Part II also examines the chilling effect of potential billionaire-backed lawsuits. Because of threats from third-party litigation financiers and because judicial protections are intended for traditional presses, new publishers are left in a precarious position; Part III advocates for a federal anti-SLAPP law as a potential solution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V42I2.2006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V42I2.2006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本说明阐述了给予传统媒体的司法保护,并指出了针对负面报道的诉讼的第三方诉讼融资的兴起对非传统媒体的新威胁。第一部分区分了诽谤诉讼和隐私诉讼,解释了为什么其中一种方式——尤其是在数字时代——对原告来说更有成效。第一部分还借鉴了最近的最高法院先例,将当前对言论和隐私的态度置于背景下。第二部分分析了最近两个令人不安的新媒体案例:具体来说,最好的情况是数百万美元的成本,最坏的情况是破产。虽然对传统媒体有充分的保护,但鉴于这些诉讼,值得考虑的是,我们还可以和应该做些什么来保护媒体,尤其是非传统媒体。第二部分还探讨了亿万富翁支持的潜在诉讼的寒蝉效应。由于第三方诉讼融资机构的威胁,加上司法保护是为传统出版社准备的,新出版商的处境岌岌可危;第三部分主张联邦反slapp法律作为一个潜在的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Need for a Federal Anti-SLAPP Law in Today’s Digital Media Climate
This Note lays out the judicial protections granted to the traditional press and identifies new threats to non-traditional presses through the rise of third-party litigation financing for lawsuits targeting negative reporting. Part I distinguishes between libel and privacy lawsuits, explaining why one approach—particularly in the digital age—can be more fruitful for plaintiffs. Part I also draws from recent Supreme Court precedent to contextualize current attitudes regarding speech and privacy. Part II analyzes two recent new media cases with troubling results: specifically, million-dollar costs at best, and bankruptcy at worst. While ample protections exist for the traditional press, in light of these lawsuits, it is worth considering what more could and should be done to protect media outlets, especially the non-traditional presses. Part II also examines the chilling effect of potential billionaire-backed lawsuits. Because of threats from third-party litigation financiers and because judicial protections are intended for traditional presses, new publishers are left in a precarious position; Part III advocates for a federal anti-SLAPP law as a potential solution.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信