After Threat of Legal Action Against News Outlet, Alderwoman Eichmann Posts Subscriber-Only Article — Then Deletes It
By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
In early February, Franklin City leadership formally sought authority to issue a cease-and-desist order against an independent news outlet , Franklin Community News (FCN) over alleged “unlicensed” use of the City’s trademark logo.
Two weeks later, Alderwoman Eichmann posted full screenshots of a subscriber-only Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on a government page — effectively bypassing the newspaper’s paywall — and then deleted the post after questions were raised.
The sequence raises more than procedural questions.
It raises constitutional ones.
February 3: Formal Request to Authorize Legal Action
At the February 3, 2026 Common Council meeting, an agenda item titled:
“Unlicensed Use of City of Franklin Trademark Logo”
sought authorization:
“to issue a cease and desist order to the publisher of Franklin Community News…”
The agenda packet asserted that the City is:
“the sole owner of all right, title and interest to its trademarks… The unauthorized use of the City trademark logo(s) should cease and desist.”
The packet included side-by-side depictions of the City’s logo and FCN’s logo .
The item was advanced with the support of Mayor John Nelson, and both Mayor Nelson and Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann advocated during Council discussion for pursuing enforcement action.
Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann made the motion to authorize the Mayor to issue a cease-and-desist order. The motion failed when it did not receive a second.
No cease-and-desist has been issued since.
The Voluntary Redesign
Before the February 3 meeting occurred, FCN voluntarily redesigned its logo.
The updated design:
-
Removed visual similarity to the City’s trademark
-
Adopted a clearly distinct layout
-
Added the tagline:
“Franklin’s ‘Official’ Unofficial News Source”
The redesign occurred prior to Council deliberation and without admission of wrongdoing.
No enforcement followed.
Trademark Law, Fair Use, and the First Amendment
Trademark law protects against consumer confusion — not against criticism.
Use of a government mark within news reporting, commentary, or criticism may fall under nominative fair use principles, particularly where:
-
The use identifies the government entity being reported on.
-
There is no claim of official endorsement.
-
There is no likelihood of confusion as to source.
FCN is clearly branded as an independent news publication. It does not purport and has never purported to be an official City outlet.
Importantly, the First Amendment provides heightened protection to speech concerning government conduct and public officials. Courts consistently recognize that government cannot use regulatory mechanisms — including intellectual property claims — as tools to suppress criticism.
First Amendment Protections for Reporting on Government
Speech concerning public officials and governmental conduct lies at the core of First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that debate on public issues must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Use of a government mark in reporting, commentary, or criticism does not automatically constitute trademark infringement. Trademark law is designed to prevent consumer confusion — not to shield government entities from scrutiny.
When enforcement authority is invoked against a news outlet engaged in reporting on public officials, constitutional safeguards apply.
February 16: Subscriber-Only Article Posted
She wrote:
“For those who may not be able to open the JS link on my prior post, screen shots are below.”
The Journal Sentinel operates under a paid subscription model. The article was behind a paywall.
Posting full screenshots made the article available to non-subscribers.
Unlike the February 3 agenda item, which involved trademark law, this situation implicates copyright — the right to reproduce and distribute protected works.
No public statement has been made indicating that permission was obtained from the Journal Sentinel or the author.
The post was deleted the following day.
No explanation was issued.
No enforcement discussion followed.
Retaliatory Enforcement Doctrine
Courts have long recognized that government action may violate the First Amendment if enforcement mechanisms are used selectively in response to protected speech.
Retaliatory enforcement claims generally require showing:
-
The speaker engaged in protected First Amendment activity.
-
Government officials took adverse action.
-
The action was motivated, at least in part, by the protected speech.
Selective application of laws — including intellectual property enforcement — can constitute unconstitutional retaliation if directed at critics while similar conduct by others is ignored.
Here, an independent news outlet engaged in reporting critical of City leadership was publicly targeted with potential legal action under trademark theory.
Weeks later, an elected official redistributed subscriber-only copyrighted material on an official government page. That conduct was not subject to formal enforcement discussion.
The contrast is stark.
The Pattern Question
This is not about a logo alone.
It is about whether intellectual property law is being invoked consistently — or strategically.
On February 3:
-
Formal agenda item.
-
Proposed cease-and-desist authority.
-
Discussion of removal of prior reporting.
-
Public framing of “unauthorized use.”
On February 16:
-
Subscriber-only copyrighted article posted in full.
-
Paywall effectively bypassed.
-
Post deleted after scrutiny.
-
No formal action.
-
No agenda item.
-
No enforcement rhetoric.
If enforcement standards are invoked only when the target is a critical news outlet, that creates constitutional risk.
Government may not use regulatory authority to chill protected speech.
Editorial: The First Amendment Is Not Optional
Independent reporting on government is not a nuisance. It is not a branding problem. It is not “unauthorized use.”
It is a constitutional right.
When City leadership places a cease-and-desist proposal on a public agenda targeting a news outlet engaged in oversight, that is not a minor administrative act. It signals willingness to use governmental authority against a critic.
When similar intellectual property concerns arise involving City officials themselves — and no comparable enforcement posture is adopted — residents are entitled to ask why.
Intellectual property law cannot be selectively weaponized.
The First Amendment does not permit government to punish critics under the guise of trademark protection.
Transparency requires equal standards.
If enforcement is real, it must be neutral.
If it is selective, it is something else entirely.
The issue is no longer about graphics or screenshots.
It is about whether public authority is being used to protect the public — or to protect those in power from scrutiny.
This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.
Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.
🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.
Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.
Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.
💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.
Comments
Post a Comment