As drawn up with help from left–leaning groups like the misnamed Free Press, it may sound like a good idea, but to judge by the analyses of my Cato colleagues Timothy Lee and Jim Harper, the operative word may be “sound.”
Posts Tagged ‘online speech’
Free speech roundup
- Courtesy Stanley Fish, Prof. Jeremy Waldron gets a long, favorable hearing in the New York Times for his let’s-suppress-hate-speech proposals [Opinionator]
- On the other hand, free speech scores huge victory in Canada as parliament mostly along party lines votes to repeal notorious Section 13 of Canadian Human Rights Act, authorizing private federal complaints over alleged hate speech [Jonathan Kay]
- “Christian Nation” historical writer and Texas curriculum reshaper David Barton sues critics; don’t let him find out what Ed Brayton keeps writing [Reason]
- Pennsylvania bill: “Crime for Minor to Post or Send Messages That ‘Emotional[ly] Distress’ Another Minor?” [Volokh]
- Norfolk, Va. business puts up a big sign protesting eminent domain scheme to seize its property; guess what happens next [Marc Scribner, Open Market]
- Chris Evans nastygram to Lipstick Alley: Has Hollywood already forgotten about the Streisand effect? [Paul Alan Levy, Mike Masnick/TechDirt] Also at Public Citizen, the dispute over a boilermaker union official’s effort to unmask an online critic has now been settled (earlier);
- Interesting bank case: “Employer SLAPPed for Suing Ex-Employee” [Shaw Valenza]
FunnyJunk lawyer sues charity recipients
After his nastygram aimed at Matthew Inman of humor site The Oatmeal backfired spectacularly — Inman turned his resistance into a much-publicized fundraiser for two nonprofit recipients, the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society — a California attorney proceeded to go a remarkable step further, with train-wreck consequences outlined at BoingBoing, Popehat, and Lowering the Bar. More: Inman, Lowering the Bar.
Free speech roundup
- 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]
Unclear on the First Amendment in Albany
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).
Free speech roundup
- 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]
“Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable”
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.
Posited “right to be forgotten online”
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, PC World]
Ron Paul campaign sues John Does over anti-Huntsman video
“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.
SOPA fight heats up
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.