Legal Threat From Creator Of Wall St. Bull Statue Even More Full Of Bull Than Expected

from the you-have-to-be-kidding dept

Yesterday, we wrote about reports that Arturo Di Modica, the artist behind the famous "Charging Bull" statue near Wall St., was claiming that the new "Fearless Girl" statue that was put up in front of the bull infringed on his copyrights. As we noted in our piece, the only possible claim we could see was a weak moral rights claim, under VARA -- the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. However, as we noted in an update to the post (with a helping hand from law professor James Grimmelmann) VARA shouldn't apply. If you read the actual law, it applies to works created after VARA went into effect or to works created before the law went into effect if the title to the artwork has not been transferred from the artist.

But, of course, the history here is that Di Modica dumped the statue in front of the NY Stock Exchange as a surprise in 1989, only to have it moved by the city and given a "temporary permit" in a nearby park that is continually renewed. 1989 is, obviously, prior to the enactment of VARA in 1990. And, Grimmelmann argues, Di Modica "transferred the title by accession when he installed it."

Of course, Di Modica's lawyers don't appear to care. Late Wednesday, the letter that they sent Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York, was released, and their legal theories... are... well... let's just say some might compare them to what comes out of the back of a bull. Yes, it does include a VARA claim, but it's not the main claim of the letter. However, since that was the focus of our post yesterday, let's deal with that one first:

Additionally, the placement of the statue of the young girl in opposition to the Charging Bull has undermined the integrity and modified the Charging Bull. The Charging Bull no longer carries a positive, optimistic message. Rather, it has been transformed into a negative force and a threat. For example, Mayor de Blasio characterized the Fearless Girl as a symbol of "standing up to fear, standing up to power, being able to find in yourself the strength to do what's right." The inescapable implication is that the Charging Bull is the source of that fear and power and a force against doing what's right. Plainly, the presence of the statue of the young girl has tarnished and modified the Charging Bull: "intended as a symbol of strength by the artist, the bull takes on a menacing air in relation to the girl."

This alteration of the Charging Bull and damage to its integrity are prejudicial to Mr. Di Modica's honor and reputation and violate his rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, codified as §106-A of the Copyright Law. The Visual Artists Rights Act confers upon authors of works of visual arts, in addition to attribution rights, the right "to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation...." ... Here, there is no doubt that State Street Global Advisors intended to distort, mutilate and modify Charging Bull, and did so intentionally distort, mutilate and modify Charging Bull by installing Fearless Girl in opposition to Charging Bull and engaging on its marketing campaign featuring this image. This violation of Mr. Di Modica's rights will continue as long as Fearless Girl remains in opposition to Charging Bull.

Oh, what a load of bull. First off, this ignores, as Grimmelmann pointed out, that VARA almost certainly does not apply to Charging Bull (though if this went to court, I imagine Di Modica's lawyers would argue, weakly, that he did not give up the title to the statue when he abandoned it on the road). Second, placing something next to your artwork, even as a comment on it, does not "distort, mutilate or modify" the work. And if the public's interpretation of the Bull has gone from positive to negative, well, sorry Di Modica -- that's life. People's opinions change. The idea that a visual artist could block someone else from placing a work near their own work because it might change how people see the original would create major headaches around the globe. Imagine museum curators being forced to move works of art because an artist protests about how the work next to his or her own negatively impacts how people view it. That's insane.

Furthermore, if he's really worried about his "honor and reputation", how do you think the public -- who has overwhelmingly supported the message of the Fearless Girl statue (even if it is just an advertisement for a State Street fund) -- is going to feel about him being the thin-skinned, whiny, petulant artist who demands NY remove it? It seems likely that his actions here will do a hell of a lot more to damage his "honor and reputation" than the Fearless Girl statue does.

Anyway, the main claim in the letter, again, is not actually about VARA. Instead, it's even more crazy. Di Modica's lawyers argue (apparently with a straight face) that the Fearless Girl is a derivative work of the Charging Bull, and thus copyright infringement.

The statue of the young girl becomes the "Fearless Girl" only because of the Charging Bull: the work is incomplete without Mr. Di Modica's Charging Bull, and as such it constitutes a derivative work of the Charging Bull.

The essential importance of placing the young girl statue across from the Charging Bull, as opposed to elsewhere, is highlighted on the website of SSGA, which invites browsers to "[w]atch how the Fearless Girl was created and placed in a spot that made her impossible to ignore." It is only because of the Charging Bull that the young girl statue can be considered "impossible to ignore." Clearly, a deliberate choice was made to exploit and to appropriate the Charging Bull through the placement of Fearless Girl. The inextricable link between the young girl and the Charging Bull has not gone unnoticed. As one commentator writes, "The tiny girl stands bravely face to face with the giant bull, and this spatial relationship of size, orientation, and stance adds depth to the meaning of the symbol."

Furthermore, SSGA and McCann New York made conscious decisions to visually link the young girl statue to the Charging Bull. First, the statue of the young girl, just like the Charging Bull, is made out of bronze. Indeed, the patina of the young girl is nearly identical to that of the Charging Bull. Second, they extended the cobblestone paving of Bowling Green into the adjacent plaza. In so doing, State Street Global Advisors created another unifying element between the Charging Bull and the young girl that serves to transform the young girl into the "Fearless Girl."

SSGA and McCann New York constructed a marketing campaign around the image of the Fearless Girl--the image of a young girl facing down the Charging Bull. They deliberately placed the young girl statue in direct opposition to the Charging Bull and used key design elements to associate the young girl statue with the Charging Bull. In effect, the Charging Bull has been appropriated and forced to become a necessary element of a new, derivative work: "Fearless Girl: Girl Confronts Charging Bull." This is a direct violation of Mr. Di Modica's copyright.

The Fearless Girl was created for commercial purposes: to advertise SSGA and its SHE fund. Because Fearless Girl incorporates and depends upon Charging Bull, SSGA and McCann New York have commercialized and exploited the Charging Bull. A promotional video released by SSGA, which has since been modified, reveals that from its inception, Fearless Girl was conceived and designed in relation to the Charging Bull: The opening scene of the video shows the artist sketching the young girl, with a picture of the Charging Bull beside her. The final scene of that video, is shot from behind the young girl but facing the Charging Bull. The viewer sees only the head and shoulders of the young girl. In contrast the Charging Bull is revealed in its full glory. That image makes incontrovertible the fact that SSGA and McCann New York created the young girl statue to commercially exploit the iconic status and reputation of the Charging Bull. Similarly, the use and distribution of a photograph of both the young girl and the Charging Bull by SSGA and McCann New York is evidence of the commercial use of not only the statue of the young girl, but also of the Charging Bull. This commercialization of the Charging Bull is also a direct violation of Mr. Di Modica's copyright.

So much bullshit, so little time. Creating an entirely different artwork to act as commentary on the original is not derivative -- and even if you could argue that it was, it would almost certainly be fair use as transformative. In fact, the letter itself admits flat out that this is transformative. It's a self-defeating threat letter. You can't argue that (a) this transforms the work entirely (as the letter does) and then (b) also argue that it's direct infringement. But this letter does exactly that. That seems like really bad lawyering. And, really, what of the original copyright is being copied here? The only two things mentioned are the bronze patina (which is not copyrightable) and the Cobblestone paving of Bowling Green which is not part of Di Modica's work in the first place, since he didn't even place the Bull statue there (that's where the city later moved it).

Finally, the letter also argues that Fearless Girl is trademark infringement, because it was a part of a State Street advertising effort. This part includes a bit of a conspiracy theory about the placement of Fearless Girl:

The placement of Fearless Girl opposite Charging Bull also dilutes the Charging Bull's famous trademark. This is a violation of the Federal Trademark Law as codified at 15 U.S.C. §1125(c).

As discussed above, State Street Global Advisors installed the statue of the young girl in the plaza adjacent to Bowling Green and extended the cobble stone paving into the plaza. Had the statue simply been installed in Bowling Green, the statue would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation. However, because the statue is technically in the plaza, it is now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation. These machinations appear to be an attempt to create a token separation of the young girl statue from the Charging Bull and thereby to circumvent the legal need for Mr. Di Modica's permission to use his Charging Bull.

Or, you know, it was the best place to put the statue to make the point it was making. If you squint, maybe, there's barely some kind of argument that because Fearless Girl "uses" Charging Bull as a sort of component of a kind of advertising campaign, there's a trademark issue -- but, boy, I wouldn't want to be the lawyer who has to defend that argument in court.

Meanwhile, Mayor de Blasio seems to be taking this all in stride:

And now we get to see if this actually goes to court.

Filed Under: arturo di modica, bill de blasio, charging bull, copyright, fearless girl, moral rights, vara, wall st.
Companies: state street

No, Making Fun Of Donald Trump's Stupid Red Hat Isn't Trademark Infringement

from the 99-dumb-red-hats dept

If, like me, you find American presidential politics far more humorously entertaining than anything Adam Sandler has produced in the past decade (at least), you probably already know all about Donald Trump's stupid red hat. This isn't to say anything about Trump's politics, which are also stupid, but the hat he's trotting around with is objectively stupid and if you don't agree, well, you're wrong.
The Trump Mullet: business from the neck down, nationalism up top. As it turns out, other people think Trump's stupid hat is stupid, as well. The Washington Post, for instance, decided to create a page dedicated to making all kinds of hats that want to make all kinds of things great again. And then there is NYC's Mayor Bill de Blasio, who decided to make fun of Trump's stupid hat by wearing his own stupid hat. As you'll hear in that Fox News clip, news commentators are now discussing whether de Blasio's "Make America Fair Again" hat is a trademark violation, because Donald Trump has registered his "Make America Great Again" slogan. It's not just Fox News asking this question. The Daily Caller too has a post about just how close to or over the trademark violation line de Blasio crept with his hat.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio took a jab at Republican front-runner Donald Trump by wearing a red hat bearing the slogan “Make America Fair Again” during an interview Thursday on CNN, but he might have also violated trademark law in the process.

No, actually, he absolutely did not violate trademark law by making fun of Trump's hat with his own hat. There are any number of reasons why this is the case. Essentially, all de Blasio would have to do is shout "Parody!" at anyone discussing this and the conversation is over, as parody is protected under Fair Use. But even beyond that, Trump would have to demonstrate before a court that not only is de Blasio's hat not protected as parody, but that de Blasio is using his hat in commerce in competition with Trump's hat, that the two slogans aren't distinct enough to be easily separated in the mind of a moron in a hurry, and that anyone might be confused into thinking that Trump was behind the "fair" hat. None of those are the case. And, again, parody.

So, no, making fun of Trump's stupid hat isn't even remotely close to a trademark violation. Way to go, news media...

Filed Under: bill de blasio, donal trump, free speech, hat, make america great again, parody, trademark, use in commerce

NYPD Sergeants Assoc. Using Flickr To Publicly Humiliate Homeless To Play Politics With Mayor De Blasio

from the cheap-shots dept

Let's say you're a leader in an association for NYPD sergeants. Now let's say you're, like, super aware of some of the changes and backlash against the NYPD that has occurred recently, chiefly concerning policies for policing the public, charges of racist and violent practices, and the insistance that the city government find ways to keep officers accountable for their actions. You know the city is looking into NYPD officials deleting information on illegal summons quotas. You know of the concern over the fact that the NYPD has pissed off so many black men that black men kind of don't want to join their ranks. And you're especially aware of the trend of greater protections for the public filming police doing their jobs and the crackdown on the crackdown of the photographers. What do you do?

Psshh, start a Flickr account solely for the purpose of poor-shaming the homeless to try and embarrass the Mayor, right?

The Sergeants Benevolent Association is spearheading the effort, emailing a letter to members Monday urging them and their families and friends to take pictures to document the decline of the city.

“As you travel about the city of New York, please utilize your smartphones to photograph the homeless lying in our streets, aggressive panhandlers, people urinating in public or engaging in open-air drug activity, and quality-of-life offenses of every type,” says the letter from SBA President Ed Mullins, a major critic of Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Yes, Mullins (and the ironically named Sergeants Benevolent Association) then takes those photographs and uploads them to its Flickr account, because apparently the best way to make a political point to a political opponent is to publicly shame the least able to defend themselves. Should you not wish to view this material, something for which I wouldn't blame you, the pictures almost uniformly show homeless and vagrant folk in their own misery, often captioned with such wonderfully sympathetic thoughts as "Quality Of Life For The Mayor" and "Peek A Boo" and "Homeless Takeover NYC." The idea of shaming the homeless, who might be homeless for any number of reasons, is deplorable. As are Mullins' excuses for doing so.

Noting that more cops are being recorded on the job, Mullins wrote, “Shouldn’t accountability go both ways? We, the ‘Good Guys,’ are sworn to protect our citizens. Shouldn’t our public officials be held to the same standard?” he said.

Except the two things aren't remotely equivalent. The public photographing the police performing their duties while serving that very same public isn't the same as snapshotting a 3rd party whose lives are already miserable to take political shots against the Mayor. Frankly, these are the kinds of things said by those with head injuries, not those leading a police association. More specifically, Mullins claims this is being done in response to pending city legislation that would require police to obtain permission to search a suspect if they don't have probable cause for an arrest. You know, that thing that's already in the goddamn Constitution? Yeah, that's why he's encouraging police to publicly shame the homeless.

Get a grip, guys...

Filed Under: bill de blasio, homeless, mayor, nyc, nypd, photographs, police, seargents benevolent association, shaming

NYC Mayor De Blasio Realizes His Plan To Kneecap Uber Was A Disaster, Backs Down

from the so-much-for-that dept

Earlier this week, we noted that NY City mayor Bill de Blasio appeared to pick a fight with Uber that he couldn't possibly win. The plan was to create a taxi medallion-like system for car hailing apps like Uber and Lyft, but which would cap the number of such cars that could be on the road. The PR campaign against this effort was tremendous (obviously, some of it pushed by Uber and Lyft -- but much of it by the happy users and drivers on those platforms). De Blasio and his staff apparently believed that there really wasn't popular support for these platforms, which was just wrong. As the negative publicity continued to mount, including having various celebrities weigh in on how stupid the plan was, it appears that de Blasio has backed down and agreed to drop the plan, at least for the time being.

The agreement brings a temporary end to a fractious struggle that had consumed City Hall for several days, and inundated parts of the city with mailers, phone calls, advertisements and even celebrity endorsements.

Under the agreement, according to three people familiar with the agreement, the city will conduct a four-month study on the effect of Uber and other for-hire vehicle operators on the city’s traffic and environment.

To save face, the mayor's office is also claiming that this is a "victory" because Uber agreed to share some data with the mayor's office about usage of the platform. However, this is pretty clearly a victory for Uber, its drivers and the people who use the service. There are some legitimate questions about how these companies operate and what they mean for the cities and residents where they exist, but this move, from the beginning, was clearly about paying back taxi cab companies who had supported de Blasio's election, rather than any legitimate concern for the city.

Filed Under: bill de blasio, car hailing, medallions, nyc, rid sharing, taxis
Companies: lyft, uber

NYC Mayor Picks Fight With Uber That He Cannot Win

from the and-will-lose-big-time dept

NY City Mayor Bill de Blasio has apparently decided to pick a fight with Uber -- a move that has already backfired and appears to be getting worse by the day. He's been pushing a proposal, obviously put together in support of legacy taxicab owners, that would limit the number of such car-hailing drivers allowed in the city. Basically, it would take the ridiculous taxi medallion system and apply it to these new services, limiting supply, keeping prices high and not serving the public very well at all. Uber responded forcefully last week by adding an amusing "de Blasio" feature to its service, showing riders how much longer they'd have to wait for a car if the plan moves forward.

The story is getting more and more attention, and it's becoming clear that this has become personal for de Blasio, for reasons that are unclear. He can't win this fight and it's only making him look worse and worse. Not only that, but he is apparently threatening other "business" groups to "stay out" of the fight, threatening retaliation if they didn't stay away:

Mayor de Blasio bullied business groups to stay out of the Uber debate in the weeks leading up to the City Council vote this week on controversial bills to curtail new licenses for e-hail cars.

Deputy Mayor Tony Shorris called Partnership for New York City’s Kathy Wylde and the Association for a Better New York’s Bill Rudin to alert them to the bills — and to threaten them to stay on the sidelines, sources said.

“Their message is, ‘This isn’t your fight. Stay out of this and we’re not going to bother you,’ ” said a political source familiar with the outreach. The implication was that if the groups defied the mayor, City Hall would “limit your business opportunities,” he said.

Meanwhile, it appears that the out of touch de Blasio and his staff have absolutely no clue how widely Uber is used and how popular it is, insisting that it's just a small group of tech elites who use the service:

City Hall doesn’t buy the notion that Uber is growing fast enough for a cap to disrupt the service.... And the mayor’s circle also doesn’t believe that Uber is broadly popular, or represents anything most New Yorkers care about.

“It’s a boutique side issue,” said a top City Hall ally. “There’s a small set of excited tech people who are reading Mashable and might think the mayor isn’t innovative enough.”

How can one be mayor of New York City and not realize that how people get around the city is a major issue to the public, and that Uber is increasingly one of the preferred ways of getting around. Furthermore, it appears that de Blasio's people are misreading their own data to argue that this cap on drivers makes sense.

And, of course, it's not just the riders that should concern de Blasio, but the many people now making a living as drivers for these various services.

When running for mayor, de Blasio got strong support from the taxi drivers -- and many are seeing this as his repayment of that debt. But, going against what the public wants -- especially when it comes to helping get people around more efficiently -- seems like a huge miscalculation on the part of de Blasio. Even for people who think that Uber's practices are problematic (and this move impacts all the other companies in the space as well...), it's hard to see de Blasio's move as anything but trying to raise prices and limit options for the public for no good reason at all.

Filed Under: bill de blasio, limits, medallions, nyc, on demand, transportation
Companies: lyft, uber

NYPD Union Turns On President Pat Lynch For Using Two Officers' Deaths To Fight A Pointless War With The Mayor

from the every-tragedy-is-an-opportunity dept

Pat Lynch, the president of New York City's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA), has always been a cop's best friend, especially the more questionable ones. In the wake of Eric Garner's death at the hands of an NYPD officer, Lynch was quick to deflect criticism by pointing fingers at the person who captured the incident on video.

The New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the largest union representing NYPD officers, said in a statement that it was “criminals like Mr. Orta who carry illegal firearms who stand to benefit the most by demonizing the good work of police officers.”

Lynch also opposed efforts (supported by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton) that might make his officers more accountable, ignoring evidence collected elsewhere because it didn't agree with his belief that cops shouldn't be watched. Oh, and the real problem is that the city is too quick to hand over money to victims of police misconduct.

We are reserving our decision on body cameras until we see some real evidence of their effectiveness and impact on the officers who carry them. The Public Advocate cites the $152 million that the city spends on lawsuits against police officers but what she fails to say is that the city refuses to fight even the most ridiculous and baseless of the claims. Instead, they settle these ridiculous suits when they should fight everyone of them to conclusion which would effectively put an end to quick buck lawsuits against our officers.

As the situation eroded after the killing of Eric Garner, Lynch continued to support the NYPD's every action. When two officers were killed in their cars by a gunman, Lynch used this tragedy to widen the divide between the police and the policed. During memorial services for the slain cops, attending officers turned their backs on Mayor De Blasio for his daring to suggest his mixed-race son might have more to fear from the city's stop-and-friskers than whites.

Lynch further leveraged this tragedy with his explicit support of the NYPD's "work slowdown." Unfortunately, this non-enforcement of bullshit charges failed to return the city to its murder-a-minute heyday of the 70s and 80s, instead highlighting the fact that only going after more dangerous criminals was actually a fairly good way to police a city.

But even though Lynch has done his most to be a cop's best friend, it's becoming clear that many cops are no longer returning his affections. Union members are finally realizing that Lynch doesn't really serve his members' interests. He only serves himself.

Back in January, a union meeting devolved into shoving matches and screaming as members began to express their displeasure with Lynch's preference for grandstanding, rather than taking care of his officers.

A police union meeting sparked an uproar Tuesday when officers blasted union president Pat Lynch over his demand that Mayor Bill de Blasio apologize to the NYPD, police sources said.

The war of words took place at the end of the two-hour meeting at Antun’s in Queens Village when union delegates from the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association began shouting at Lynch, demanding to know what came out of a recent meeting with the mayor, a law-enforcement source said.

Lynch accused the mayor of having "blood on his hands" after the slaying of two NYPD officers, while refashioning their corpses into his personal pulpit. But his officers don't care whether or not De Blasio apologizes for his statements on the Garner case. What they actually want is what almost all officers want: safety.

The officers at the union meeting wanted answers from Lynch about getting heavier weapons, better bulletproof vests and new patrol cars, the source said.

Lynch values being very publicly right above almost anything else. His officers just want to feel that what happened to two of their own won't happen to them. Lynch not only doesn't care about the rank-and-files' priorities, he's not above using their deaths to further his career.

Critics of Patrick Lynch have accused the fiery union leader of campaigning for reelection on the backs of murdered cops — including the use of a somber photo at a memorial for the slain officers…

The latest controversy stems from a new campaign video showing the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association in uniform at a makeshift memorial honoring Liu and Ramos.

The 1-minute, 4-second video, which a Lynch spokesman said was not authorized by the campaign, begins with a backdrop of stars and the words: “Team Lynch 2015.”

[...]

In one image, Lynch is delicately laying flowers at the foot of the memorial.

“Thousands of cops went to that memorial and he gets his picture taken and uses it,” the delegate said. “ None of the other cops had their pictures taken. Only the politicians . . . so that makes him worse than the politicians.”

"Authorized" or not, it's not making Lynch any more friends in the department, something he kind of needs if he's going to continue to hold this position of power. And as for the authorized aspect of the video, various PBA spokespeople seem to be offering contradictory statements.

The pictures in the video are not meant to elicit the sympathy vote, spokesman Al O’Leary said. “(They are) just the most recent photos available of him in uniform,” he explained.

Why someone from Lynch's camp would feel compelled to defend images from an unauthorized video, much less make statements about the intent of the photos that supposedly weren't picked by Lynch's office, is puzzling. Then there's the fact that the video first surfaced on PBA treasurer Joseph Alejandro's Facebook page, which would at least suggest endorsement of the content. (Which has since been removed for -- of all reasons -- copyright claims by the NY Daily News over images used in the video.)

Whether or not Lynch specifically authorized this video no longer matters. He will suffer the backlash from its publication just the same. He no longer has control of the union and he has really no one else to blame. While the PBA will undoubtedly continue to defend its officers from criticism and accountability, it likely won't be Lynch heading it up. It's the union that isn't, one whose "leadership" cares more about press appearances and political warfare than ensuring its members are better protected and equipped.

At the end of the day, cops (rightly or wrongly) just want to make it home alive. And while Lynch is certainly quick to deploy the unofficial First Rule of Policing in defense of his officers' misconduct, he has no interest in actually backing up his stated concern for officer safety with any practical actions. Lynch's eventual exit will be welcomed, even if his replacement may be the same sort of self-centered political animal. Lynch managed to turn two tragedies into nothing more than a pointless, public shouting match with the Mayor's office that did nothing at all to serve the officers whose wages he receives a cut of.

Filed Under: bill bratton, bill de blasio, nyc, nypd, pat lynch, pba, union

DailyDirt: Tips For Optimal Pizza Eating

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are a lot of different kinds of pizza, and it's a food that is often mentioned here on Techdirt -- often as the example of how giving away free samples can drive greater business. But if you just like to eat pizza, and don't care about any other aspects of the pizza business (or any other business), here are just a few tips for you.

• According to one pizza box aficionado, the best box design for holding a pizza comes from India. The VENTiT pizza box allows steam from a hot pizza to escape without exposing the pizza via big holes in the box and keeps the pizza warm longer. [url]
• If you don't like cold pizza, you should really re-heat your leftover pizza in a skillet. The pizza crust will stay crispy this way, so just forget about using a microwave or toaster oven. [url]
• Don't eat a pizza with a fork and knife in New York City, especially if you're a politician like Mayor Bill de Blasio. The proper way for New Yorkers: "You grab it, you fold it, you eat it, and you walk." (Otherwise, you're a tourist.) [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: bill de blasio, cooking, etiquette, food, pizza, pizza box design, re-heating, utensils

President Of CBS News Knew 'Reporter' John Miller Would Go Back To NYPD Before His 60 Min Propaganda Piece Aired

from the so-why-did-the-piece-still-air dept

So we've already discussed the massively conflicted John Miller, employed by CBS News while clearly being about to take a job in counterterrorism, reporting for 60 Minutes the most amazing pro-NSA propaganda infomercial you can imagine. At the time, the rumors were already swirling that Miller was about to take the job as head of counterterrorism for the NYPD, though he denied it. He also, laughably, insisted that he'd asked hard questions of the NSA, none of which made it to air (assuming he actually did ask hard questions). In response to all of this, Miller insulted his critics as not being real reporters (despite the fact many of them were), and then confirmed the big conflict that most people expected, taking the job that everyone knew he was going to take.

A NY Times piece on Miller notes that the offer to take the job was actually "informally" given to him over dinner with incoming police commissioner (and close friend of Miller) Bill Bratton on December 5th. That's a week and a half before 60 Minutes aired its piece. And, among the "everyone" who knew he was taking the job was... David Rhodes, the President of CBS News.

“As soon as the reports came out that de Blasio” -- Bill de Blasio, the city’s new mayor -- “was thinking of bringing Bratton back, I immediately assumed that John would be going too,” Mr. Rhodes said in an interview. “It was literally the first thing that I thought of.”

And yet... he still allowed Miller's highly conflicted story on the NSA to air. That raises all sorts of questions, especially for CBS News, whose editorial failings over the past few months have received a tremendous amount of attention.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, bill bratton, bill de blasio, cbs news, conflict of interest, david rhodes, john miller, nsa, nypd, propaganda
Companies: cbs

Appeals Court Refuses To Overturn Ruling That Ends Stop And Frisk In NYC [Updated]

from the court-stops-motion,-misses-opportunity-to-thoroughly-Fisk-it dept

[Update: New York defense attorney Scott Greenfield sends over some input on this latest twist in the stop and frisk saga. The situation isn't quite as simple as my post made it appear. While time is running out for the city of New York to battle this ruling before de Blasio steps in, it still has options available that could make this a much tougher battle for opponents of the program.

The motion panel denied summary reversal, but that has zero to do with the appeal. It was just an interim ploy. Whether de Blasio will continue the appeal, drop it or settle the case has yet to be seen. It's awkward for de Blasio, as even if he agrees that the Bloomberg policy is dead wrong, he won't want to give up control to an outside monitor.

But by no means is this a done deal on any end. The only thing denied was summary reversal; everything else remains on the table, so to suggest it's all over is not at all correct. There remains a whole lot left in issue and bad things can still happen. Very bad things.

One of those bad things is this:

There is still plenty of time for the city to get its brief in under Cardozo/Bloomberg arguing for reversal. This will really put the screws to de Blasio, who would not only have to withdraw the appeal, but do so after the city has submitted and the brief is out there for the world to see.

So, this has only deflected one of the many legal arrows Bloomberg's counsel can fire off before he exits office. Bloomberg has defended stop-and-frisk bitterly and obstinately over the years, so there's no reason to believe more last-ditch efforts aren't being made.]

It looks as though time may run out on Mayor Bloomberg and his fight against Judge Scheindlin's stop and frisk decision. Even though the Second Circuit Court (questionably) removed Scheindlin from the case for "appearances of bias and impropriety," it has not allowed New York City to use that as leverage to have her ruling tossed.

A federal appeals panel on Friday denied a request by lawyers for New York that it overturn a judge’s sweeping ruling on the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, all but ending the Bloomberg administration’s ability to legally challenge the ruling.

For the time being, Scheindlin's court-ordered remedies (body cameras, installation of independent oversight) are still on hold while the court waits to hear the city's appeal. The city still has the option to re-file this motion once the appeals process has run its course, but by that time, Bill de Blasio will be the new mayor and he has previously stated his opposition to the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program.

Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for Mr. de Blasio, said the mayor-elect had “been clear: We must move forward on making fundamental reforms to stop-and-frisk. By ending the overuse of this practice, we will make New York safer and begin to repair the relationships between community and police.”

Mayor Bloomberg's intense defense of the questionable program may turn out to be wasted energy. De Blasio could very well decide Scheindlin's ruling is correct and drop the city's appeals.

The vast amount of evidence, much of it collected by the NYPD itself, shows the program resulted in hundreds of thousands of stops of minorities over the last decade, but not much in the way of crime fighting. Despite the constant arguments that it's responsible for the city's declining crime rates, the stop-and-frisk program resulted in very few convictions or confiscated weapons. (This visualization shows just how inefficient the program is at finding guns.)

Considering these two factors, the program looks very much like a form of intimidation -- something that may lead to reduced crime, but that's hardly a solid indicator (or a justification) of its supposed usefulness towards that stated end. All sorts of efforts may lead to reduced crime (warrantless searches, a camera in every house) but the ends don't justify the unconstitutional means, something Bloomberg and police chief Ray Kelly could never seem to wrap their heads around.

Filed Under: bill de blasio, mike bloomberg, nyc, shira scheindlin, stop and frisk