1,383,853 @ 7:27 am all-time page views
116,147 to one and a half million page views
Lungo-Koehn, a lawyer, could use previous lawsuits to expose Muccini-Burke. I will be doing this in court regardless of what Breanna does, but it is a very good idea for her to show her legal skills and how her wisdom is better for Medford than Muccini-Burke's weak accounting skills. Point that weakness out on the campaign trail: Muccini-Burke - Accountant who Accounts for Nothing.
116,147 to one and a half million page views
Lungo-Koehn, a lawyer, could use previous lawsuits to expose Muccini-Burke. I will be doing this in court regardless of what Breanna does, but it is a very good idea for her to show her legal skills and how her wisdom is better for Medford than Muccini-Burke's weak accounting skills. Point that weakness out on the campaign trail: Muccini-Burke - Accountant who Accounts for Nothing.
Demarest v. Athol/Orange Community Television, 188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2002)
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts - 188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2002)
February 28, 2002
188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (2002)
PATRICIA DEMAREST AND VICKI DUNN, PLAINTIFFS,
V.
ATHOL/ORANGE COMMUNITY TELEVISION, INC., ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.
No. Civ.A.01-30129-MAP.
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.
February 28, 2002.
*83 Harris Freeman, William Newman, American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Northampton, MA, for plaintiffs.
Peter J. Epstein, Boston, MA, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCKET NO. 2)
PONSOR, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiffs Patricia Demarest ("Demarest") and Vicki Dunn ("Dunn") (together, "plaintiffs") produced a show called "Think Tank 2000," which aired on a local public access cable television station, Athol *84 Orange Television, Inc.[1] Think Tank 2000 concerned itself with issues of local concern, and some of its broadcasts focused on the behavior of local officials in Athol, Massachusetts. In particular, Demarest criticized one local official as having a conflict of interest, and camped outside another local official's home, broadcasting a segment in which she accused him of using his position to get special treatment. When these officials complained to defendants, AOTV suspended Demarest for thirty days from using AOTV facilities and revised its Policies and Procedures Manual.
The suspension and the revised AOTV Policies and Procedures Manual (the "Revised Manual") brought plaintiffs to this court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs contend that suspending Demarest violated the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and § 531 of 47 U.S.C. §§ 522 et seq. (the "Cable Act"), and that certain provisions of the Revised Manual are in violation of the First Amendment or the Cable Act. Plaintiffs also argue that AOTV has violated Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. They have filed a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief.
For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction will be allowed as to three of the four disputed provisions: (1) the provision that requires release forms from all people that appear in AOTV broadcasts, (2) the provision that prohibits the recording of any illegal act, and (3) the provision that requires producers to indemnify AOTV for legal fees. The motion will be denied as to the provision that requires producers to notify AOTV when a broadcast contains material that is "potentially offensive." Plaintiffs' request that AOTV be enjoined from using Demarest's thirty-day suspension as grounds for further discipline or curtailment of her use of AOTV equipment or facilities will be allowed.
