Louisville Courier-Journal v. NCAA

That looks like a cstv production. I think they and ESPN have the rights.

 

Seems to me the intent was to publish a blog. The blog could still be published without being in the press box and include the exact same content, which would show that the C-J was not going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to. And then the C-J could further the battle afterwards.

And if Bennett needed to just try to walk back into the locker rooms/press conference area; work his way onto the field after the game; interview players after the game in the parking lot, in the stands, in their hotel rooms, by cell phone, however, after his credentials were revoked, then he could have done what he needed to do.

Whatever happened to the days when reporters went all out to get the story rather than meekly submit to whatever the PR guys decide? Sure, make a big deal about the credential revokation afterwards. But stick it to them in the meantime by still getting your story.

 

So continuing to blog after being told not to is "meekly submitting?"

Interesting.

 

Agree.

 

Not finding other ways available to blog, such as going to a place across the street with wireless and blogging off the TV broadcast since all that was being written was play by play anyway, going into the stands and trying to leach a wireless signal, or calling into your paper and dictating blog entries, is meekly submitting.

 

TSP,

Maybe Rosa Parks should have kept her head down while riding in the front of the bus, that way no one may have noticed she was black and everything would have been cool.

 

Huh? Makes no sense.

The guy could have gone about blogging and the story of being kicked out of the press box and having credentials revoked remains the same. The paper could have run with the exact same story about it. They could fight it the exact same way.

 

One question.

were blogs prohibited in the press box or the whole place? If so, couldn't they find Bennett anywhere in the stadium and kick him out? I would seriously doubt he would go the bar across the street or whatever and blog.

And sportspredicitor, you;re assuming every place "across the street" would have wirelss internet. I would love to see a place neat Jim Patterson Stadium where Bennett could have gone, watched the game and blogged.

Meely submitting? Come on. He didn't submit, he got kicked out.

 

My point is that there is a big difference between getting around a rule and forcing an issue. If the writer did what you say, no one would know anything about it.

As it stands, perhaps the result will be that the NCAA will realize it can't prevent writers from blogging and it will benefit everyone.

 

Did someone actually invoke Rosa Parks' name in this thread? Just making sure I wasn't hallucinating.

 

I know nothing about the area. I don't know where he could have gone. It's merely an option ton consider. However, if he could not have gone anywhere, he could have tried going into the stadium as a fan and, it unable to get wireless access in there, phoned in his blog entries. This is ONLY if the blog was important enough for the C-J to continue with despite not having pressbox access. They may have determined it was not important enough, since it was indeed merely a presentation of play-by-play available through many other sources.

 

What if, instead of a "blog," something happened in the game that the C-J decided it was about to report in a hard news format? Say some kid streaked across the field and delayed the fifth inning for 5 minutes before police caught him. Is breaking news allowed, or is that property of ESPN too? I see an interesting grey area there.

And if blogging was really the issue, couldn't the NCAA go after the originator of the web site with litigation regardless of whether the blogger was a credential-carrying reporter or some hack miles away?