JOLT Digest

By Kassity Liu

Third Circuit Dismisses “Sexting” Charges Against Minor

On March 18, the WSJ Law Blog reported that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed charges against a teenage girl for distributing sexually explicit images of herself. The court had originally stated that they would address whether the First Amendment protects minors from sending these types of images of themselves through their cells phones, but the court refused to consider this issue in the case. Instead, the three-judge panel concluded that the prosecutor could not charge her for appearing in a sexually explicit photo without evidence that she had helped to distribute it. The court’s ruling appears to protect minors from liability for “sexting,” the act of “sending or posting sexually suggestive text messages and images . . . via cellular telephones or over the internet,” so long as there is “no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo.” The case name is Miller v. Mitchell, No. 09-2144 (3d. Cir. Mar. 17, 2010).

California Appeals Court Holds Threatening Online Speech is not Protected

On March 18, Wired reported that a California appeals court held that hateful and threatening online speech was not protected by the First Amendment. The father of the student who was targeted by the online postings had sued six students and their parents after hearing from the police that the threatening comments posted to his son’s website were protected forms of speech and could not be criminally prosecuted. One of the defendant students claimed that he had made the comments jokingly and did not seriously intend them to be harmful. However, the appellate court refused to accept this defense and instead upheld a lower court’s finding that the defendant had failed to “demonstrate that the posted message is free speech.” The majority judges felt that the defendant’s posting was “a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm” both because the posting contained a clear threat and the defendant student spent ample time writing it. The case name is D.C. v. R.R., No. BC332406 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 15, 2010).

Science Journalist fights libel suit in effort to campaign for British libel law reform

On March 15, the Citizen Media Law Project reported that science journalist Simon Singh has given up his Guardian column to fight a libel lawsuit that the British Chiropractic Association (“BCA”) brought against him for writing an article that denounced some of the BCA’s medical claims. Singh plans on using his case to campaign for British libel law reform, which currently places the entire burden of proving the truth of an allegedly libelous statement on the defendant. The lawsuit, which has been ongoing for two years, has garnered a significant amount of public attention and generated some talks of reform within the British Parliament. Last May, an English court had ruled that Singh would have to prove that the BCA was being “consciously dishonest” when it made the medical claims that Singh had called “bogus” in his article. Singh has appealed this ruling and foresees that his case could “easily continue for another two years.”

California Superior Court Enters Judgement in Anti-SLAPP Suit
By Debbie Rosenbaum – Edited by Steven Primeaux

MagicJack, LP v. Happy Mutants LLC, Case No. CIV 091108 (Sup. Ct. Cal. Marin County, Jan. 5, 2010)
Opinion (hosted by Boing Boing)

On January 5, 2010, the Superior Court of California for the County of Marin entered judgment against plaintiff MagicJack, reiterating its May 2009 holding that MagicJack had not established a probability of prevailing on its claims against Boing Boing and ruling that Boing Boing was entitled to legal fees and costs resulting from MagicJack’s lawsuit. In May, Boing Boing had moved to strike MagicJack’s claims under California’s anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) rule. In its May 2009 holding against MagicJack, the court first noted that MagicJack’s claims targeted protected speech activity because Boing Boing’s statements “involve consumer information affecting a large number of persons.” The court then observed that posting on the Boing Boing site “provides information about [MagicJack's] product not only to the ‘substantial’ number of people who have already purchased the device, but also to other consumers who might be considering purchasing such a device.”

The court’s judgment is available here. The May 2009 ruling is available here. Gizmodo provides an overview of the case. Boing Boing also provides a full account of the events along with hosting all legal documents. (more…)

D.C. Appeals Court Sets New Standard for Unmasking Anonymous Online Speakers

By Anthony Kammer – Edited by Evelyn Breithaupt
Solers, Inc. v. Doe, No. 07-CV-159 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2009)
Opinion

On August 13, 2009, the D.C. Court of Appeals remanded Solers, Inc.’s case against an anonymous speaker and provided the lower court with a new standard for determining when an anonymous speaker’s identity may be revealed.

The Volokh Conspiracy notes that although the court limits its decision to defamation claims, the court’s logic would apply to many other forms of anonymous speech. The Citizen Media Law Project points out that this case is factually distinct from many online defamation suits because the comments at issue were not posted on a blog or other public platform. Newsroomlawblog covers the recent decision and has earlier reported that there is a growing trend for courts to protect anonymous speakers unless the plaintiff meets some elevated standard. Ars Technica and Exclusive Rights provide additional commentary.

(more…)

By Sharona Hakimi

Amazon Threatened with Class Action for Remotely Deleting Orwell E-books on Kindles

On July 20, MediaPost News reported that the law firm KamberEdelson is readying a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers against Amazon for removing George Orwell books on owners’ Kindles. Amazon remotely deleted the e-books from users after discovering that the company that added them to the online catalog did not have rights to the books. Amazon did issue refunds to the owners, but representatives of KamberEdelson argue that the action infringes on consumer’s property rights and violates Amazon’s user agreement. On Boing Boing, Cory Doctorow discusses the problems that remote deletion poses to Digital Rights Media as a whole.

British Judge Rules that Google is Not Liable for Defamatory Search Results

On July 20, the New York Times reported that a High Court judge in Britain ruled that Google cannot be held liable for defamatory material appearing in its search results. The case arose when Metropolitan International Schools, which runs Internet-based training courses, sued Google over negative comments posted on a third party web site that appeared as text blurbs in Google search results. The judge held that Google “has merely, by the provision of its search service, played the role of a facilitator.” While this decision is consistent with America and other European countries’ libel laws, this case is seen as a significant win for search engines because of England’s reputation as being sympathetic to libel claimants.

USPTO Places Its “Peer-to-Patent” Pilot Program on Hold

In 2007, the United States Patent and Trade Office partnered with New York Law School’s Center for Patent Innovation to create an online collaborative patent review program. After two years, the program has been suspended in order to evaluate its effectiveness, InformationWeek reports. The Center for Patent Innovation also cited the poor economy as a reason for the suspension. Hoping to decrease the backlog in the USPTO, the pilot program encouraged patent applicants to volunteer their submissions to undergo peer review. Peer-to-Patent issued its second anniversary report this July and announced it will stop accepting new applicants. Despite the hiatus, there is hope that the program will be re-launched in the future as David Kappos, Obama’s nominee for director of USPTO, has indicated his support of the program, calling it “the Patent Office of the 21st century.”

Blogger Status Fails to Provide Journalistic Protection under N.J. Shield Law

By Ian B. Brooks – Edited by Amanda Rice
Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale, Case No. MON-L-2736-08, (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. June 30, 2009) Slip Opinion

The Monmouth County Superior Court of New Jersey held that the Defendant, blogger Shellee Hale, was not entitled to the protections of a newsperson under New Jersey’s Shield Law. Although Hale claimed that her posts on an Internet message board were intended to inform the public and spur debate on Too Much Media’s alleged activities, Judge Locascio focused on Hale’s credibility and whether her posting resembled traditional news media. The court noted that although the Shield Law in New Jersey was “one of the nation’s broadest,” Hale “presented no credible evidence . . . that she ever worked for any ‘newspapers, magazines, press associations, news agencies or wire services, radio or television.’” In reaching this conclusion, Judge Locascio gave no weight to Hale’s being a blogger or her claims of having published articles in a newspaper and trade journal because she failed to name the publications and lied in her certification to the court, which Judge Locasio labeled a “sham affidavit.”

The Citizen Media Law Project provides an overview of the case. The New Jersey Law Journal also summarizes the case and includes comments from Too Much Media attorney, Joel Kreizman. (more…)