Technology and the explosion of social networking sites are changing the paradigm of how and when we communicate with each other. Facebook, YouTube and the most recent craze, Twitter, together with rapidly improving camera/video cellular phone technology, allow instant communication to thousands of people. Communication that includes pictures and video, as well as text.

The potential uses for these expanding media are seemingly endless. The question is -- is that a good thing?

Last month, I was summoned to jury duty in a not-so-desirable area of Los Angeles County. I was happy to serve and fulfill my obligation. For a trial lawyer, serving on a jury -- and even just appearing for jury duty and being a part of a jury pool -- is educational. However, some people seemingly will go to great lengths to avoid jury service.

The following is my rant on what I observed some people are willing to do to avoid serving on a jury.

Jackson Browne's 1977 iconic song "Running on Empty" is the focal point of a federal court lawsuit which highlights the tension between the First Amendment's strong protection for political speech and the rights of an artist to control his work. Browne sued the Republican National Committee (RNC), Senator John McCain and the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) because the ORP used "Running on Empty" in a web ad during the 2008 presidential campaign without Browne's permission. Browne, a well known activist who favors liberal causes and candidates, sued.

Here's the video of my appearance this afternoon on the "Kababayan LA" television show on KCSI-TV 18 in Los Angeles hosted by the lovely Jannelle So.

The Philippine American Bar Association of Los Angeles (PABA) and the PABA Foundation have confirmed that Manny "PacMan" Pacquiao will be attending the organizations' annual installation dinner and personally accept the PABA Foundation's 2009 Kababayan Award. The Kababayan Award honors those Filipinos who inspire others through their accomplishments and service to the Filipino community. Manny's success in the ring, as well as his lesser known philanthropic efforts, have inspired millions of Filipinos and others worldwide.

Also receiving awards from PABA will be California State Bar President Holly Fujie (Distinguished Advocate for Diversity Award), Assemblyman Warren Furutani (Distinguished Community Service Award) and Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley (Distinguished Leadership Award).

Pacquiao, Fujie, Furutani, and Cooley will receive their awards at the 2009 PABA Installation and PABA Foundation Awards Dinner, to be held at the Beverly Hills Hotel and Bungalows in Beverly Hills, California, on March 11, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. Channel 7 Eyewitness News (ABC) Health Specialist Denise Dador will be the emcee.

Although PABA is increasing capacity for the event, seating remains limited. The event invitation, with RSVP form, can be downloaded here. RSVP forms should be submitted immediately to incoming PABA President-Elect Angeli Aragon via e-mail (aaragon@hinshawlaw.com) or fax (310) 909-8001. Individuals responding on or after March 6, 2009 should bring checks for their admission on the night of the event, payable to “PABA Foundation.”

The manner in which we view television programs has changed. The advent of digital video recorders like Tivo means that viewers are regularly "copying" content. While copying for personal use has been upheld by the courts, new technologies allowing cable companies to provide digital video recorders from a remote, central location have given rise to a number of cases across the country.

In August 2008, the Second Circuit considered the issue of whether such a "remote digital recorder" violated content providers' copyrights. That court reversed a ruling in the Southern District of New York and held that these remote DVRs did not infringe upon the providers' rights. However, just last month, the United States Supreme Court requested the government to weigh in on the issue -- requesting that the Solicitor General submit a brief to express the government's view of the law.

Should content providers really be complaining about a DVR system which appears to be more secure against piracy? Stay tuned to see if your cable's DVR will be upheld to be legal.

In my prior post about protecting celebrities and their reputation, I commented on the defamation lawsuit that Roger Clemens brought against his former trainer, Brian McNamee. Clemens sued McNamee over McNamee's statements to investigators led by former Senator George Mitchell, as revealed in the infamous "Mitchell Report" concerning drug use in Major League Baseball, as well as statements McNamee made to Clemens' friend and Yankee teammate Andy Pettitte. As I previously wrote, a defamation lawsuit is a legitimate aggressive course of action to pursue -- but one which requires complete assurance that the factual and legal grounds of the case is solid, not just an expensive PR gambit.

On February 12, a federal judge in Houston dismissed the majority of Clemens' case against McNamee. Given the many embarrassing facts about Clemens' character and reputation that have been revealed, and now the order which effectively guts Clemens' case, the Clemens lawsuit is another example of that aggressive strategy gone awry.

In my recent post about protecting your reputation, I alluded to the recent trend of filing defamation (libel) cases in the UK because of that country's less restrictive burdens of proof. Lance Armstrong filed such a case over reports in the European press alleging that he used performance enhancing steroids during his incredible cycling career.

It's one thing for a celeb like Armstrong to sue the European press in the UK over a story. The problem comes when libel defendants in the US, who may not have the resources to defend themselves, are sued in the UK.

Here comes the US Congress to the rescue.

The fight over the rights to "Push: Based on the novel by Sapphire" reflects the same battle that has been fought time and again in Hollywood: when is a deal considered a deal. "Push" was the undisputed darling of the Sundance Film Festival last month. The film built up a steady buzz during the festival week. "Push" ultimately garnered the festival's US grand jury and audience prizes. And now, "Push" has spawned dueling lawsuits in New York and Los Angeles filed by the two suitors for North American distribution rights, The Weinstein Company (TWC) and Lionsgate.

So who knew that this drama -- about an illiterate African American teen in late '80s Harlem who is pregnant by her own father and abused by her mother -- could cause such a legal ruckus?

I am the President and CEO of the PABA Foundation and on the Board of Governors of the Philippine American Bar Association. This is a fun evening in which we pay homage to our heritage while honoring leaders of our community. We need and welcome your support. Please RSVP by downloading the formal invitation here. Hope to see you there.

The task of protecting celebrities from public humiliation is difficult and complex. In a recent post, I discussed strategies to protect celebrities and, in particular, the need to be absolutely sure about the true facts before embarking upon aggressive response strategies. Recent revelations about the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball illustrate the problems for celebrities facing scandalous allegations.

The way different players handle these difficult issues can provide lessons on how to deal with such accusations against any celeb.

The defamation lawsuit filed by University of Mississippi head basketball coach, Andy Kennedy, has taken some interesting twists. Kennedy was arrested on December 18, 2008 after allegedly punching a cab driver in the face and using ethnic slurs outside a Cincinnati nightclub. A valet attendant supported the cabbie's claims in a police report. The next day, Kennedy filed a defamation lawsuit against both the driver and valet.

As I previously wrote, filing a "preemptive" defamation lawsuit can be a valid, aggressive response in order to false accusations. However, the Kennedy case illustrates the kind of unintended consequences that may result when a lawsuit is brought so quickly after an incident.

The Daily Variety reported yesterday that entertainment lawyer, Barry Hirsch, has been sued by the trust of the late writer-director, Collin Higgins, for malpractice. You can find the Variety story here.

According to the report, the Higgins trust sued Hirsch on January 14 for malpractice and conflicts of interest over Hirsch's representation of Higgins on his deal with Fox to rewrite the screenplay for the film "9 to 5" in 1979. Fox hired Higgins to rewrite Patricia Resnick's original screenplay for that picture.However, Resnick later wrote a stage musical based on "9 to 5" -- and Hirsch supposedly represented her in that endeavor.

That did not sit well with the Higgins trust.

It's been said that "a good reputation is more valuable than money." When it comes to celebrities -- and most recently sports figures -- reputation is both valuable and easily tarnished. In this electronic age, damaging information can circulate instantly through cyberspace. Rumor quickly becomes generally accepted fact. Pictures can go "viral" and disseminated to millions at the speed of light. Once established, public perception becomes very difficult if not impossible to change.

So what can be done to protect a celeb's privacy and reputation -- and at what cost?