This idea, gaining some currency in Europe, would require government to get deeply into the control of privately published information content [Adam Thierer, Scott Greenfield]
{ 2 comments }
Posts tagged as:
online speech
“Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign committee sued the unidentified makers of a video attacking ex-Republican rival Jon Huntsman claiming it falsely implies it was made or endorsed by the Texas congressman.” [Bloomberg] Paul Alan Levy contends that Rep. Paul, a longtime civil liberties advocate, should know better than to advance arguments that would if accepted narrow the legal protections afforded to anonymous political speech.
{ 4 comments }
Brad Plumer in the Washington Post summarizes the provisions of the bill as well as the state of play on it in Congress as of mid-month. Although much commentary has assumed that persons determined to visit blocked sites could readily find ways around the SOPA restrictions, David Post notes that the draft bill authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctions against persons who assist in circumventing the law, which might include websites that publish “here’s how to evade SOPA blocking” information. Timothy Lee at ArsTechnica notes growing opposition to the bill among conservatives, while Joshua Kopstein at Motherboard reviews a comic markup session. Meanwhile, “Gibson Guitar & Others On SOPA Supporters List Say They Never Supported The Bill” [Mike Masnick, TechDirt] Earlier here and here.
{ 3 comments }
The proposed law is being promoted as a way of blocking piratical “rogue” sites, but once it’s up and working, and internet providers have begun automatically blocking sites from a list continually updated by the government, it won’t stop with copyright and trademark infringers. Extending the interdiction to other sorts of sites will be a relatively simple and straightforward matter:
With the legal framework in place, expanding it to cover other conduct — obscenity, defamation, “unfair competition,” patent infringement, publication of classified information, advocacy in support of terror groups — would be a matter of adding a few words to those paragraphs.
How long before a sentimental Congress yields to demands to block suicide- or anorexia-promotion sites, or perhaps those accused of glorifying the taking of illegal drugs or profiting from depictions of animal cruelty? [Julian Sanchez, Cato, more; earlier] More: Stephen DeMaura and David Segal, Roll Call (potential use against political candidates), Bill Wilson (ALG), The Hill, Stanford Law Review, “Don’t Break the Internet”.
{ 8 comments }
My Cato colleague Julian Sanchez argues that a bill rapidly moving through Congress would give far too much power to authorities to close down websites without due process, yet would be readily circumvented by actual IP pirates. More: Sanchez/Cato, BoingBoing, Declan McCullagh (software execs blast proposal), Derek Bambauer/Prawfs (”Six Things Wrong With SOPA”), Stewart Baker/Volokh.
{ 4 comments }
Sighs of relief after a decision in a defamation case (Crooks v. Newton) reported on earlier. [Michael Geist] Justice Abella:
I would conclude that a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers.
Adventurous litigants in U.S. defamation cases have occasionally argued otherwise. On Canada, see also proposals to criminalize links to so-called hate speech.
{ 1 comment }
- Mass torts specialists vs. vendor: “Prominent Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Ordered to Pay Up After Losing Breach of Contract Trial” [Above the Law]
- “You’ll have to get it on the street” — NYC’s thriving black market in pesticides [NYT, more]
- Benjamin Barton on his new book, “The Lawyer-Judge Bias” [Truth on the Market, earlier here, etc.]
- Medicare will not press “secondary payer” liability clawback claims below $300 [Miller and Zois, PoL, NLJ]
- Class action roundup: “Sleeper” Supreme Court case raises question of whether class action certification requires consumer harm [Fisher/Forbes] Important Easterbrook opinion in Aqua Dots case puts curbs on class certification [PoL, Fisher/Forbes, Beck] Frey, Mortenson et al.: “The non-fiction class action” [Trask, OUP blog; earlier here, etc.]
- Free speech roundup: Canada proposal could criminalize linking to alleged hate speech [Hosting Industry Watch] More on Canadian denouncers of speechcrime [Ken at Popehat] You don’t say: “$60,000 Ruling Against Truthful Blogger Tests Limits of the First Amendment” [Citizen Media Law] What happens when a defamation plaintiff asks a court for a takedown order? [same] Argentina: subpoenas step up pressure on reporters, editors who report on economy [NYT via Walter Russell Mead]
- Should the law punish energy companies whose operations kill birds? Depends on whose osprey is being gored [Perry]
{ 2 comments }
Reader Helene G. writes: “I recently joined our local mother’s club, and I received this message. It’s sad that we can’t use the mother’s club forum to report on experiences freely, without risk of being sued”
“Our forums are a great help to many in our moms community. However, we have a very specific guideline relating to negative comments about an individual, company or indeed health clubs.
Specifically, if you’ve had a negative experience with a vendor or individual, you need to use this format below. NO MATTER HOW BAD THE EXPERIENCE.
——-
Message Title: Negative Experience atMessage: I had a negative experience with
. If you are thinking of hiring/using this vendor, please contact me.
——-I’m sorry that in some instances we cannot have more relaxed guidelines, but we have to protect our group. Thanks for understanding.”
(& welcome Elie Mystal/Above the Law readers)
{ 4 comments }
Which is good advice for many other touchy sorts of plaintiffs too, not just for the Thomas M. Cooley Law School of Lansing, Michigan [Mike Masnick, TechDirt, earlier]
{ 4 comments }
Paul Alan Levy reports on the doings of one Florida lawyer who “touts his past presidency of the ‘First Amendment Lawyers Association’” but “is apparently not so keen on the free speech rights of others.” And, also via Levy, a court has vacated the troubling order discussed earlier adopting a weak standard for subpoenas identifying anonymous comments, in a case involving the Façonnable clothing concern.
The story everyone’s talking about: if you wanted a definitive example of the dangers of overbroad “cyber-stalking” statutes, here you go. [WSJ Law Blog, Balko, Volokh, Reason, Popehat]
{ 4 comments }
- Bizarrely overbroad: “Tennessee law bans posting images that ’cause emotional distress’” [Tim Lee, Ars Technica]
- “Superlawyer Stanley Chesley Faces Reckoning Tuesday” [Dan Fisher, Forbes, Cincinnati Enquirer, reporter Jim Hannah, earlier]
- More on record run-up in used car prices [Perry; my Cato take]
- Winkler County, Texas nurses case illuminates evils of prosecution-as-weapon [Texas Observer via PoL; earlier here, here, and here]
- Not a parody: claim that litigious celebs should be doing more to support Litigation Lobby [CJD]
- “Feminism by Treaty: Why CEDAW is Still a Bad Idea” [Christina Sommers, Policy Review]
- Why do agents of so many miscellaneous government agencies pack guns? [Quin Hillyer last year]
- New idea for who to sue over sex scandals [Conan show lawyer ad parody, adult content]
{ 1 comment }
No real prizes for guessing who wrote that.
{ 3 comments }
Some online-speech defenders are alarmed at the readiness with which a Colorado judge agreed to expose the anonymity of Wikipedia contributors in a defamation case brought by the fashion company Façonnable. [Paul Alan Levy via TechDirt; Citizen Media Law]
It has to do with RightHaven: “Why We Won’t Link To Denver Post, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Salt Lake Tribune, and Several Others” [Box Turtle Bulletin]
The First Amendment notwithstanding, wealthy and powerful litigants in this country often exercise the tactical power “to bully those who publicly criticize them into silence by filing frivolous lawsuits that the critics can’t afford to litigate,” with defamation lawsuits being a particularly favored means of such bullying. The majority of states have moved to enact “anti-SLAPP” laws aimed at curtailing this tactical exercise through the application of sanctions or otherwise, but such laws are often quite weak, sometimes applying only, for example, to speech aimed at petitioning the government on public matters. Now Texas lawmakers are considering what would be one of the nation’s strongest laws, protecting “communication made in connection with a matter of public concern” and including statements made in non-public forums, such as emails. The website SLAPPED in Texas has compiled a list of speech-chilling lawsuits in the Lone Star State, including the oft-criticized suit by a real estate developer against author and eminent domain critic Carla Main. [Arthur Bright/Citizen Media Law, Paul Alan Levy/CL&P]
{ 5 comments }
