High court rules trade secret law unconstitutional: judge's order using law to restrain publication voided

Article Abstract:

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled in Oregon ex rel. Sports Management News, Inc. v. Nachtigal that a state trade secret law that restricted printing or writing about an alleged trade secret was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The Court found that a trial court order enforcing this provision was also an unconstitutional prior restraint. The plaintiff's newsletter, Sporting Goods Intelligence, had reported on design changes planned for shoes sold by Adidas America. The Court found that publication of lawfully obtained information by the newsletter could not be restricted by statute.

Publisher: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Publication Name: News Media & the Law
Subject: Literature/writing
ISSN: 0149-0737
Year: 1996
Trade secrets, Media coverage, Oregon, Sporting Goods Intelligence (Periodical)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA

Texas high court strikes down gag orders

Article Abstract:

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled in two cases that gag orders preventing parties and attorneys from speaking to the press will almost always be unconstitutional in the state. In Davenport v Garcia, the court ruled that the Texas constitutional guarantee of free speech is broader than the US Constitution and, therefore, gag orders are presumed to be unconstitutional unless extraordinary circumstances can be shown. In Star-Telegram v Walker, the court allowed a rape victim's name to be published, since her name had already become public, citing Davenport as precedent.

Publisher: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Publication Name: News Media & the Law
Subject: Literature/writing
ISSN: 0149-0737
Year: 1992
Gag orders

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA

State high court upholds prior restraint on videotaped talks

Article Abstract:

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruling stated the media could not publicly distribute information from a videotape that recorded a confidential conversation between an attorney and an accused murderer. The Court held prior restraint outweighed a news agency's right to disseminate information. The Court also held the trial court had a right to authority over its proceedings. The (Columbia) State newspaper argued it had a right to print information because it was not a party to proceedings.

Publisher: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Publication Name: News Media & the Law
Subject: Literature/writing
ISSN: 0149-0737
Year: 1998
South Carolina

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Freedom of the press, Prior restraint
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.