When you post an anonymous message on an Internet message board, how anonymous is it, really? Justia columnist and attorney Julie Hilden comments on a recent Illinois state court appellate decision regarding the First Amendment right to speak anonymously. The dispute at issue arose from a number of anonymous comments posted on a newspaper website's message board, and relating in part to a local election. The target of the comments sued for defamation (via his parent, as he was a minor). However, the Illinois court—after clarifying Illinois law pertaining to defamation cases involving an anonymous defendant—found that the statements at issue were not necessarily defamatory, but rather could, and should, be subject to an innocent interpretation. Hilden argues that while the court’s invocation of the innocent-construction rule here was dubious, the court was right to protect the anonymity of the message-board-poster defendant.
Justia columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on recently-enacted state laws that cover the growing occurrence of “e-personation.” As Ramasastry explains, “e-personation” occurs when thieves, scam artists, people seeking revenge, or bullies use the Internet to pretend to be someone else—either by creating a fake Facebook or web profile, or by communicating via email with third parties under a false name. She notes that the object of e-personation is often to defraud, perhaps in order to gain the target’s confidential information. Ramasastry considers whether separate e-personation laws are really necessary, and contrasts California’s and New Jersey’s respective approaches to e-personation. She argues that, in most circumstances, it is not necessary for states to pass a special law to reach e-personation, since the laws already on the books will suffice. Noting that currently, only California, New York, and Texas have separate e-personation statutes, she urges other states not to follow suit and simply enforce the laws they already have. She also discusses the possible First Amendment issues raised by some applications of e-personation laws.
Justia columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on several possible ways in which users can respond when a website changes its Terms of Service (ToS) without their consent. She focuses in particular on the recent, controversial ToS changes by Sony regarding the Playstation, and by Electronic Arts, which has a new online gaming service, Origin. These ToS changes and others like them have sparked interesting responses, as Ramasastry explains: First, the website GamersOptOut.com makes it easier for users to opt out of these ToS changes (as the companies’ contracts allow) in a less burdensome way. Second, Kevin Owocki’s TOSAmend applet allows users to submit a proposed revised ToS along with their “I Agree” clicks—but, as Ramasastry notes, it’s unclear what the legal effect of Owocki’s clever applet may be. Finally, a third interesting development in this area, Ramasastry points out, is the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Terms-of-Service Tracker, which details changes in ToS so that website users can take action.
Justia columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on the Cleveland, Ohio, City Council’s recent efforts to pass ordinances that penalize the convening of flash mobs that become violent or disruptive. Ramasastry explains the City Council’s original proposed ordinance, and why the city’s mayor vetoed it, and notes that there are significant problems with the City Council’s second attempt at a flash-mob ordinance, as well. She advocates an approach that focuses on action, not speech, when it comes to flash mobs, and reminds us that the “chilling effect” of overly broad ordinances can end up stopping First-Amendment-protected speech before it starts.
Justia columnist and attorney Julie Hilden comments on defamation claims based on Twitter users’ tweets. As she explains, two such cases in recent years have involved musician Courtney Love, and another involved Kim Kardashian. Hilden points out that the Supreme Court’s constitutional law regarding defamation was devised with newspapers squarely in mind. She thus analyzes why the different context of Twitter might make a difference, legally. Among other possibilities, Hilden considers possible analogies between tweets and slander, and between tweets and Op Eds.
Justia columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on the current problem of jurors’ doing Internet searches relating to the trials on which they serve—sometimes, even if the jurors have been directly admonished not to do so. Ramasastry describes an interesting approach to the problem, used by Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Judge Scheindlin asks jurors to sign a written pledge not to use the Internet to research the case on which they sit. Ramasastry also describes other judges’ attempted solutions to, and experiences with, the jury-Internet-use problem—which has caused a number of costly mistrials—and the model jury instructions on the topic. She notes, however, that researchers are finding that virtually nothing will stop jurors from doing their own Internet research regarding the cases on which they sit—leading some to suggest that it may be more effective to limit, but not ban, jurors’ Internet research, as a ban will inevitably be ignored.
Justia columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry focuses on a scandal that shows how posts on social networking sites may lead to much-needed reforms. As Ramasastry explains, the Facebook page of an anonymous person who goes by “Spider Truman” has played a key role in focusing public attention on the lavish lives of Italian Members of Parliament (MPs), and their alleged corruption. With Italy now in a severe financial crisis, disclosures on the site of “Spider Truman” concerning MPs’ many perks and alleged misconduct have enraged many, Ramasastry points out. Examples include the MPs’ menu of gourmet food at heavily subsidized prices, and their alleged fraudulent expense claims. Noting that UK MPs previously were part of a similar scandal that led to reform, Ramasastry contends that social networking may be a catalyst for greater governmental openness in Italy and elsewhere.
Justia columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry covers an interesting angle on the still-unfolding News of the World hacking scandal: the possibility of not only British, but also U.S., civil suits and criminal charges against the hackers. As Ramasastry explains, several British celebrities, including Jude Law and David Beckham, believe that their cellphones were hacked while they were in the United States. Even more disturbingly, it is possible that the cellphones of 9/11 victims were also hacked. Ramasastry details the U.S. laws that might apply to these cases, and other potential cases in which cellphones were hacked while their owners were within U.S. jurisdiction and accessing U.S. cellular networks. Ramasastry also offers advice to ordinary Americans who want to make sure that they are protected from hacking while using their cellphones.
Justia columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on a new spate of lawsuits, which are being filed by the producers of X-rated movies and "B" movies and which target persons who the producers claim downloaded these movies for free via BitTorrent. Ramasastry explains how the suits work; contrasts them with earlier suits by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) against alleged music downloaders; and concludes that while the movie companies surely have the right to enforce their copyrights, several procedural aspects of these suits are very disturbing and should be addressed by the courts. Ramasastry also notes that the settlements the companies are seeking, and getting, from individuals appear to be quite high.