From the Legal Hotline (1-877-NEWS-LAW)
Q. Quick question, our newspaper files an ownership statement with the US Postal Service for a postal permit. We do not mail copies; rather, they are carrier delivered. I’m trying to determine why we’re filing a postal permit. Someone asked if it was due to a requirement to publish legal notices. Any insights?
A. Yes, the periodicals permit currently allows a newspaper to qualify for legals, as it has for many years. So, your papers probably continue to retain the permit for this reason.
Keep in mind, however, that the changes to the law a couple of years ago allows free newspapers to qualify to run legals not only if they have a permit, but also if they meet certain audited audience thresholds. If the audience threshold is met, there is no need for a permit (but it may still be useful to maintain in case the threshold/audit are not met).
Q. We have had a group of people netting fish from the beach near a nearby coastal town. They consistently say they’re not breaking the law, but they are…with bright white lights to take photos and even a show-off ‘holding’ juvenile fish. These guys are consistently out there…they’re out several nights per week.
Here is the thing…the most recent picture is posted to a Facebook group with many members however, I did crop out just the one pic (not showing all of them). I don’t want to say where we got the photo, but it has a young person in it. Can we run this photo? The next photo is of a youngster holding a juvenile gamefish–also, illegal. But this is from the person’s personal FB page. I am assuming we cannot run that without that person’s permission. What do you think?
A. I agree that the first photo (from the FB group with many members) is probably safer to use. Both photos are covered by copyright, but it is extremely unlikely that either photographer has or will register the copyright (meaning they cannot sue for copyright infringement). There is also a fair use argument that can be made regarding both photos, particularly if they are cropped by the paper.
I ran this by Jim McGuire in Tampa who helps us with defamation/copyright issues. He thinks the paper needs to be careful about stating that these people are breaking the law. That could be a defamatory statement and could be false. If the paper wants to discuss the legality of what is happening, it might be best to quote a lawyer or other source, speaking hypothetically, and saying something like: “If people are out there, without a license, and are catching gamefish that are protected by [blah blah blah] law, then their conduct could be illegal . . .” It’s probably better for the paper to say that people in the community are raising questions about what is happening, rather than asserting that the conduct is indisputably illegal.
Q. Do you know of any Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business (SDVOB) advertising agencies in Florida? One of our clients is looking for an SDVOB certified agency with which to partner, primarily for media buying.
A. No, I don’t but there is a Fla. veteran certified business directory that might be helpful.
Looks like after you pull up the general list of vendors (20,000 or so) you can limit the search to just veterans which results in 1596 entries.
See– https://vendor.myfloridamarketplace.com/search/vendor Here’s another site–
https://avosba.org/avoba-membership/service-disabled-veteran-owned-businesses-by-state/
Q. Sorry to bother you with this, but I trust your input. We have a crazy political season going on down here, with three lawsuits already and enough mudslinging to host a mud run. One of the candidates – who is a local city office head—released the following on Facebook regarding our state house race. He has given a supporter (of one of the candidates) permission to run it in our paper, of course as a paid political ad from the private individual. It’s pretty aggressive, and I have a worry about us getting drawn into a legal situation over becoming a part of the distribution of this kind of stuff. We rarely turn down ads, but I don’t know about this one. The supporter wanting to pay for it is kind of a loose cannon. I’m specifically worried about calling someone ‘corrupt’ in print when no laws have technically been broken at this point. Any advice? Here it is–
“In life, all we have is our integrity and honor. I have tried to live my life with those two important principles in mind. That’s why I feel compelled to speak out about the local house campaign. When I look at the candidates, one stands out, and sadly not in a good way. I’m talking about Joe Blow. I simply cannot support someone who puts the selfish interests of a small, “select”, politically corrupt group before our county residents. Joe Blow’s values aren’t our county’s values. Integrity and morals matter in public office. I encourage everyone to do their own research because there are 3 other good candidates to support in the district. These candidates might differ in approach but all have our beloved community at heart. Every election is important and this one has a big local impact so please remember to do your homework and vote in the Republican Primary this August. Restoring Honor to public service!!”
A. I see your point about use of “corrupt” but on the other hand it could be viewed as more of an opinion than a fact. It’s one of those gray area words. One court might call it opinion, another fact. So, there is some risk in using that term.
We asked Jim McGuire to weigh in, and he notes that while the sentence uses “corrupt,” it says the candidate is putting the interests of a “small, select, politically corrupt group” ahead of others, rather than calling the candidate herself “corrupt.” Would it be clear to readers who the members of this group are? If it is a large group, or not really clear who this refers to, then it arguably is not “of and concerning” any identifiable individuals, and thus not defamatory of any individuals.
The safest route is not to publish, of course. Plus, you cannot prevent someone from suing you even if the claim is baseless. But I don’t think this is black and white – it really is a gray area problem, and the paper’s risk tolerance probably dictates the outcome.
Q. What is the latest on advertising sports betting such as online casinos?
A. In the past, we have recommended against accepting advertising in Florida that promotes online casinos (with the caveat that there is some room to accept “sponsored ads” from online gaming and review sites). This recommendation, however, has recently changed due to federal appellate cases reviewing the matter allowing terms of the Seminole Tribe gambling compact to go into effect. As a result, our current view is that it is probably okay to accept such advertising, provided it is for sports betting associated with the Seminole Tribe, so long as there is no contrary activity by the federal courts.
Further, regarding the Seminole Tribe, it recently reached an agreement with some companies to allow them to offer jai-alai betting on the Hard Rock Bets app. So ultimately, again, the status essentially remains the same – only legal sports betting is through the Seminole Tribe.
Here is an article with an update in the sports betting litigation saga:
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2024/10/28/seminole-tribe-settles-legal-challenges-to-online-sports-gambling-exclusivity-in-florida/