JOLT Digest

Written by Laura Fishwick
Edited by Adam Lewin
Editorial Policy

Introduction

The most recent U.S. Supreme Court case to address the legality of school-imposed punishment for student expression was more than forty years ago in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In that seminal case, the Supreme Court found that a state’s interest in maintaining its educational system can justify limitations on students’ First Amendment rights to the extent necessary to maintain an effective learning environment. Id. In Tinker, school officials suspended students for wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. Articulating the standard still used by courts today,[1] the Court held that a school may regulate student speech or expression if school officials can reasonably conclude that such speech caused or is likely to cause a “material and substantial” disruption to school activities. Id. at 513 (finding no substantial disruption because the protests were non-violent and did not interfere with class activities).

Tinker and subsequent Supreme Court cases have not addressed whether a school may regulate student speech that occurs off campus or online and is not connected to a school event, but that nonetheless causes disruption on campus or in the classroom. Further complicating the analysis of on campus, off campus, and online speech are additional factors such as the location where recorded activity takes place before it is posted online, and the location of the computer used to upload data onto the Internet. This comment explores the recent lower court decisions applying the Tinker standard to school-enforced limits on student speech made on the Internet. In cases of off campus or online speech, some courts have responded to the fact that Tinker involved on campus speech by requiring the school to show a substantial nexus between the speech and the school before applying Tinker. Beyond the nexus inquiry, courts move onto Tinker and examine the intensity of on campus discussions surrounding the expression, the burden the expression places on the administration, and whether the expression contains violent content.  (more…)

District Court Strikes Poster and Sticker Requirements from San Francisco Cell Phone Health Risk Ordinance
By Heejin Choi – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg

CTIA – The Wireless Ass’n v. City and Cnty. of S.F., Cal., No. C 10-03224 WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011)
Slip Opinion hosted by Justia.com

The District Court for the Northern District of California, ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction against San Francisco’s “Cell Phone Disclosure Requirements” ordinance, temporarily stayed the measure until necessary revisions were made.

The ordinance requires cell phone retailers to inform customers of the possible harmful effects of cell phone radiation by displaying informational posters on its walls, placing stickers on other displays, and providing a fact-sheet to customers, regardless of whether they purchased a cell phone or not.

Judge William Alsup concluded that changes must be made to the fact-sheet to comply with the First Amendment. He further held that the posters and stickers were unconstitutional, even with the changes.

TechCrunch provides an overview of the case. Ars Technica mentions a recently conducted study showing no link between cancer and cell phone usage.  (more…)

Is It Unconstitutional for Congress to Take Foreign Works Out of the Public Domain?
By Julie Dorais – Edited by Matt Gelfand

Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545 (U.S. 2010)
Transcript of Oral Arguments

On October 5, 2011, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Golan v. Holder. The case involves the challenged constitutionality of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (codified as 17 U.S.C. §§ 104A, 109), which extends copyright protection to certain foreign works that have already been in the public domain in the United States. Petitioners claim that Section 514 violates both the First Amendment and Progress Clause of the Constitution. The government in turn contends that Congress acted constitutionally and in accordance with a significant interest in complying with international obligations.

The case comes up after the Tenth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Section 514 in two separate decisions, with the first decision rejecting the Progress Clause challenge and the second decision rejecting the First Amendment challenge. The Digest covered the Tenth Circuit’s first decision, the district court’s decision on remand, the Tenth Circuit’s second decision, and the plaintiffs’ petition to the Supreme Court. For commentaries on the oral arguments, see Copyright and Trademark Blog and The Denver Post.

(more…)

Despite First Amendment Challenge, Seventh Circuit Allows High School Sports Association to Exclusively License Broadcasting Right

By Abby Lauer – Edited by Andrew Segna

Wis. Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 10-2627 (7th Cir. Aug. 24, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, which had granted summary judgment to the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Associate (WIAA) in a declaratory judgment action against local news media company Gannett Co., Inc.

The Seventh Circuit held that it is constitutional for the WIAA, a state actor, to exclusively license the right to broadcast tournament games played by member schools. In so holding, the court rejected Gannett’s argument that WIAA’s contract, which grants American Hi-Fi the exclusive right to stream tournament games and requires consent and payment for third-party broadcasts of entire games, violates the First Amendment.

The State Bar of Wisconsin provides an overview of the case. Techdirt criticizes the decision, expressing concern that the Seventh Circuit has created a new intellectual property right. (more…)

By Esther Kang

Steve Jobs Resigns As Apple CEO

Steve Jobs announced his resignation as CEO of Apple on Wednesday, reports The Wall Street Journal. In his resignation letter, Jobs wrote, “I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know.” Tim Cook, who had been Apple’s COO since 2005, has replaced Jobs. Many have raised concerns about the future of the company following Jobs’ departure, according to The Huffington Post. The Guardian reports that as of Thursday, Apple stock had dropped by 3% after Jobs’ announcement.

Facebook, RIM, and Twitter Meet with UK Government about Recent Riots

Reuters reports that on Thursday, UK Home Secretary Theresa May met with representatives from Facebook, RIM, and Twitter to discuss the role of social media in the recent British riots. The talks focused on building cooperation between the companies and the government to restrict criminal activity on social networks, but the UK government did not seek to impose any strict limitations on Internet services. According to PCWorld, Facebook released a statement welcoming the government’s efforts to “keep people safe” rather than “imposing new restrictions,” the company also recognized that at times, it must be more active when “dealing with situations that are heightened or sensitive such as the UK riots.”

RIAA Appeals District Court’s Reduction of Damages in File-Sharing Case

As Ars Technica reports, the RIAA has appealed the reduction of damages from $1.5 million to $54,000 in its suit against Jammie Thomas-Rasset to the Eighth Circuit. The case, filed in 2007, has already gone through three trials, the first two resulting in jury verdicts of copyright infringement and damages of $1.92 million and $1.5 million, respectively, until the district judge held the latter award unconstitutional. According to Techdirt, the RIAA bases its appeal on the correct interpretation of the word “distribution” in the Copyright Act and whether it covers merely making a copyrighted work “available.”

Court Rules that Ban on Teacher-Student Communication on Non-Work-Related Sites Violates the First Amendment

Ars Technica reports that a Missouri court has enjoined a new law that would have penalized teachers who communicate with students through “non-work-related” sites, which include Facebook and Twitter. The Volokh Conspiracy comments on the legal merits of the case and agrees with the court that the law was overly broad, prohibiting even communication between family members in some instances. In response to the public outcry against the law and the court’s ruling, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has called for the law to be repealed, as well as other provisions not enjoined by the court to be removed, according to Yahoo News.