Originally posted 2015-07-08 11:30:34. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
How’s that for a setup line? No, it’s another story about the use of “chilling effects” and the First Amendment in defense of illegal, usually political, acts — and this time, again, it didn’t work:
Here’s the story— remember this one?
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. Jim Mcdermott violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.
In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a Lower Court ruling that McDermott violated the rights of House Majority Leader John Boehner, who was heard on the 1996 call involving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. . . .
A lawyer for McDermott had argued that his actions were allowed under the First Amendment, and said a ruling against him would have “a huge chilling effect” on reporters and newsmakers alike.
Lawyers for 18 news organizations _ including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post _ filed a brief backing McDermott.
But Boehner’s lawyers said McDermott’s actions were clearly illegal.
Here’s the, er, “money quote,” by the way:
The lower court had ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and at least $600,000 in legal costs.
Now, who is going to pay that? Walter Olson, phone your office! Someone just might earn a legal fee here! (Via Drudge.)
This post first appeared on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® | Ron Coleman's Blog On Trademark, Copyright, Internet Law And Free Speech, please read the originial post: here