Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have submitted an amicus brief in the case, urging the New Hampshire Supreme Court to uphold the website’s position on First Amendment grounds. The popular site Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter had published a New Hampshire Banking Department document containing information about a private company; that company proceeded to sue the site demanding that the document be taken down, and also demanded discovery of how the document had come into the site’s possession. Earlier here.
Posts Tagged ‘online speech’
Bar “linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials”?
Heads are still shaking over what would appear to be a non-satirical proposal from Judge Richard Posner:
…Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.
More: Jeff Jarvis notices other dubious ideas on enforceable “exclusivity” floating about. And more thoughts from Carolyn Elefant at Legal Blog Watch and David Post @ Volokh.
Australia’s banned websites
Even linking to one of them can get you A$11,000 a day in fines [BoingBoing]
“How to keep your parody or gripe site safe from legal bullies”
I think the more correct word would be safer with an r. [Electronic Frontier Foundation via BoingBoing]
Risks of getting sued for blogging
The WSJ notes that online comments, bulletin boards and chatrooms, and social media of all kinds present a risk, not to mention blogging: “Though the likelihood of a plaintiff winning a lawsuit is not high, ‘you could go bankrupt’ just from defending against them, says Miriam Wugmeister, a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP and a privacy and data-security law expert.”
Member of Congress defends speech-ban bill
Although the proposed Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would criminalize a wide range of online speech that leads to emotional distress, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) says we should rest assured that judges in their discretion will apply it only to nasties who are bothering our children — except that the bill is in no way limited to that type of speech. Eugene Volokh dissects (earlier here and here).
Online commentary not so anonymous
A New Hampshire court has ordered a well-known mortgage-crisis-watchdog website, Mortgage Lender Implode-o-Meter, to disclose confidential sources and the identity of an anonymous commenter [Sam Bayard, Citizen Media Law] The order has been stayed pending appeal.
Orlando police chief sensitive to criticism
“Orlando police Chief Val Demings is threatening to sue one of her critics for creating a Web site that criticizes her performance.” [Orlando Sentinel via
Randazza/Citizen Media Law, Coyote and Greenfield]
Causing emotional distress through online postings
A bill sponsored by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) would criminalize a wide swath of controversial and impassioned speech on the internet, in everything from blogs to forums to email. Incredibly, it has fifteen sponsors. Eugene Volokh has details, and Hans Bader in the Examiner explores some of the implications.
“Website ordered to pay $125,000 over ‘haunted’ mill claim”
Melissa Duer and her husband own a property that includes the state of Ohio’s only surviving grist mill, built by her ancestor, Eli or Elias Staley. Stories that the property is haunted have circulated for many years and were relayed in the book “Weird Ohio” and on the (apparently unrelated) website Forgotten Ohio. The Duers sued the authors of book and site on the grounds that by giving publicity to the stories they had helped attract many curiosity seekers to the site, forcing the couple “to spend thousands of dollars on security measures at the mill including $35,000 for an estate dog, Duer testified at a March hearing”. A judge ruled for the book defendants, “saying those responsible for [“Weird Ohio”] did not place the Duers in a false light, had no intent of emotional distress and had not trespassed or caused anyone else to trespass on the property.” However, Columbus resident Andrew Hamilton did not respond in defense of his website Forgotten Ohio (where it looks as if the disputed passage may still be standing, in the “Clark County” section, though other accounts place the property in Miami County) and the judge awarded a default judgment against him of $125,000. The Duers’ lawyer, Jeremy Tomb of Troy, says the couple intends to appeal the judge’s ruling in favor of the book, which has dropped the Staley story from its second printing.
The damages claimed included: $1,921 for an invisible fence; $1,710 for private security; $27,606 for diminished value to the property from rumors it is haunted; $57,217 in legal fees; $6,340 in litigation expenses; and $35,000 for the dog.
Duer testified extra money was spent on the dog specially trained to be under command.
“We didn’t want just any pet or regular dog that could possibly bite people,” she said in court.
Pictures said to be of the Staley Mill appear at MillPictures.com. [Nancy Bowman, Dayton Daily News]