• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | Prosecutors Oppose Expanded Release For John Hinckley »

November 09, 2011



A reality TV show that isn't real? Go figure. I feel the companies pain because it could potentially cripple their business, but that's how all these shows get rating and they should have known better.


If the contract really says that Janus gets the right to remove negative material, I'd be surprised.

But it would trump the whole First Amendment issue of "prior restraint" of free speech as unconstitutional. A breach of contract claim, where Janus had agreed to such removals, just means that prior restraint puts the parties where they'd agreed to be.


Sounds like a lesson in the difference between "reality TV" and "documentaries." I get the feeling that the vagueness of "portray negatively" would be difficult to prove in court, especially because it's Nat Geo's job to create a sense of drama (out of a show about rocks?).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad