- Boilermaker union president resorts to litigation against satirical site [Levy; another case on demands for disclosure of anonymous commenters] More on ghastly NY bill to strip protection from anonymous online speech [David Kravets/Wired, Daily Caller, my take]
- Defending people like Aaron Worthing and Patterico shouldn’t be a left-right matter [Popehat, Tapscott/Examiner, earlier] Maryland and indeed all states need stronger statutory protection against vexatious litigants [Ace of Spades] And as a longtime Charles Schwab customer I was at first distressed to find the Schwab Charitable Fund on this list, but since the fund is billed as “donor-advised” I take it some Schwab customer rather than the company itself got to choose the beneficiary;
- “Indonesia Prosecution for Posting ‘God Doesn’t Exist’ on Facebook” [Volokh] Curious to see an argument for Euro-style hate speech laws appearing on the Liberty and Law site [David Conway]
- “Cyberbullying and Bullying Used As Pretexts for Censorship” [Bader]
- “EEOC: Wearing Confederate Flag T-Shirts May Be ‘Hostile Work Environment Harassment’” [Volokh, more, Bader]
- Video on new freedom of assembly book [FedSoc]
- Maybe Citizens United turned out so badly for the speech-suppressive side because a government lawyer was imprudently candid before the Court [Jacob Sullum, earlier on Toobin New Yorker piece]
Tagged as:
bullying,
campaign regulation,
EEOC,
hate speech,
hostile environment,
libel slander and defamation,
Maryland,
online speech,
serial litigants
More than two dozen members of the New York state assembly, including nearly half its GOP members, have signed on to a flagrantly unconstitutional bill that would empower complainants to force the takedown of anonymous online speech by claiming to have been victimized by it. To avoid takedown, the website sponsor would have to disclose information about the authorship of the supposedly offensive post including the writer’s name and home address. Eugene Volokh:
Nor would this be limited to comments that allegedly libel someone, or even insult someone (though that would be bad enough), despite all the talk of preventing cyber-bullying by the bill’s backers. Rather, the law would apply any time anyone makes a “request” that a comment be removed, even if the comment doesn’t mention anyone by name but is simply religiously or politically offensive to the “request[er].” The same would apply to anonymous material added to Wikipedia, if Wikipedia were found to be subject to New York jurisdiction, anonymous videos posted to YouTube, and so on.
The sponsors of the bill claim that it is part of a legislative effort against “cyber-bullying.” Scott Greenfield’s post has the best headline: “New York to Publius: You’re Done, Bully-Boy.” Related on “cyber-bullying” here (& welcome Above the Law readers).
Tagged as:
bullying,
New York state,
online speech
- Keeping prosecutors busy? Georgia lawmaker files bill that would make Internet defamation a crime [Fulton County Daily Report]
- Sarkozy calls for law banning visits to pro-terror websites [Ken Paulson, First Amendment Center]
- “Ron Paul Campaign Drops Effort To Identify Anonymous Videographer” [Paul Alan Levy]
- Playboy caused how many divorces? Junk science in the service of big-government conservatism [Andrew Stuttaford, NRO] How Santorum’s plans to get porn off internet go beyond GWB’s [Josh Barro] Contra Santorum, “arrival of Internet was associated with reduction in rape incidence” [Steve Chapman]
- “Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal File An Anti-SLAPP Motion Against Andrew Wakefield” [Popehat]
- Iowa passes law penalizing animal rightsers who spy on farms [Reuters, earlier] Illinois turns thumbs down on “ag-gag” proposal [Steve Chapman]
- “What’s happened to free speech in Britain?” [Alex Massie, John O'Sullivan/NRO, earlier here and others]
Tagged as:
animal rights,
France,
free speech,
Iowa,
libel slander and defamation,
online speech,
Ron Paul,
terrorism,
United Kingdom
Despite protests from online entities based abroad, “the U.S. government … says it has the right to seize any .com, .net and .org domain name because the companies that have the contracts to administer them are based on United States soil, according to Nicole Navas, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman.” Unease abroad about aggressive use of such powers by the American government could heighten pressure for a U.N. takeover of the domain name system, potentially a frying-pan-into-fire move from the standpoint of web freedom and due process. [David Kravets, Wired "Threat Level"]
P.S. Extradition, too.
Tagged as:
online speech,
United Nations
“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.
Tagged as:
campaign regulation,
movies film and videos,
online speech,
Ron Paul
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.
Tagged as:
copyright,
online speech,
RIAA and file sharing
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”.
Tagged as:
copyright,
free speech,
online speech,
trademarks
- “Stamp Out Online Misogyny?” [Wendy Kaminer, Brendan O'Neill]
- Jacob Mchangama of Danish think tank CEPOS on blasphemy laws and Islam-critical speech [Nov. 4 FedSoc., PDF]
- Niall Ferguson to sue LRB scribe? “If he won’t apologise for calling me a racist, I will persecute him until he does” [Guardian; more, Atlantic Wire] New York judge quashes subpoena seeking to identify anonymous bloggers in rabbi-defamation suit [Paul Alan Levy]
- “If bullying has gone down, how can it be a pandemic?” By broadening its definition to include such behaviors as “eye-rolling” and pointed non-invitation [Hans Bader/Examiner, Neal McCluskey/Cato]
- “I strongly recommend an umbrella policy for all bloggers. Defending myself cost nearly $100,000, thankfully paid by insurance.” [@DianaHsieh]
- Federal crime under CFAA to lie on the internet? [Kerr, more, yet more, Balko]
- “Will Canada Repeal its Hate Speech Law?” [Peter Worthington, Frum Forum]
Tagged as:
bullying,
free speech,
free speech in Canada,
hate speech,
libel slander and defamation,
online speech
- 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]
Tagged as:
class actions,
free speech,
free speech in Canada,
hate speech,
Medicare,
NYC,
oil industry,
online speech,
pesticides
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 at
Message: 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)
Tagged as:
libel slander and defamation,
online speech
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.
Tagged as:
online speech
- 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]
Tagged as:
autos,
emotional distress,
international human rights,
Kentucky fen-phen settlement fraud,
litigation lobby,
online speech,
Stan Chesley,
Tennessee
