Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘online speech’

Update: CAIR using litigation to silence critics?

The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has settled its Canadian lawsuit against the Web site Anti-Cair-net.org, the Canadian terrorism expert David Harris, writer David Frum, and the National Post. The settlement is secret, but there was no retraction of the claim that CAIR is a “terrorist-supporting front organization . . .founded by Hamas supporters” that aims “to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States.” David Frum has details in the April 25 National Post, and expresses optimism that free criticism of terrorism supporters can now take place.

Update: As Bob B points out in the comments, elsewhere in the blogosphere, Israpundit, LGF, and Powerline. Daniel Pipes also writes with extensive detail. It reasonably appears CAIR dropped the suit, to avoid submitting to discovery: an important lesson for every libel plaintiff. Three cheers for Greenberg Traurig LLP, which did pro bono work that was actually pro bono.

Filed under: , , , ,

No more anonymous commenting

…if a New Jersey legislator gets his way. (Reason “Hit and Run”, Mar. 7). The idea is to make sure legal remedies are available “to persons injured by false or defamatory messages posted on public forum websites”. More: Michael Krauss. Update May 9: the legislator is reportedly going to withdraw the bill, following a storm of online criticism (via Reynolds).

Filed under: , ,

Suing Craigslist — with your money

The federal taxpayer, by way of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, funnels substantial sums to private “fair housing” advocacy groups for purposes of suing landlords, newspapers, and other likely suspects over alleged housing discrimination; raising consciousness among potential claimants and others; and generally promoting expansive readings of housing-bias law. For example, in this listing of $20 million worth of fiscal 2002 grants, HUD boasts of bestowing $242,339 on the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. for something called its Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI), described as follows:

While addressing the needs of minorities in the metropolitan Chicago area, the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights will increase awareness of fair housing rights; empower victims to report incidents of discrimination; develop credible, legitimate evidence to support discrimination complaints; increase the number of complaints referred to HUD for enforcement; and provide relief to discrimination victims. Utilizing access to pro bono attorneys from Chicago’s most prominent law firms, as well as their resources, the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee will receive, document, and investigate individual complaints of discrimination.

If the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee sounds vaguely familiar, it’s probably because it’s the group that last month filed a widely criticized lawsuit against Craigslist (Feb. 9, Feb. 20) seeking to force the online service to pre-censor users’ postings of roommate and other housing classifieds (rather than just pull them off after complaints, as now).

Even if the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee suit fails in court — as is widely expected — the controversy is likely to continue. In yesterday’s New York Times, Adam Liptak says the activists are likely to push for federal legislation stripping website operators of their current protection against being held liable for users’ postings. (“The Ads Discriminate, but Does the Web?”, Mar. 5). Don’t assume that “fair housing” advocates are powerless on Capitol Hill these days, either: at one set of hearings last week, all the witnesses called (including this one (PDF), quoted in the Times piece) were there to speak up for expansive enforcement of the law, with nary a dissenting word about any possible competing values at stake. More: Maggie’s Farm.

Filed under: , , , , , ,

United Farm Workers’ libel-suit threats

The United Farm Workers, the agricultural labor union that rose to prominence under the leadership of the late Cesar Chavez with the support of countless Sixties idealists, has recently been the subject of unflattering coverage in the Los Angeles Times, Bakersfield Californian and L.A. Weekly, among other places. Now journalist Marc Cooper, who wrote the L.A. Weekly piece, says the union has sent him a demand that he retract or correct his piece on pain of being sued. Cooper says the L.A. Times and Bakersfield papers have received similar threats. “Even some lonely bloggers who have recently written about the UFW have been contacted by the union or its hired PR agents and directly warned not to continue criticizing it.” (Marc Cooper, “Gag Me With a Grape”, L.A. Weekly, Feb. 8; Cooper blog entry and comments, Feb. 8) (via Romenesko). The UFW’s side of the underlying controversies is here.

Filed under: , , , ,

“Fair housing” suit against Craigslist

“The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law sued San Francisco-based Craigslist, claiming that during a six-month period beginning in July, the site ran more than 100 ads in Chicago that violated the federal Fair Housing Act. The committee, a public interest consortium of the city’s leading law firms, said in a federal suit that those ads discriminated on race, religion, sex, family status or national origin.” Craigslist does not screen ads in advance, although it gives readers a way to flag unlawful or inappropriate content for possible removal. According to the complaint (Chicago Lawyers Committee v. Craigslist, PDF format), some of the rental ads carried such damning indicators of putative bigotry as “Perfect place for city single” (unfair to families of eight!) and “very quiet street opposite church” (trying to screen out atheists, are you?), and many are plainly for roommate shares or other live-in situations. Paging David Bernstein! (Mike Hughlett, “Craigslist sued over housing ad bias”, Chicago Tribune/Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Feb. 8)(via Reynolds). Eric Goldman says a similar earlier suit against Roommate.com did not fare well (Feb. 8). For more on the issue of “discrimination” in roommate selection, see Jul. 10-11, 2002; for more on such complaints against Craigslist, see Aug. 10, 2005. (& welcome Instapundit readers).

P.S. As requested, David Bernstein weighs in (Feb. 9), as does Eugene Volokh.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Target sued: website not accessible to blind

Per the WSJ Law Blog (Feb. 7): The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), represented by Berkeley’s Disability Rights Advocates as well as two law firms, has sued discounter Target, alleging that it violates California disabled-rights law because its website is not operable by blind computer users. “The suit charges that the site lacks, for instance, compliant alt-text, an invisible code embedded beneath graphics that allows blind users to decipher images. The suit also contends that because the Web site requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, blind customers are unable to make purchases on their own.” As longterm readers of this site know, demands for website accessibility under the ADA and similar laws have been simmering for years; in 2002 a federal court turned down such a claim with respect to Southwest Airlines’ website, and two years ago (Jan. 8, 2004) a NFB activist said disability advocates were biding their time, waiting for the right case to reopen the issue. It sounds as if the Target lawsuit may be that case. (& welcome readers of John Dvorak, who calls us “the always entertaining Overlawyered.com”).

More: at WebStandards.org, one enthusiast for the lawsuit says that it also calls into question the practices of Amazon.com, whose shopping engine, according to this commentator, powers the Target site. As I discovered when I started writing on this subject six years ago, many advocates of “web accessibility” seem quite surprised to learn that anyone actually disagrees with them on the merits of the matter, as opposed to just not being well enough informed about it. And: coverage in Law.com’s Recorder (Matthew Hirsch, “Suit Alleges Target Denies Blind Access to Online Shopping”, Feb. 14).

Filed under: , , ,

Phila. judge: no right to anonymous online disparagement

Watch what you say about lawyers (and everyone else), cont’d: a “Philadelphia judge has ruled that a valid defamation claim trumps any right to speak anonymously on the Internet….Common Pleas Judge Albert W. Sheppard Jr. ordered the operator of two now-defunct Web sites to turn over the identities of the anonymous authors of comments on the sites that allegedly defamed a Philadelphia law firm….In the suit, the Klehr Harrison firm complains that its reputation was severely disparaged by comments on the two sites that falsely accused its lawyers of being ‘thieves,’ committing ‘fraud’ and ‘lying’ to a judge.” Although courts in some other states have protected anonymous online commenters from demands that their identity be disclosed, Sheppard said Pennsylvania law was not obliged to follow that path. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Law Firm’s Defamation Claim Found to Trump Critics’ Internet Anonymity”, The Legal Intelligencer, Jan. 23). For more on the legal hazards of criticizing Pennsylvania lawyers and judges, see Nov. 30, 2003, Mar. 16, 2004, and Oct. 24-25, 2001.

Comments are open (be very careful, please).

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Speaking dangerously, online

“Lawsuits are occupational hazards for anti-cult blogger Rick Ross. Sued a half-dozen times during the past decade for his public pronouncements, especially on the Internet, he’s managed to win all but one case, with the help of pro bono counsel.” (Charles Toutant, “Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech”, New Jersey Law Journal, Jan. 10). In other news, a federal judge has thrown out the RICO and defamation lawsuit filed by the controversial healing-spiritualist Gentle Wind Project against former members of the group (see Aug. 30, 2004)(“Group’s Lawsuit Against Ex-Members Thrown Out”, WMTW, Jan. 9; “Court Rejects Online RICO Claims Based on Ex-Group Members’ Web Site”, Berkman Center, Jan. 11). Gentle Wind also happens to have sued Ross, unsuccessfully, according to the New Jersey Law Journal article.

Filed under: , ,

“Create an e-annoyance, go to jail”

“Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.” Declan McCullagh at CNET sounds the alarm about a provision quietly tucked into the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Sec. 113 of the bill, entitled “Preventing Cyberstalking,” “rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet ‘without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.'” The implications for anonymity on the web, in email correspondence, and in other Internet applications could be enormous, McCullagh says. Penalties include stiff fines and jail terms of up to two years (Jan. 9).

More: Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy says McCullagh is wrong to be so alarmed and that the actual effect of the law would be much narrower (see Ted’s post above). A key question raised in the Volokh comments is whether the bill will apply only to VOIP (internet-based telephone service) or have a broader reach than that. Other discussions worth reading: Concurring Opinions, Boing Boing.

Filed under: ,

“Ontario mom faces $2M libel suit over website”

“SLAPP” suits sighted in Canada, too: Activa Holdings Inc., a large developer in the Waterloo, Ont. area, is suing stay-at-home mother Louisette Lanteigne for C$2 million because of a website she has put up complaining of allegedly hazardous environmental conditions. The company charges defamation. (CP/CTV, Nov. 14; Mike Oliviera, CP/Macleans, Nov. 13)(Slashdot thread)(cache of her now-overloaded site).

Filed under: , ,