Cases related to Free Speech

Related Issues: Free Speech

Commonwealth of Kentucky v. 141 Internet Domain Names

EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged a Kentucky Court of Appeals in November of 2008 to vacate a lower court's order authorizing the seizure of more than 100 Internet domain names associated with websites operating around the globe. The seizure, and the lower court's exercise of jurisdiction over global domain names, threatens free speech across the Internet.

In a move to combat what it viewed as illegal online gambling, the Commonwealth of Kentucky convinced a state court to "seize" 141 domain names because the names allegedly constituted "gambling devices" that are banned under Kentucky law -- even though the sites were owned and operated by individuals outside of the state, and in many cases even outside of the country. Unless the sites screened out Kentucky users, the court held, the seizure order was proper.

In its amicus brief filed with the Court of Appeals in support of a writ vacating the judge's order, EFF, CDT, and the ACLU argue that the First Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution prohibit state courts from interfering with Internet domain names that were registered and maintained outside the state.

Related Issues: Anonymity, Free Speech

Dominick v. MySpace

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked a judge in Illinois to reject a Petition to identify an anonymous MySpace user who allegedly posted fake profiles of an Illinois official because the request would violate both the First Amendment and federal statute.

In May of 2008, Cicero Town President Larry Dominick asked a Cook County Circuit Court judge to order the disclosure of the identities of the author of two MySpace profiles that allegedly included defamatory comments and unnamed privacy violations. In its amicus brief, however, EFF argued that the petition violates the First Amendment right to remain anonymous until a litigant can demonstrate a viable legal claim.

Outcome: Following the filing of EFF's amicus brief, Dominick dismissed his Petition on June 13, 2008, effectively ending the matter.

EFF was assisted in the matter by Charles Mudd, Jr., and Sophie Dye of Mudd Law Offices in Chicago.

Related Issues: Free Speech

Bauer v. Wikimedia et al

On May 1, 2008, EFF and the law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the operator of the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, arguing that federal law immunizes it against suits over statements made by its users.

Related Issues: Free Speech

DontDateHimGirl.com

EFF urged a Pennsylvania court to dismiss defamation claims against the controversial website DontDateHimGirl.com, arguing that federal law shields the website from liability to protect the free flow of information online.

DontDateHimGirl.com was created by Tasha Joseph as a forum for women to share information about men. One of the men discussed on the site, Todd J. Hollis, claims that some participants posted defamatory statements about him on the website. In its amicus brief, EFF argues that DontDateHimGirl.com's owner cannot be held liable for comments written by others under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 specifically protects hosts of interactive computer services from liability to encourage free discourse and robust debate.

Nearly every court that has considered Section 230 has recognized the intent of the law and shielded website operators from liability. EFF has provided amicus support in a number of lawsuits, including one that recently held that Craigslist was not responsible for the content of posts made by the public.

The amicus brief was also signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania.

Outcome: The court dismissed the case on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction over the Florida-based website operator, and so did not reach the Section 230 issue. Hollis has refiled the case in Florida.

Related Issues: Free Speech

Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations

In December of 2007, radio talk show host Michael Savage filed suit in federal district court against the Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleging copyright infringement and a violation of federal racketeering laws for using excerpts of Savage's radio program to criticize him and the content of his show. In response, EFF and the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the Court to dismiss the lawsuit because CAIR's conduct was clearly protected by the First Amendment and the fair use doctrine.

On July 25, 2008, the Court granted CAIR's motion, agreeing that CAIR's use of Savage's copyrighted radio excerpts was a protected fair use under copyright law and that Savage's RICO claim (that depended on the copyright infringement allegation) was meritless. The Court gave Savage an additional two weeks to amend the RICO claim if he wanted to proceed, but Savage later informed the Court that he would not file an amended complaint.

Related Issues: Free Speech

Bank Julius Baer & Co v. Wikileaks

On February 6, 2008, Swiss bank Julius Baer filed suit in federal district court against "Wikileaks" -- a website designed to give whistleblowers a forum for posting materials of public concern -- for hosting 14 allegedly leaked documents regarding personal banking transactions of Julius Baer customers. Also sued was Wikileaks' domain name registrar, Dynadot LLC. On February 15, following a stipulation between Julius Baer and Dynadot, the court issued a permanent injunction, disabling the wikileaks.org domain name and preventing that domain name from being transferred to any other registrar.

On February 26, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit in order to dissolve the permanent injunction.

"Dynadot's private agreement to disable access to its customer's domain name -- and the court's endorsement of that agreement -- raise serious First Amendment concerns," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "This unwarranted injunction should remind everyone who hosts critical information on the Web that such information may only remain accessible as long as your service provider or registrar is willing to stand up for you against obviously overreaching legal attacks."

At 9:00 a.m. on Friday, February 29, a federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments regarding EFF's motion as well as a related issue: whether to extend a temporary restraining order aimed at preventing the further distribution of the 14 disputed Julius Baer documents.

Outcome: Following the hearing, Judge White dissolved his previous orders -- citing First Amendment concerns and other arguments raised by the proposed intervenors and amici curiae -- allowing the wikileaks.org domain name to go back up. Julius Baer subsequently moved to dismiss the case.

MPAA v. The People

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) announced that the major Hollywood motion picture studios would be filing hundreds of lawsuits against individuals using peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software to access movies online. In so doing, Hollywood follows in the footsteps of the music industry, which has filed more than 6,000 lawsuits against file sharers since September 2003.

Related Issues: Free Speech

ACLU v. Reno II

In Oct., 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law a new "sequel" to the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act. This new Internet censorship bill, the Child Online Protect Act (COPA, a.k.a. "CDA II") would establish criminal penalties for any "commercial" distribution of material deemed "harmful to minors".

sjg_150.png
Related Issues: Free Speech

Steve Jackson Games v. Secret Service Case Archive

On March 1 1990, the offices of Steve Jackson Games, in Austin, Texas, were raided by the U.S. Secret Service as part of a nationwide investigation of data piracy. The initial news stories simply reported that the Secret Service had raided a suspected ring of hackers. Gradually, the true story emerged.

Electric Slide Litigation

The man who claims to have created "The Electric Slide" agreed to call off his online takedown campaign and stop threatening anyone using the popular line dance for non-commercial purposes. The agreement settles a lawsuit filed by EFF on behalf of videographer Kyle Machulis, who posted a concert video to YouTube that included a ten-second segment of audience members attempting to do the Electric Slide.

Subscribe to EFFector

[our free email newsletter]

(optional)
» EFFector Archive