7-1-2010 National:
Building Awareness of the First Amendment
1 for All is a national nonpartisan program designed to build understanding and support for First Amendment freedoms. 1 for All provides teaching materials to the nation’s schools, supports educational events on America’s campuses and reminds the public that the First Amendment serves everyone, regardless of faith, race, gender or political leanings. It is truly one amendment for all.
Showing posts with label Amendment 1st. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amendment 1st. Show all posts
July 1, 2010
1 for All: Building Awareness of the First Amendment
March 25, 2010
Screener Can Pass On ‘Megan’s Law’ Information
3-25-2010 California:
An employment-screening business may provide information garnered from California’s online database of registered sex offenders to its clients, notwithstanding statutory prohibitions on the use of such information for purposes relating to employment, this district’s Court of Appeal has ruled.
Div. Eight concluded on Tuesday that the Legislature did not intend to extend liability to persons or businesses that reproduce or republish information from the “Megan’s Law” website, and that such disclosures are protected by the First Amendment.
The justices affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias’ decision to toss William Mendoza’s action against ADP Screening and Selection Services Inc. as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Mendoza claimed that ADP conducted a background check on him after he filled out an application for employment in August 2007 with one of ADP’s clients. As part of this check, ADP allegedly accessed the “Megan’s Law” website, which is operated by the state’s Department of Justice and lists designated registered sex offenders in California.
Although Mendoza did not expressly allege that the employer decided not to hire him based on information disclosed on the website, he claimed to have suffered “irreparable harm and damages as a result” of ADP’s violation of Penal Code Sec. 290.46.
That statute prohibits the “use of any information that is disclosed [on the “Megan’s Law” website]…for purposes relating to…[e]mployment,” and provides that “[a]ny use” of information disclosed on the website “shall make the user liable for…actual damages…and attorney’s fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty.”
ADP filed a special motion to strike Mendoza’s complaint, asserting that its actions in accessing the “Megan’s Law” Law website and compiling information from it for Mendoza’s prospective employer were made in furtherance of its constitutional free speech rights.
Following a hearing, Elias entered a minute order granting ADP’s motion, finding that its alleged conduct involved protected commercial speech on a matter of public interest. She further determined that ADP did not “use” the material from the website, but merely “disclosed” it to a third party.
Writing for the appellate court, Presiding Justice Tricia A. Bigelow agreed with Elias’ analysis.
Bigelow distinguished Mendoza’s case from Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, which held that a defendant is precluded from using the anti-SLAPP law to strike a complaint if the defendant’s conduct was illegal as a matter of law. The justice reasoned that the Supreme Court’s use of the phrase “illegal” in the Flatley decision “was intended to mean criminal, and not just violative of a statute.”
She noted that a violation of Sec. 290.46 is not a misdemeanor or a felony and that “a plaintiff’s complaint always alleges a defendant engaged in illegal conduct in that it violated some common law standard of conduct or statutory prohibition, giving rise to liability.” The justice then concluded that it would “greatly weaken the constitutional interests” which the anti-SLAPP law was designed to protect if any statutory violation were outside the reach of the statute’s purview.
Bigelow added that Mendoza could not prevail on his complaint as a matter of law because ADP had not “used” the information it gathered from the “Megan’s Law” website.
She explained that the Legislature has long recognized a distinction between the “use” of sex offender information, and the “reproducing” or “republishing” of such information, opining that the intent of Sec. 290.46 was to limit liability to employers who “use” information disclosed on the website as a basis for an employment decision.
Mendoza’s claim for relief under Sec, 290.46, if any, lay with his prospective employer, not ADP, Bigelow said.
The justice also concluded that Mendoza’s claim based on an alleged violation of Civil Code Sec. 1786.20(c)—which prohibits investigative consumer reporting agencies from making inquiries on behalf of a client that “would violate applicable federal or state equal employment opportunity law or regulation”—also failed as a matter of law since ADP’s inquiry into whether Mendoza was identified on the “Megan’s Law” website did not violate any federal or state equal employment opportunity law or regulation.
“We agree with the Attorney General’s conclusion, apart from Mendoza’s current case, that the prohibition against the use of information disclosed on the MLW does not mean that registered sex offenders are a protected class for purposes of housing discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act…and we see no reason to come to a different conclusion in the employment discrimination context,” she said.
Justice Laurence D. Rubin and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter D. Lichtman, sitting on assignment, joined Bigelow in her decision.
Craig A. Kegel and A. Eric Aguilera of Bohm, Matsen, Kegel & Aguilera represented Mendoza while Deborah C. Saxe and Daphne P. Bishop of Jones Day represented ADP.
The case is Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc., 10 S.O.S. 1523. ..Source.. SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer
October 29, 2009
NC- UPDATE: Law challenged after sex offender arrested for going to church
10-29-2009 North Carolina:
Pittsboro, N.C. — Lawyers for a registered sex offender appeared in court Thursday to challenge the constitutionality of a law under which he was charged for going to church.
James Nichols, 31, was arrested on March 28 after he attended services at Moncure Baptist Church. He was charged under a nearly year-old state law that bans sex offenders from coming within 300 feet of any place intended for the use, care or supervision of children.
Moncure Baptist has a nursery and regularly scheduled programs for children.
In a two-hour hearing in Superior Court in Pittsboro Thursday, Nichols' lawyers argued that the law is too broad, doesn't exempt churches and violates constitutional rights to religious freedom and to assembly.
."He engages in free speech, he walks down the aisle, he sings with people, and he reads the Bible," defense attorney Glenn Gerding said. "So this is not just a case about the free exercise of religion; it is also a case about assembling together with people who want to assemble together."
Nichols has been convicted twice of indecent liberties with a teen girl and most recently of attempted second-degree rape in 2003. He spent a total of 6 years and 2 months in prison on those charges.
Nichols said that he found God in prison, and when he was released last September, Moncure Baptist welcomed him with open arms.
Prosecutor Kayley Taber said Nichols and another sex offender, Frank DeMaio, were arrested after the Chatham County Sheriff's Office received a complaint.
"This was not an investigation targeted at local churches," Taber said.
DeMaio has joined Nichols in challenging the law.
Judge Allen Baddour did not make a decision on the issue Thursday but set another hearing for Nov. 12.
If Baddour declares the law unconstitutional, the case could go all the way up to the state Supreme Court.
Thirty-six states establish zones where sex offenders cannot live or visit. Some states provide exceptions for churches, but many do not. ..Source.. by Bryan Mims
August 31, 2009
Another blogger about to be outed?
8-31-2009 Canada:
OTTAWA -- A petty online insult turned the spotlight on anonymous bloggers in the United States. Now, a Winnipeg lawyer is leading the fight in a similar case in Canada.
But while the U.S. case involved a model versus a wannabe fashion socialite, the Canadian case connects two Ottawa politicians including the city's controversial mayor, Larry O'Brien.
It could have ramifications for the dozens, if not hundreds, of anonymous critics who pass judgment, and often libelous accusations, against everyone from politicians to celebrities to journalists.
On Aug. 19, a New York state court ordered Google to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger using Google's Blogger forum to spew what the court said were libelous comments against a model.
On Friday, Ottawa media reported that a Winnipeg lawyer, Brian Bowman, is asking Google to take down the site zeromeanszero.blogspot.com or unmask its author.
The site is a non-stop attack against O'Brien, Ottawa city councillors, the media and occasionally other politicians.
Bowman, an expert in privacy law, says he's representing a client who has been the subject of untrue statements on the blog. Bowman says the blogger has accused his client of doing things even when his client was not in town.
Ironically, Bowman won't reveal the identity of his client, except to say it's not O'Brien.
So far, the case hasn't gone to court. Bowman is negotiating with Google. But unless Google volunteers to shut down the blog or outs the name of the writer, it's likely it will be put before a judge.
Which could begin to answer one of the biggest privacy-related questions in the Internet age: Does freedom of speech allow someone to libel someone anonymously?
How can you stop it if you don't know who is doing it?
It is cowardly in the biggest sense of the word to criticize someone or insult them while hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
I am obviously a firm believer in freedom of speech, and truth is always a winning defence against accusations of libel. But freedom of speech does not, in my opinion, include the freedom to anonymously libel someone.
The Internet should not be a tool to allow anybody to say what they want about anybody, smearing reputations and even ruining careers, without the responsibility of having to out your identity.
And yes, you can put my name on that.
"ö "ö "ö
Manitoba got a lot of national airtime last week, an unusual occurrence for a province that is often overlooked.
Premier Gary Doer's sudden resignation and subsequent appointment as ambassador to the U.S. was the biggest news of the week.
Unfortunately, the other story that made national headlines was far more sinister and is the subject of a national epidemic: missing and murdered aboriginal women. More than 75 in Manitoba alone in the last few decades; and more than 500 nationwide.
After two more young women were found dead in the city in less than a month, Justice Minister Dave Chomiak announced a new task force to delve into at least 30 unsolved cases, some of which go back to the 1960s.
While that was going on, Manitoba Liberal MP Anita Neville was meeting with experts in Washington, D.C., hoping to get the issue some international help. Neville said she feels strongly there is a connection between human trafficking and the dozens of women that disappear and die violently in Canada, and she fears Canada is far behind when it comes to getting an understanding of it.
"I was looking to see what is being done and what the gaps are here," she said. "I want to know what we can learn from it."
She is demanding a comprehensive national strategy on human trafficking.
Imagine if police in every province banded together to look for links in these hundreds of cases?
Ask yourself how quickly that might have happened had more than 500 white women gone missing in Canada in the last 30 years. Or what might have been the reaction if two teenagers from the Winnipeg suburbs showed up dead in less than a month.
Neville said she is still piecing together what she learned in Washington and has a commitment from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to include it in the party platform in the next election.
With another Manitoba MP, Conservative Joy Smith, making human trafficking her raison d'être, now the task force and Neville, maybe this issue is finally getting the kind of attention it deserves. ..Source.. by Mia Rabson
March 15, 2009
KY- Nursing student sues after dismissal over blogging
3-15-2009 Kentucky:
LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A woman dismissed from the University of Louisville nursing school because of posts on her personal blog sued Friday, saying her First Amendment rights were violated.
Nina Yoder of Louisville asked U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson to issue an injunction that would allow her to resume classes and graduate in August.
The school dismissed Yoder on March 2, saying in a letter that she violated the school's honor code by posting blog items concerning patient activities and naming the university on her MySpace page. A week later, the university rejected Yoder's written appeal to return to school.
Yoder's attorney, Daniel Canon of Louisville, said the postings are mostly political and don't identify patients.
"There's no allegation that I know of that she disrupted the education process," said Yoder's attorney, Daniel Canon of Louisville. "It's speech that's entirely protected."
University spokesman John Drees declined to address the merits of the lawsuit, calling disciplinary action against students confidential.
"The university takes seriously academic and disciplinary matters," Drees said. "There are several processes available for students who seek review of any decisions affecting their academic status."
The case is part of what free speech advocates describe as a "disturbing trend" among universities seeking to exert some control over what students do and say off campus and online.
Students at universities around the country, including high profile cases in Georgia and Colorado, have faced disciplinary action for their online postings, said Adam Kissel, director of individual rights defense program for the Philadelphia, Pa.-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
"If the university really went after every nursing student who put up a MySpace page, they'd have to expel a whole lot more people," Kissel said.
Yoder's blog posts, which date back almost a year, cover topics including suicide, religion, sex, guns and politics. She metioned the university several times but revealed no patient names in postings filed along with the lawsuit.
Yoder also frequently wrote about guns and her opposition to gun control laws and posted pictures of various weapons on the site.
In the lawsuit, Yoder said university administrators cited the gun-related postings and told her "students voiced concerns that lead us to believe you may have a gun." Canon said Yoder didn't have a gun at the time and hasn't ever brought a gun on campus.
Canon said Yoder was told she could not continue in the program because of her blog posts and was considered "persona-non-grata" and withdrawn from classes immediately.
In one post dated Oct. 5, Yoder offered her take on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, at times using obscenities to describe the candidates.
She described Democratic nominee Barack Obama as a "socialist pig with a twisted life viewpoint." She also agreed with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's stance on guns, even tough she knocked Republican nominee U.S. Sen. John McCain for choosing her.
"The only reason McCain picked her is because she is a hot chick with intelligence slightly above average," Yoder wrote.
Canon said by citing the blog as the reason for the dismissal, the university clearly violated his client's free speech rights. But, Canon said, much about his client's situation remains a mystery.
"We're not sure how they found out about the blog," Canon said. "They simply haven't told us." ..News Source.. by BRETT BARROUQUERE
March 2, 2009
MT- Mont. court tosses woman's disturbing-the-peace conviction
3-2-2009 Montana:
GREAT FALLS, Mont. — A district judge has reversed the convictions of a woman who was found guilty of disturbing a City Commission meeting here and hitting a plain-clothed police detective in the groin.
Judge Julie Macek ruled Feb. 24 that Susan Overfield of Vaughn did not disturb the peace during the June 2007 meeting. The judge also ruled that Overfield was allowed to defend herself against police Detective Art Schalin because she reasonably believed he was an unfamiliar man when he grabbed her arm to escort her out of the meeting.
Mayor Dona Stebbins had ordered that Overfield be removed from her position at a lectern because she exceeded a three-minute speaking limit during the public-comment portion of the meeting. Overfield had been criticizing city officials about the Great Falls animal shelter.
A six-person jury convicted Overfield in March 2008 of misdemeanor disorderly conduct and assault, and she was sentenced to five days of house arrest and was fined more than $700. Overfield appealed last fall on the grounds that she was exercising her First Amendment rights, that she was justified in defending herself, that Schalin violated a law requiring him to identify himself to Overfield and that the court erred in its instructions to the jury.
Macek agreed with most of Overfield’s claims, noting that Overfield’s actions before her removal were not disruptive.
“Although the content of Overfield’s speech was direct and confrontational she did not disturb the peace by stating her opinion,” Macek wrote in her ruling in State v. Overfield. “Until such time as the mayor advised her that her time was up and Overfield responded that she needed to finish her statement there had been no issue with Overfield whatsoever. …
“It was not until a plainclothes Officer Schalin grabbed Overfield’s documents and her arm to escort her out of the room that there was any disorder at all,” the judge added.
The resulting disturbance, Macek said, was caused by the fact that Overfield did not know Schalin and did not know he was a police officer.
As such, Macek ruled, Overfield’s actions were protected speech.
Macek also ruled that the jury was improperly instructed that they could find Overfield guilty of disorderly conduct on the basis of making loud or unusual noises. The judge added that the jury was misinformed that Overfield could not legally resist Schalin’s attempt to escort her out of the room. Macek, however, rejected Overfield’s claim that Schalin was required by law to identify himself.
“I always felt I had done nothing wrong and I thought Montana law would prove me right, and it did,” Overfield said Feb. 26. “I’ve moved on.”
City Attorney David Gilko declined to comment Feb. 26, saying he was not aware of Macek’s ruling. The city prosecutor at Overfield’s trial, Chad Parker, could not be reached for comment. Stebbins did not return phone messages in time for this story. ..News Source.. by First Amendment Center Online staff
MD- Court rules to protect identities in online libel case
Court decision is here.
3-2-2009 Maryland:
Decision Internet forum comments sets guidelines for future cases
Maryland's Court of Appeals issued a decision yesterday protecting the identity of three anonymous Internet posters and, for the first time, offering guidelines for state courts to follow in libel cases before unmasking online commenters.
The opinion and instructions stem from a defamation lawsuit filed by Eastern Shore developer Zebulon Brodie against three unknown Internet posters and Independent Newspapers Inc., which runs an online community forum.
The posters had written critical comments about the cleanliness of a Dunkin' Donuts that Brodie owns in Centreville.
The Appeals Court concluded that Brodie was not entitled to identifying information about the posters, even though they used the forum to criticize him and his business, because he misidentified which user names made the offending statements.
The five-step process the court adopted for future cases was borrowed from a New Jersey court and outlined in yesterday's 43-page majority opinion. It seeks to help trial courts "balance First Amendment rights with the right to seek protection for defamation" by suggesting they:•Require that plaintiffs notify anonymous parties that their identities are sought.
•Give the posters time to reply with reasons why they should remain nameless.
•Require plaintiffs to identify the defamatory statements and who made them.
•Determine whether the complaint has set forth a prima facie defamation, where the words are obviously libelous, or a per quod action, meaning it requires outside evidence.
•Weigh the poster's right to free speech against the strength of the case and the necessity of identity disclosure.
A five-page concurring opinion by three of the seven judges accepts steps one through three but asks for clarification on step four as to how prima facie nature should be shown and outright rejects step five as "unnecessary and needlessly complicated." ..News Source.. by Tricia Bishop
Media Need Not Reveal Web Posters' Identities
Ruling Applies 1st Amendment to Internet
Operators of newspaper Web sites, blogs and chat rooms that allow readers to post anonymous comments using pseudonyms do not have to readily reveal the posters' identities in defamation suits, Maryland's highest court ruled yesterday, further shaping an emerging area of First Amendment law in the Internet age.
The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling and ordered that NewsZap.com, an online forum run by Independent Newspapers, does not have to disclose the identities of forum participants who engaged in an online exchange about the cleanliness of a Dunkin' Donuts shop in 2006.
Zebulon J. Brodie, an Eastern Shore businessman, had contended that the anonymous posters -- using such screen names as "CorsicaRiver" and "Born & Raised Here" -- had defamed him in comments about his Centreville restaurant.
The Appeals Court ruled that Brodie had not correctly identified the forum participants and, therefore, was not entitled to learn of their identities.
More broadly, however, the court used the case to recommend a strict, five-step process for judges to follow "to balance the First Amendment right to anonymous speech on the Internet with the opportunity on the part of the object of that speech to seek judicial redress for alleged defamation."
The process, which closely matches one set out by a New Jersey court in 2002, requires a plaintiff claiming defamation from an online comment to try to notify the anonymous poster that the person is the subject of a subpoena -- including by posting a message on the relevant online message board.
The plaintiff must then identify in court filings the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster, as well as show how those comments have caused damage.
Maryland's court also went further than New Jersey's, adding that the plaintiff might have to provide specific evidence supporting each element of the defamation claim. Finally, it indicated that judges also have to balance the anonymous poster's right of free speech against the need to disclose a defendant's identity.
Sam Bayard, assistant director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School, said that, taken together, this and other recent state court cases show a convergence of law surrounding the right to online anonymity.
"It seems to be pretty much following a recent trend that we've been seeing -- that there is at least a qualified right to speak anonymously on the Internet," Bayard said. "Courts are going to require the plaintiff or others seeking identities to make a heightened showing that they have a valid cause of action."
Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer for Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group that argued the case for Independent Newspapers, agreed. "It's obviously a reaffirmation of the right to speak anonymously," he said, adding that the right is increasingly important as more people post comments online.
"The media are looking to the online world as a place to convey their information and to draw readers into participation and exchanges about what's going on because that leads to increased readership interest in their sites," Levy said.
"In a lot of cases, [the comments] are either hyperbole or just opinion," he said. "But if accusations are of something the community would regard as wrongdoing and you can show that it's false and the damage it's caused, [the court ruling] is saying you then go and proceed" with court action. The Washington Post-Newsweek Interactive and several other media organizations filed a brief in support of Independent Newspapers.
E. Sean Poltrack, a lawyer for Brodie, said in an e-mail that he had not yet read the ruling last night, so any comment would be premature. ..Source.. by Aaron C. Davis, Washington Post Staff Writer
February 12, 2009
Internet Users Uphold First Amendment Rights
2-12-2009 Global:
Human rights activists, including myself, agree that the government has no authority to decide what is censored on the internet because this is a constitutionally protected right of an individual. The government cannot decide what another person should be able to see and do on the internet, as this is a personal decision. The internet serves as a vehicle for expression and therefore, limitations other than for criminal activity should not exist. As stated by the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Steven Shapiro, “the government has no right to censor protected speech on the Internet, and it cannot reduce adults to hearing and seeing only speech that the government considers suitable for children”.
With growing popularity of online social networking websites and ever-increasing use of blogging much debate has occurred as to what limits should be placed on freedom of speech. Approximately 150 million individuals are members of Facebook, making it one of the trendiest social networking websites on the internet. Consequently, some have developed concern about protecting children that may view inappropriate material on websites such as Facebook and MySpace. With over 200 million members on Facebook and MySpace, the possibility of dangerous activity rises, placing children in an increasingly vulnerable state. For example, MySpace recently removed over 90,000 sex offenders from its website after a task force revealed much higher numbers of sex offenders than anticipated. In 1998, Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act as a method of limiting the potentially harmful content available on the internet.
Since ratification of the act, internet users have been fighting to have the act repealed because of ridiculously broad provisions that violate our first amendment rights. For example, rather than constraining obscenity on the internet, the act stated that any potentially harmful material could be restricted. Furthermore, the determination of what constitutes harmful material is based on “contemporary community standards”. This provision gave the government unjust power in determining the limits of freedom of speech and severely infringes on personal autonomy. While the foremost intent of the act was to inhibit material showing sexually explicit acts, it went beyond this and undoubtedly placed unjust limitations on an individual’s right to free speech.
After several court proceedings and civil suits, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that COPA was unconstitutional, removing the possibility of unwarranted restrictions on internet users. The act was first challenged by the ACLU on behalf of a group of writers, artists, and health educators who depend on the internet for communicating constitutionally protected speech. After receiving a ruling declaring the law unconstitutional in 1998, the government decided to appeal and attempted to appeal several more times up until 2009, when the Supreme Court ended any further court action.
In making this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated the importance of protecting the first amendment and preserving freedom of speech. However, in situations pertaining to the protection of children, some may believe that free speech should have limitations. This debate will likely be never-ending as the trade off between having free speech and protecting the vulnerable remains dominant within society. Does the government have the authority to censor freedom of speech on the internet or is freedom of speech a right without limitation? ..News Source.. by Sara Furguson
November 3, 2008
KY- Child pornographer blogs from prison
11-3-2008 Kentucky:
Passing long days while he awaits sentencing for distributing child pornography, Timothy "Casey" Richards writes out his blog updates, the G-rated ones for FreeCasey.com and the X-rated ones for Gay Boy in Jail on Blogspot.
He uses his phone calls from the federal prison in Leitchfield, Ky., to dictate them to friends and supporters in Nashville and elsewhere. They patiently post his words online or record them for Podcasts.
On both blogs, Richards rants about being targeted by the government for being gay, a scapegoat in a national investigation that he says shouldn't have ever involved him.
FreeCasey.com includes a running count of his incarceration — 1,135 days today. Gay Boy in Jail includes graphic sexual fantasies and dreams.
And they're both perfectly legal, attorneys and First Amendment experts say, although warnings from Richards' attorney prompted his supporters to take down the X-rated blog Monday night. With sentencing set for Nov. 7, attorney Kim Hodde said, she doesn't want to take any chances. The prosecution already cited portions of the blog in a sentencing recommendation — one of them Richards' theory that a certain prison guard is secretly gay.
Nashville resident Richards, 27, was convicted in October 2006 on 11 charges stemming from distribution of child pornography and related charges. He faces a minimum of 15 years in prison.
He slipped into the business nearly a decade ago, as an 18-year-old involved with a 15-year-old boy. The two made sex videos and put them on the Web. It later gave Richards an idea — working with friends in other states to charge Web surfers to watch. Or in the federal government's vocabulary: conspiracy to distribute child pornography.
And the federal government eventually paid attention. Richards was caught up in a multistate prosecution prompted by a 2005 New York Times report that featured an underage Internet porn star.
In recent months, Richards' sole pornographic enterprise has been the free blog.
Inmates in state and federal prisons are not allowed access to the Internet, but many prisoners get their message out on the Web after they dictate over the phone to family and friends. A former prisoner hosts a site open only to the incarcerated and their helpers, PrisonBlogs.net, but prisoners can be hosted anywhere online.
Each prison has set times allowing inmates use of a telephone and to receive and send mail, and all communications in and out are monitored.
Inmates have rights
Being in prison doesn't take away Americans' rights to broadcast their views and opinions, as long as those don't threaten someone else's rights, said David Hudson, a Vanderbilt University law professor who works with the First Amendment Center in Nashville. That would include trying to contact those they've harmed.
Hudson wrote in an e-mail that it's not unusual for inmates to blog.
"Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote more than 20 years ago that prison walls don't separate inmates from the protections of the Constitution," Hudson wrote.
But Richards should be an exception, said Chris Sanders, president of Tennessee Equality Project, a statewide organization advocating for gay rights. Those convicted of cyber crime, including hate crimes, shouldn't be allowed to keep using the Internet to spread their message, he said.
Postings continue
The government sees Richards as an unrepentant detainee who continued to blog in light of his conviction, according to court records. Some of Richards' postings were attached as exhibits to a sentencing recommendation of 30 years written by Assistant U.S. Attorney Carrie Daughtrey.
"No law keeps him from writing something down and telling people who type it in," Daughtrey said. "It's been going on all along."
Through his father, Russ Richards, Timothy Richards declined to be interviewed.
Several hundred have visited the blogs, Russ Richards said. They were started as a way to drum up support for his son's cause and detail his side of the story. He said he supports his son wholeheartedly and has since that first teen love affair.
"It was a relationship sanctioned between both sets of parents," Russ Richards said. "Tim got caught in a very big political situation and they had to prosecute him."
From a young age, Timothy Richards was out spoken and had a knack for business, his father said.
"He is very articulate, very outgoing," Russ Richards said. "I did not condone or agree to his blogging. Nonetheless, he has a First Amendment right to voice his opinion." ..News Source.. by Chris Echegaray
October 1, 2008
DC- Congress passes Schumer and McCain's S-431 Amended bill, obviously a political campaign move.
10-1-2008 Washington DC:
Congress, again in the dead of the night and without notifying the public, has passed Sen. Schumer and McCain's S-431 `Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008' or the `KIDS Act of 2008', it has two titles obviously for political purposes.
It appears that Rep. Conyers was behind getting it through the House and he did get it amended to include some VERY STRICT PRIVACY provisions on the information submitted by the registrants.
Registrant Internet information is to be in a SECURED data base, but will be available to APPROVED Social Networking websites. Such sites must keep the information secured and are not allowed to make anything public. However, with that said, there are no penalties for a social networking website if they violate the privacy requirements, excepting MAYBE losing their ability to access the SECURED data base, but that is just a logical guess since it is not written into the bill.
Additionally, the definition of "social networking website" is now, any website that permits "social interaction" which appears to be anything on the Internet. This definition is clearly overbroad.
While this bill does not say to social networking websites, remove any accounts of registrants, that is the most logical result as was proven when MySpace removed accounts of all known sex offenders last year.
The total purpose of this bill is to stem the political discussions which registrants and their families have on the Internet, necessary because they no longer have any political representation in Congress. This bill is passed under the pretext of "saving a child from Internet predators" as lawmakers call everyone who is registered in a state or federal registry.
There is no doubt in this writer's mind that this bill violates, to the nth degree, US Supreme court case permitting anonymous free speech, first amendment rights of every US citizen.
Finally, as to registrants, forcing them to provide Internet ID's of any kind (information which is only in their personal effects within their homes) is a violation of the 4th Amendment, again, in this writer's opinion.
More to follow...
eAdvocate
March 12, 2008
KY- Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal
3-12-2008 Kentucky:
Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.
The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.
Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.
If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.
Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.
Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill.
Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment.
Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge. ..more.. by Kellie Wilson
February 23, 2008
CA- Court Quashes Subpoena Seeking Identities of Posters to Online Message Board
2-7-2008 California:
Individuals who post to Internet message boards have a First Amendment right to anonymity which can only be overcome in a defamation case if the plaintiff shows that the posts give rise to a viable cause of action, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.
Reversing the decision of Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Socrates P. Manoukian, the court held that Lisa Krinsky did not allege a viable cause of action and quashed a subpoena that she served on an internet service provider in California seeking the identity of an anonymous participant on a message board that the provider hosted who had made “vulgar and insulting” comments about Krinsky because no reasonable reader would have believed the comments were based on actual facts.
Krinsky, the former president, board chair and chief operating officer of SFBC International, Inc., a publicly traded “global development drug service company” with offices in Florida, filed suit for libel and interference with contractual/business relationships in a Florida state court in 2006 against 10 pseudonymous posters on a financial message board hosted by Yahoo!, Inc. after a conversation regarding SFBC devolved into scathing verbal attacks on Krinsky and other officers of the company.
She alleged that the defendants had made “defamatory remarks” about her on the message boards and other websites using screen names to conceal their identities, and attempted to discover the defendants’ identities by serving a subpoena on Yahoo.
One of the defendants, “Doe 6,” who had posted comments under the screen name of “Senor Pinche Wey,” moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that Krinsky had failed to state a claim that was sufficient to overcome his First Amendments rights.
While most of Doe 6’s comments derided another executive, Jerry ‘Lew’ Seifer, as a “mega scum bag” and a “cockroach,” he had jointly referred to Krinsky, another executive and Seifer as “boobs, losers and crooks;” accused Krinsky of possessing a “fake” medical degree; and accused her of having “poor feminine hygiene.”
Finding that Doe 6’s conduct appeared to be similar to federal cases involving so-called “pump and dump” stock manipulation efforts, and concluding that the totality of circumstances justified the relief Krinsky was seeking, Manoukian denied the motion.
On appeal, Justice Franklin D. Elia wrote for the court that posters to Internet message boards had a First Amendment right to shield their identity, and that this right could only be overcome if Krinsky could make a prima facie showing that a case for defamation existed.
Examining Krinsky’s libel claim under Florida law—which Elia noted was similar to California law in that it required a private plaintiff to prove that the defendant published a false statement to a third party that caused injury to the plaintiff—and her contractual interference claim—which he rejected as merely “recasting” the defamation claim—Elia wrote that Krinsky had failed to make such a showing.
“Doe 6’s messages, viewed in context, cannot be interpreted as asserting or implying objective facts…. A reasonable reader…would not comprehend the harsh language and belligerent tone as anything more than an irrational, vituperative expression of contempt….
“Rather, they fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment.”
Elia said that the court’s conclusion “should not be interpreted to condone Doe 6’s rude and childish posts,” but reflected the fact that offensiveness, by itself, was not a sufficient reason to justify suppression of speech.
Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing and Justice Eugene M. Premo joined Elia in his opinion.
The case is Krinsky v. Doe, 08 S.O.S. 906. ..more.. by STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
