JOLT Digest

Virginia State Supreme Court Holds Anti-Spam Statute Unconstitutionally Overbroad
By Jay Gill — Edited by Nicola Carah

Jaynes v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Supreme Court of Virginia, September 12, 2008, No. 062388
Slip Opinion

The Supreme Court of Virginia overturned the conviction of prolific spammer Jeremy Jaynes, unanimously reversing not only the Virginia state court of appeals, but its own earlier holding in the case. In doing so, the court held that the Virginia anti-spam statute under which Jaynes was convicted was unconstitutionally overbroad, as it did not distinguish between commercial and non-commercial instances of anonymous, unsolicited bulk e-mail. The court ruled that non-commercial anonymous bulk e-mail falls squarely within First Amendment protection and that no reasonable construction of the Virginia statute could remedy the constitutional defect.

In a press release praising the decision, the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in support of Jaynes, wrote, “[s]peech on the Internet deserves no less First Amendment protection than in any other medium.” Jon Praed of the Internet Law Group took issue with the court’s characterization of the situation, telling the Washington Post: “I guess a burglar can break into your home as long as they are reciting the Gettysburg Address.” John Levine, president of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail, and an expert for the prosecution in Jayne’s jury trial, argues that IP forgery is a red herring and points out that there are a variety of alternatives to send anonymous emails. Nonetheless, he commented, “I don’t see it as a fatal setback for anti-spam law.” According to Levine, Virginia’s statute was unique in prohibiting noncommercial spam, and other statutes, including the federal CAN-SPAM act (which took effect after Jaynes’s arrest), do not contain the flaw that led to the result in this case.
(more…)

District Court Rules Virginia Law Protecting Social Security Numbers Unconstitutional As Applied to Watchdog Website
By Jon Choate — Edited by Daniel Ray

Ostergren v. McDonnell
E.D. Va. No. 3:08cv362
Slip Opinion (hosted by the ACLU)

On August 22nd, 2008, Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found § 59.1-443.2 of the Virginia Code to violate the First Amendment as applied to Betty J. Ostergren’s website The Virginia Watchdog. The court granted plaintiff Ostergren limited injunctive relief against the State of Virginia as represented by its Attorney General, Robert F. McDonnell.

Ostergren is a privacy advocate who has lobbied the General Assembly of Virginia to stop publicly posting land records containing Social Security Numbers (“SSNs”) online without redacting the SSNs. On her own site, she has posted a number of these land records, including those of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, and members of the Virginia legislature and judiciary. She has also posted examples of publicly available records from other states containing SSNs.

Section 59.1-443.2 of the Virginia Code is a provision of Virginia’s Personal Information Privacy Act (“PIPA”). In part it provides that “a personal shall not . . . [i]ntentionally communicate another individual’s social security number to the general public.” Until July 1, 2008, PIPA excepted “records required by law to be open to the public.”
(more…)

D. Mass: MIT Students’ Security Presentation Merits Temporary Restraining Order
By Jon Choate - Edited by Dan Ray 

Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. v. Anderson
D. Mass., August 9th, 2008, No. 08-11364-GAO
Temporary Restraining Order (Hosted by EFF)  

On August 9th, Judge Woodlock of the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts granted the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (”MBTA”) a temporary restraining order against Zack Anderson, RJ Ryan, and Alessandro Chiesa, undergraduates at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (”MIT”). The order “enjoined and restrained” the undergraduates from “providing program, information, software code, or command that would assist another in any material way to circumvent or otherwise attack the security” of the MBTA fare system’s CharlieCard and CharlieTicket.  CharlieCards are reusable stored-value cards, which allow Boston subway riders access at ticket terminals by waiving the card over a designated reader. The system operates wirelessly, and allows riders to add money to their cards both at subway terminals and through online accounts. 

Anderson, Ryan and Chiesa reportedly uncovered several vulnerabilities with the MTBA’s CharlieTicket system while doing research for a Computer and Network Security class. Using this research, the students devised a way in which the CharlieCards can be reprogrammed using $200 worth of equipment; theoretically, this method could increase the stored-value on a card   to more than $600.  The students also discovered that the CharlieCards, which store balance and other information internally, can be read using non-MTBA wireless equipment. Furthermore, according to documents on their research, the three had written software capable of generating and analyzing CharlieCards in order to crack the card’s encryption. 

The MIT students were scheduled to present their research at DEFCON, “one of the oldest running hacker conventions around.” It was this presentation which prompted the August 8th complaint filed by the MBTA against Anderson, Ryan and Chiesa and MIT. The complaint alleges that the students

“(i) claim to have circumvented the security features of the MBTA’s computerized CharlieTicket and CharlieCard fare media systems; (ii) publicly offered ‘free subway rides for life‘ to interested parties over the Internet; and (iii) plan to allow others to duplicate their claimed ‘breaking’ of the Fare Media’s security systems by presenting a paper, releasing software tools, and giving demonstrations at the DEFCON hackers convention this Sunday, August 10, in Las Vegas.”

The complaint further alleges that the students did not provide information regarding how they circumvented the security system to the MBTA and that public dissemination of the information before the MBTA has had an opportunity to correct the flaws will cause “significant damage to the MBTA’s transit system.”  

The MIT Tech covers the story, noting that while  the presentation at DEFCON was cancelled, the presentation slides and confidential vulnerability report the students wrote for the MBTA “are widely available online.” The Tech further reports that the students are being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and not by MIT’s lawyers.

(more…)

Third Circuit Holds Child Online Protection Act Unconstitutional 
By Anna Lamut - Edited by Nicola Carah 

ACLU v. Mukasey
Third Circuit, July 22, 2008, No. 07-2539
Slip Opinion  

On July 22, the Third Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s decision, finding that the Child Online Protection Act (”COPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 231, violated the First and Fifth Amendment, and permanently enjoined its enforcement. COPA imposes civil and criminal penalties for anyone who, “for commercial purposes,” knowingly posts “material that is harmful to minors” on the World Wide Web. 47 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1).  While broad, COPA allows web publishers a complete defense if they ”require[] use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number,” “accept[] a digital certificate that verifies age,” or use other similar measures. 47 U.S.C. § 231(c).  COPA has been mired in litigation since it was first enacted in October of 1998, including two trips to the Supreme Court;  this is the third time that the Third Circuit has held the Act unconstitutional. 

Judge Morton I. Greenberg, writing for a unanimous panel with Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Michael A. Chagares, found that COPA failed to meet the strict scrutiny standard for restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. To survive strict scrutiny review, regulation that restricts protected speech must serve a “compelling government interest”, be “narrowly tailored” to serve the interest, and use the least restrictive means available.  The Third Circuit found that COPA served the compelling government interest to protect children, but that it failed to meet the second and third prongs of the test.  The court held that COPA was insufficiently narrowly tailored because, inter alia, minors were broadly defined as any person under the age of 17, and the standard for harmfulness did not require that the material be viewed in context.  In addition, the court found the definition of a “commercial” publisher to be overly inclusive and the affirmative defenses available to such publishers — evidence of the implementation of credit card shields or similar measures — unduly restrictive both to publishers and adults wishing to access the material. Finally, the court held the government failed to demonstrate that internet content filters, deemed a less restrictive option, were less effective than COPA.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center hosts the full text of COPA and related House Report. 

The Center for Democracy and Technology, an online rights advocacy group that filed an amicus brief for an earlier Third Circuit COPA case, lauded the decision. CDT General Counsel John Morris states, “This empowers parents, respects the First Amendment and acknowledges the diverse sensibilities of American families.”

Professor Susan Crawford of the University of Michigan Law comments on the decision, and addresses the possibility that the case will once again return to the Supreme Court. 

(more…)

Third Circuit Vacates FCC Fine
By Jon Choate — Edited by Stephanie Weiner

CBS Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission
Third Circuit, July 21 2008, No. 06-3575
Slip Opinion

On July 21, the Third Circuit vacated an FCC order fining CBS $550,000 for the nine-sixteenths of one second broadcasting of Janet Jackson’s bare right breast during the halftime show of Super Bowl XXXVIII in February 2004. The court held that the FCC had departed from its prior policy in fining CBS for the “fleeting image” and that this change was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act § 706. The court also held that Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake were independent contractors with respect to CBS while performing at the half-time show and that CBS could not be held vicariously liable for their actions without proof of scienter.

The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling; however, the court noted that any further action would be declaratory in nature, as the FCC cannot retroactively penalize CBS.

Ken Ferree, president of The Progress & Freedom Foundation (“PFF”) hailed the ruling as a reinforcement of First Amendment rights. Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the PFF, expects the FCC to appeal the decision, as it did a Second Circuit opinion holding that the FCC’s policy sanctioning “fleeting expletives” was arbitrary and capricious.

Jonathan Rintels, Executive Director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, also applauded the decision, focusing in particular on the “chilling” effect the FCC’s decisions might have on freedom of expression.

The Parents Television Council (“PTC”) was somewhat less pleased with the decision, which, in its view, “hijacked the will of the American people” and the “intent of Congress.”

(more…)

New Law Expands Government Surveillance Powers
By Daniel Ray — Edited by Sarah Sorscher

H.R. 6304 — FISA Amendments Act of 2008
Full Text of Enrolled Bill
Senate Vote Summary
GovTrack.us Summary

On July 9, the Senate passed H.R. 6034, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and President George W. Bush signed it into law the following day. The new law modifies the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“FISA”) to expand (subject to certain new checks) the federal government’s surveillance powers and retroactively immunize telecommunication companies that cooperated with the warrantless wiretapping program brought to light in 2005.

The New York Times summarizes the politics surrounding the FISA issue, in which presumptive Democratic nominee for president Barack Obama’s “yea” vote attracted scorn from some Democrats.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (PDF), a longtime opponent of President’s surveillance program, calls Section 202 an immunity “compromise” in name only.

Orin Kerr, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy, criticizes as “misleading” media coverage that ignores the law’s new procedural safeguards (as compared to last year’s less restrictive Protect America Act (“PAA”)).

On the issue of immunity, Charlie Reina (writing at the Huffington Post), regrets that the public will never know who was monitored or which companies cooperated with the original warrantless wiretapping requests.

(more…)

Supreme Court Leaves in Place Eighth Circuit Test Favoring First Amendment Protection for Fantasy Sports
By Dmitriy Tishyevich — Edited by Evie Breithaupt

Major League Baseball Advanced Media v. C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing
8th Circuit, Oct 16, 2007, cert. denied June 2, 2008
Eighth Circuit Opinion, Supreme Court Order

On June 2, the Supreme Court denied petition for a writ of certiorari from Major League Baseball Advanced Media (“MLB”). MLB had sought to appeal the Eighth Circuit’s decision, which held that the First Amendment interests in public information about baseball and baseball players outweighed the players’ state law right of publicity.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court, which had granted summary judgment to CBC, a producer of fantasy major league baseball games. CBC sought a declaratory judgment that it may use, without license, the names of and information about major league baseball players in connection with its for-profit fantasy baseball products.

The Eighth Circuit found that MLB had provided sufficient evidence to establish a cause of action for violation of players’ rights of publicity under Missouri law. It held, however, that under Supreme Court precedent, a state law right of publicity must be balanced against First Amendment considerations. The court found that the CBC’s First Amendment rights superseded the players’ rights of publicity. The majority noted that information meant only to provide entertainment still enjoys First Amendment protection, and it reasoned that the significant public value of information about “the national pastime” entitles it to substantial protection. It noted also that as the information used by CBC was already available in the public domain, it would be “strange law” if CBC did not have a First Amendment right to use information available to everyone else. The court was not persuaded that CBC had violated the economic interests of the players which the right of publicity seeks to protect, noting that the players were already adequately compensated for their participation in games. It also rejected the argument that the non-economic interests protected by the right of publicity, such as rewarding celebrity labors and avoiding emotional harm, were violated, finding that none of these interests were implicated in the context of fantasy baseball.

Judge Colloton dissented. He agreed with the majority’s analysis of the right to publicity and the application of the First Amendment to fantasy baseball, but disagreed as to its resolution of the contractual dispute between the parties.

(more…)

Second Circuit Holds First Amendment Claim Against School Regulation of Off-Campus Speech Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits
By Jay Gill — Edited by Nicola Carah

Doninger v. Niehoff
Second Circuit, May 29, 2008, No. 07-3885
Slip Opinion

The Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the Connecticut District Court’s decision to deny a motion for preliminary injunction in a case involving a high school’s alleged violation a student’s First Amendment rights. Ms. Doninger filed suit after the high school prohibited her daughter from running for senior-class secretary, a move prompted by the school’s discovery of a blog in which the daughter had posted a “vulgar and misleading message” about administrators and an upcoming school event. The court found that the lower court had not abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction on the grounds that the case was unlikely to succeed on the merits.

Scott H. Greenfield of Simple Justice is troubled by the broad application of a “potential for disruption” standard. Greenfield claims that the Second Circuit ruling flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s holding in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates.” Instead of protecting the rights of students in the schoolyard, Greenfield says, the Second Circuit is restricting those rights even once the students have left school.

Professor Jonathan Turley views the decision as part of a “steady eradication of student rights” and thinks the decision teaches a “foul lesson to these future citizens.” While he thinks that punishment is warranted when students use vulgar language or behave inappropriately, he thinks this punishment should come from parents and not school authorities.

(more…)