Written by Timothy M. Carter On Monday, November 30, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation (S5959D / A.5605-C, which we’ll refer to as the “Statute”) establishing, among other things, a new post-mortem “right of publicity.” We explain here the key points to know about the new law. New York’s new post-mortem right is similar to the existing right of publicity protections … Continue reading Deepfakes and Rights for the Dead: New York Adds a Post Mortem Publicity Right and Penalizes Sexually Explicit Deepfakes
Written by Timothy M. Carter The broad speech protections provided by the First Amendment are emblematic of a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open[.]” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269–70 (1964). While this unfettered commitment to free speech may shield a speaker from the chill of liability, practically speaking, it often … Continue reading The Privilege to Speak One’s Mind: New York Broadens Its Anti-SLAPP Statute
Preparing for Grocery Store Protests
Written by Emily F. Evitt
As Californians lose patience with the stay-at-home orders, we can expect more protests across the state. And as customers face shortages and stores enforce limits on their purchases, protests at grocery stores may be particularly likely. How can grocery stores protect themselves?
California’s Constitution grants broader free speech rights than the First Amendment. Indeed, under certain circumstances – namely cases involving shopping malls – courts have held that California’s free speech right extends to private property where that property is the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum. See Robbins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899 (1979). Continue reading “How Can Grocery Stores Protect Themselves?”
Written by Theresa B. Bowman
In Prager University v. Google LLC, et al., Case No. 18-15712 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a First Amendment lawsuit against YouTube late last week, holding that the video hosting giant is a private forum that is free to foster particular viewpoints – and need not be content-neutral. The victory is a significant message to other online content hosts, aggregators and service providers that they need not feel threatened by censorship claims for selecting and curating content on their systems.
The lawsuit began in 2017, when conservative media company PragerU sued YouTube for imposing restrictions on some of PragerU’s short animated educational videos. YouTube tagged several dozen videos for age-restrictions and disabled third party advertisements on others. PragerU claimed the restrictions constituted censorship because they muted conservative political viewpoints. Continue reading “YouTube May Be An Enormous Town Square, But It’s Still Not Subject to The First Amendment”