JOLT Digest

By Chinh Vo

Supreme Court to Decide on Law Regulating Sale of Violent Video Games to Kids

Wired reports that the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states may forbid the sale or rental of violent video games to children. The Court will review a ruling by the Ninth Circuit that struck down a California law, imposing fines for selling “patently offensive” or “morbid” games to people under the age of 18, on First Amendment grounds. Similar laws have been overturned in other states, including Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Oklahoma. According to the New York Times, the decision to hear the case — despite general agreement among lower courts — suggests that some justices intend to reexamine how the First Amendment applies to depictions of violence.

Senators Attack New Facebook Features on Privacy Grounds

TechCrunch and Ars Technica report that a group of four U.S. senators is calling on Facebook to change its privacy policies following the popular social networking site’s launch of major new features last week. Democrats Al Franken, Charles Schumer, Michael Bennet, and Mark Begich, in an open letter to Facebook, warned that the Federal Trade Commission may get involved if the company does not take “swift and productive steps” to protect the privacy of user information. Their primary concerns were the “expansion of publicly available data” that users must opt out of sharing and third-party advertisers’ ability to store user profile data indefinitely. These features, according to the senators, create a “potential gold mine of data for unsolicited advertisements.” The senators also asked the FTC to provide guidelines for the use of private information by social networking sites.

Court Orders Aspiring News Blogger to Reveal Sources

A New Jersey appellate court ruled that a blogger must disclose the sources behind online statements she posted, Wired reports. Shellee Hale was sued for defamation after accusing software company Too Much Media of fraudulent acts against its customers. The statements at issue were not posted on Hale’s own blog, but rather in the comments section of a message board. The appellate court was not convinced by Hale’s defense utilizing a New Jersey shield law, protecting reporters from being forced to reveal their sources, because Hale is not a journalist. The court stated there was no evidence demonstrating conduct consistent with professional news reporting that would warrant application of the newsperson’s privilege. Hale produced no records of her interviews and did not identify herself as a journalist to sources. The court emphasized that “new media should not be confused with news media.”

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.”

By Jyoti Uppuluri

Nokia Sues Apple for Patent Infringement Related to iPhone

On October 22, Nokia filed a suit against Apple in Delaware federal court, alleging that the iPhone infringes patents held by Nokia. The New York Times reports that the specific patents deal with the GSM and UMTS wireless standards utilized by the iPhone for voice and data communication, both of which were developed in part by Nokia. The Wall Street Journal notes that the suit might be a strategic response to the iPhone’s increasing momentum in Europe and Asia. Nokia could gain a two-percent royalty on each iPhone sold if the suit succeeds.

Tennessee Couple Is Entitled to Unmask Anonymous Blogger

On October 8, a Tennessee state court held in Swartz v. Does that a couple is entitled to know the identity of the individual who posted critical statements about them in an online blog. Ars Technica notes that the blogger’s claim to protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act likely failed because the blog induced readers to spy on the Swartzes and report back on the blog. The Citizen Media Law Project points out that the legal standard used by the judge in this case was “highly protective of anonymous online speech,” but that the Swartzes provided “sufficient evidence in support of their claims of wrongdoing to outweigh the anonymous blogger’s right to anonymity.”

Personal entry on MySpace admitted into evidence in Indiana murder case

By Kassity Liu – Edited by Stephanie Weiner

Clark v. State, No. 43C01-0705-FA-127 (Ind. Oct. 15, 2009).
Opinion

On October 15, the Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed a murder conviction and sentence, rejecting the defendant’s claims on appeal, including an argument that the trial court improperly admitted as character evidence an entry he made online on his MySpace page.  The defendant claimed the admission was in violation of the Indiana Rules of Evidence.

Internet Cases and the WSJ Law Blog provide an overview of the case. Evidence Prof Blog criticizes the court’s reasoning on the MySpace entry issue, noting that the evidence was likely admitted in violation of Indiana Rule of Evidence 404(a), not considered by the court. (more…)

Back to Drawing Board for Pa. State Legislature in Protecting Trademark Holders
By Brittany Blueitt – Edited by Stephanie Weiner

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Omar, No. J-162A-B-2008 (Pa. Oct. 5, 2009)
Majority Opinion (Baer, J.)
Concurring Opinion (Castille, J.)
Dissenting Opinion (Eakin, J.)
Dissenting Opinion (Greenspan, J.)

On October 5, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed two consolidated Centre County Court of Common Pleas decisions dismissing criminal trademark counterfeiting charges on the ground that Pennsylvania’s Trademark Counterfeiting Statute, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4119, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.  The court held that the statute is unconstitutional because it criminalizes a substantial amount of speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Commonwealth v. Omar, No. J-162A-B-2008, slip op. at 10 (Pa. Oct. 5, 2009).

IP Spotlight provides an overview of the case. CNBC features an extended analysis of the decision.  The Madisonian declares the decision overly formalistic. (more…)