In Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, the first case involving these new provisions, the district court held that traditional defenses to copyright infringement did not apply to some violations of the anti-circumvention provisions. The DMCA and the Reimerdes case is evidence of a paradigm shift in copyright from a legal concept to a technological concept. However, the ruling also brought to the forefront the fact that some courts consider allegedly libelous headlines in context of the accompanying stories while others do not. Take framing, as an example. For states that define public records as those made in connection with public business, disclosing cookies makes intuitive sense and is consistent with the legislative intent of broad access.
Current laws leave courts ill-equipped to rule on the disclosure of cookie files.
The U.S. Supreme Court's requirement that libel plaintiffs show fault on the part of defendants has generated a body of law that examines journalistic conduct. Some see this as a threat to press freedom. After analyzing the responses of journalists to two libel case scenarios, this paper finds that journalists have higher standards for the practice of journalism than those of the Court and that they expect to be held legally accountable for journalistic malpractice but that they are unable to articulate a sense of proper journalistic conduct. This is important because it theoretically keeps the government accountable and allows individuals to access information they might need to knowledgeably vote and participate in the democratic process. However, Congress created nine exemptions to the FOIA, which allow government agencies to withhold information under certain conditions.