The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in cases involving broadcast TV and political campaign lies. We'll discuss the latest. Then, will powdered alcohol soon be for sale? Later, we explore speculation that Oscar Pistorius hired an acting coach to bolster his performance on the stand.
Supreme Court rules on Mich. affirmative action and hears case that could reshape the future of broadcast TV
Aereo is a service that lets customers watch network TV over the internet. For a minimum of $8 a month, subscribers receive a tiny antenna that picks up and transfers live, local network broadcasts online, which can then be viewed on any computers or mobile devices.
The Barry Diller-backed company first debuted in New York in 2012 and has since expanded to ten other cities, including Boston, Dallas and Miami.
It's not an innovation network broadcasters like one bit.
Local TV stations don't get paid for content Aereo streams, and the networks are saying that it equates to copyright infringement. Secondly, the broadcasters are concerned that Aereo would pave the way for cable and satellite companies to do the same thing, potentially jeopardizing $7.1b in retransmission fees.
The broadcasters took Aereo to court soon after the service debuted. The US District Court of the Southern District of New York and later the Second Circuit Court of Appeals both sided with Aereo. In a separate case against the company, the US District Court of Utah had the opposite ruling.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, “ABC v. Aereo,” this morning and is expected to hand down a ruling this summer.
Guests:
David Savage, Supreme Court reporter, Los Angeles Times
Dominic Patten, Legal Editor at Deadline, a entertainment industry news site
Is powdered alcohol coming to a liquor store near you?
Earlier this month, the government approved a new product called ‘Palcohol’—or powdered alcohol, but regulators now say those approvals were “issued in error.” Now, it remains to be seen if and when the product will hit the shelves.
A representative for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau—the federal agency that approved seven varieties of ‘Palcohol’ on April 8—told the Associated Press Monday simply that the approvals were issued in error, but didn’t elaborate on how the error occurred.
Palcohol founder Mark Phillips presents the issue as a minor snag in his powdered booze hitting the market. He told reporters he needed to resubmit the labels.
RELATED: Powdered Liquor: Now legal but won't be in your margarita soon
The Phoenix-based company plans to sell a variety of powdered alcohol, including vodka, rum, cosmopolitan and mojito.
What does it mean that the powdered alcohol approvals were issued in error? Will a product like this be sold in stores anytime soon? What concerns do you have about a product that can turn water into vodka with a pinch of powder?
Guest:
Robert Lehrman, founding attorney at Lehrman Beverage Law, a law firm specializing in the regulation of a wide array of beverages. His blog, Bevlog, first outed the approvals for Palcohol.
Should it be illegal to lie during a political campaign?
The Supreme Court will hear arguments today about whether states can make it a crime to lie during a political campaign.
The case comes out of Ohio, where anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List wanted to put up billboards criticizing then-Congressman Steven Driehaus for supporting what they called “taxpayer-funded abortion.”
Driehaus actually supported the Affordable Care Act, and only after President Obama issued an executive order ensuring that the health care exchanges couldn’t use taxpayer money for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or endangered life of the woman.
Driehaus filed a complaint with the Elections Commission, and the advertising company that own the billboards refused to post the ad. But the Susan B. Anthony List issued a challenge to the Ohio law against false speech, arguing that the government can’t decide what is false speech in the context of an election.
Lower courts dismissed the suit based on the fact that no tangible harm had been done to the Susan B. Anthony List, but the group appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.
The Court will decide whether laws against false speech during election campaigns violate the First Amendment, but must first decide whether there must be actual harm done to hear the case in the first place.
Do laws prohibiting false speech during elections chill free speech? Should knowing lies during a political campaign be protected? How can the government and the courts weigh claims of false speech against speculative speech or ambiguous speech?
Guests:
Greg Stohr, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCL
Can LA County better protect its most vulnerable? A Blue Ribbon Panel makes recommendations
Los Angeles County no doubt aims to protect children within its bounds. But after the death of eight year old Gabriel Fernandez in Palmdale at the hands of his mother and her boyfriend last year, a media spotlight shone on L.A.’s Department of Children and Family Services and its failure to protect children from abuse and neglect.
RELATED: Commission urges LA County child welfare reforms
A new report from a blue-ribbon panel commissioned to analyze L.A. County's protection of abused children says the system is in a state of emergency. The findings and recommendations, including lower social worker caseloads and better abuse risk analysis and prevention, will be assessed in a Board of Supervisors meeting today.
Is it lack of resources or bureaucratic barriers that are impeding progress in protecting L.A. County children? Can the panel's recommendations be implemented effectively in a system responsible for the welfare of children in the most populous county in the United States?
Guest:
Marilyn Flynn, Commissioner on LA County's appointed Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection; Dean of the USC School of Social Work in 1997, and was reappointed in 2011; She joins us from the LA County Board of Supervisors meeting
Oscar Pistorius rumor pulls back curtain on razzle dazzle of murder trial prep
The murder trial of Olympic track star Oscar Pistorius has been a dramatic display of emotion since the double amputee first appeared in the courtroom.
A visibly distraught Pistorius wept and vomited while listening to testimony that he shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp through a closed bathroom door.
Now, a well known South African columnist is making accusations that Pistorius hired an acting coach before the start of his trial. Columnist Jani Allan made the accusations in an open letter to Pistorius where she ripped into the accused's lifestyle and claimed that he was coached to appear more believable during the trial.
"I have it from a reliable source that you are taking acting lessons for your days in court," Allan wrote. "Your coach has an impossible task."
In another interview, Allan went on to claim that Oscar is being coached on his court performance by a close actor friend, who is famous in South Africa.
Photos from Pistorius' cross examination showed the athlete red-faced and sobbing as he faced questioning by a prosecutor known as "the bull dog".
The media spokesperson for Pistorius denied the accusations of an acting coach "in the strongest terms" but it raises question about how much coaching and preparation defendants should receive before a trial?
Would knowledge that a defendant had used an acting coach make you question their innocence? How much 'coaching' is allowed or is ethical during a trial?
Guests:
Royal F. Oakes, partner, Barger & Wolen, LLP
Joshua Karton, trial consultant and president of Santa Monica-based Communication Arts. He teaches litigators about theater techniques.
Richard Gabriel, Trial consultant for his company Decision Analytics, Author of "Acquittal: An Insider Reveals the Stories and Strategies Behind Today's Most Infamous Vertdicts" (forthcoming)