Who's liable for the Erin Andrews nude video?

By Eriq Gardner

The release of naked video of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews has raised at least one interesting legal question.

According to her lawyers, Andrews was "surreptitiously videotaped" nude through a peephole while "in the privacy of her hotel room."

The video was posted on some adult websites and quickly became a very hot item.

Although ESPN shouldn't have any liability in the matter, the media organization's general counsel David Pahl stepped in and sent a letter to the websites warning that the video constituted trespass and assault and that "continued posting of these pictures are highly likely to render you an accessory after the fact to a criminal act."

Power Lawyer Marshall Grossman has also been hired. Reportedly, the video has been taken down but several media organizations have been running with the story, including CBS News, which ran a piece this morning on "The Early Show" that included blurred footage of the Andrews tape and an interview with CBS legal analyst Erin Brown about potential laws broken by the Peeping Tom, the bloggers who posted the item, and even people who watch the video.

Asked whether anybody who downloads the video is doing anything illegal, Brown answered yes. "It's like buying or selling stolen property," she says. "If you know you are buying something that is stolen...you could be liable criminally or civilly."

Sounds like a dubious theory to us, and wouldn't it mean that CBS risks liability by showing some of the video? Maybe CBS viewers are breaking the law too?

Dixie Chicks want to say goodbye to more than Earl

By Eriq Gardner

Members of the Dixie Chicks have a knack for getting themselves into prickly situations. Now, lead vocalist Natalie Maines and the band are defendants in a lawsuit from a man she suggested on the band's website might be responsible for the murders of three eight-year-old boys in West Memphis, Arkansas.

Maines reviewed the sensational 1994 case of the West Memphis Three in an open letter to fans in 2007. She became interested in the subject after seeing a pair of HBO documentaries called "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Lost 2." Damien Echols was convicted of the crime, but some evidence pointed to another man, Terry Hobbs. 

Maines donated to Echols' defense fund and received a warm letter from Echols' wife. She then posted her missive pointing blame in Hobbs' direction. That's when Hobbs sued for defamation, according to this November complaint posted by Courthouse News.

A key question about this case surrounds whether Maines can assert a "fair report privilege." The media is typically protected from liability whenever an outlet relies upon official public documents or statements to report information — even false information that might be held as defamatory under normal circumstances. 

Maines is obviously not a journalist in the traditional sense—but isn't posting information on a website what any blogger does, and if so, do bloggers enjoy fair report privilege? A good question.

Max Hardcore's Films Too Hardcore for Obscenity Jury?

Posted by Matthew Heller

POST UPDATED

The squeamish reactions of jurors to only 40 minutes of "gonzo" porn have persuaded a Florida judge to reconsider her decision to have them watch 8-1/2 hours of it in the obscenity trial of producer Paul Little, aka Max Hardcore (left).

"Jurors squirmed in their seats, squinted their eyes and frequently looked away" while viewing just one of the gonzo videos that prosecutors intend to use as evidence against Little, the St. Petersburg Times reported. The videos feature scenes of Little, who stars in and directs his movies, inflicting pain and humiliation on female actresses.

Prosecutors originally planned to show jurors some 2-1/2 hours of segments produced by Little, but U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew agreed with the defense that, in order to decide whether the films are obscene, jurors should see them in their entirety. After the brief initial viewing, Bucklew reconsidered. "I think it will be very difficult for this jury to sit through five of these," she said.

'Shock' Director To Test Boundaries Of Free Speech

Posted by Eriq Gardner

Is the trial against 57-year-old Los Angeles–based "shock" video director, Ira Isaacs, the next big ticket in Hollywood? Perhaps. The Huffington Post's Pellicano blogger Allison Hope Weiner has already marked her courtroom seat, and Radar Online is calling the coming Isaacs trial "the most extreme obscenity trial in U.S. history."

Isaacs' titles, including "Hollywood Scat Amateurs No. 7," "Laurie's Toilet Show" and "Gang Bang Horse" make "2 Girls 1 Cup" look positively tame. Or so we've been told.

The trial will test the legal force of the Department of Justice's Obscenity Prosecution Task Force as well as new Internet obscenity laws. Isaacs, who does business as Stolen Car Films and LA Media, is only the third person charged by the DOJ on these laws.