Category: Mass Communication Law

Officially Waking Sleeping Beauty

My wife and I are deep in the middle of the Wisconsin Film Fest and just got back from a viewing of Waking Sleeping Beauty, a documentary about the later hay-days of Disney animation. This particular film was high on her list, and I was pleasantly surprised at what an entertaining show it was. Producer (and long time Disney exec) Peter Schneider was on hand to answer questions, and I feel the movie really accomplished his goal of “humanizing” the Disney company.

While I’d wholeheartedly recommend the show, there was one thing about it that I feel is likely to be ignored by many: the only way a movie of this sort, rich with Disney animation clips, could ever be made was through official channels. There is no way that an unofficial documentarian could ever secure the copyright permission the volume of material that Schneider and Hahn were able to use–especially from a company like Disney. It’s an unfortunate sour note that, to me, colors the experience of an otherwise great movie.

Public figures are hard to defame

Apple’s explanation for rejecting an app of political cartoons:

Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc. that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory.

The attached example content?

Apple attached screenshots of the offending material, including an image depicting the White House gate crashers interrupting an Obama speech. Two other grabs include images referencing torture, Balloon Boy, and various political issues.

This is media law 101–public figures are hard to defame, and political figures are even harder. Almost seems as though it’s not the lawyers who are giving the thumbs up or down.

via Mark Fiore can win a Pulitzer Prize, but he can’t get his iPhone cartoon app past Apple’s satire police » Nieman Journalism Lab.

Original intent my…

Geoffrey Stone pens an interesting Op-Ed for the Times today on why “original intent” is kind of hooey.

So, how should judges interpret the Constitution? To answer that question, we need to consider why we give courts the power of judicial review — the power to hold laws unconstitutional — in the first place. Although the framers thought democracy to be the best system of government, they recognized that it was imperfect. One flaw that troubled them was the risk that prejudice or intolerance on the part of the majority might threaten the liberties of a minority.

He basically argues that courts exist to protect rights–specifically those of the minority. I like this argument for its simplicity. I would further assert that “intent” is something that’s impossible to gauge, as the text of the constitution is a compromise from the intents of many individuals, but I realize that may be a bit more difficult pill for some to swallow.

via Op-Ed Contributor – Our Fill-in-the-Blank Constitution – NYTimes.com.