Cases

• Bernstein v. U.S. Dep't of Justice 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999) encryption export regulations constitute a prior restraint on speech that offends the First Amendment.
• Board of Education v. Pico 457 U.S. 853 (1982) First Amendment limits government's right to remove materials from high school library based on content (plurality opinion).
• C P Interests Inc. v. California Pools Inc. No. 99-21038 (5th Cir. January 30, 2001) Where defendant disparaged plaintiff's business by posting Internet messages warning customers to beware of an "imposter," Restatement (Second) of Torts 623(a) permits a cause of action for business disparagement without proof of special damages, so attorneys fees alone can constitute a sufficient pecuniary loss to support a claim of disparagement under Texas law.
• Cubby v. CompuServe, 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) Given the relevant First Amendment considerations, the appropriate standard of liability to be applied to CompuServe is whether it knew or had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorville statements.
• Felsher v. Univ. Of Evansville No. 82S04-0008-CV-477 (Ind. October 1, 2001) The lower court was correct in ruling that a terminated university professor may not use misleading web site and email URLs to "nominate" other university professors for employment at other universities.
• Global Telemedia Int'l, Inc. v. Doe 1 AKA Bustedagain40 132 F.Supp.2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2001) A publicly traded company with many thousands of investors is of public interest, so published opinions from non-competitors are speech protected by Cal. Civ. Proc. section 425.16.
• In Re Collins 86 Cal.App.4th 1176, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 108 (2001) Maximum security prisons may prohibit prisoners from receiving e-mail from their personalized web pages in order to prevent them from receiving unauthorized material.
• Junger v. Daley 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir 2000) The First Amendment protects computer source code.
• Mack v. State Bar Of California No B143068 (Cal. 2d App. Dist. October 05, 2001) Stipulation in disciplinary proceeding where state bar agreed not to "affirmatively provide any publicity" to the ruling but would make it available upon request from public does not preclude bar from placing disciplinary record on its web site.
• Mainstream Loudoun v. Bd. of Trs. of the Loudoun County Library (E.D.Va. April 7, 1998) First Amendment's free speech clause applicable to public library's content-based restrictions on Internet access.
• National A-1 Adver., Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. 121 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.C.N.H. 2000) Registrar did not violate First Amendment in refusing to register domain names it considered vulgar.
• Planned Parenthood Of The Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition Of Life Activists 244 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) Anti-abortion protesters' poster and web site listing doctors who performed abortions as "dirty dozen" and "guilty of crimes against humanity" are protected as First Amendment political speech, where speech was public and threats of violence were not directed at individuals.
• Seven Words LLC v. Network Solutions No. 99-56909 (9th Cir. August 13, 2001) Plaintiff's disavowal of damages in suit involving register's refusal to register Internet domain names becomes moot when third parties successfully register the domain names that are the subject of the dispute.
• Urofsky v. Gilmore No. 98-1481 (4th Cir. 2000)(en banc) the regulation of state employees' access to sexually explicit material, in their capacity as employees, on computers owned or leased by the state is consistent with the First Amendment.
• Zepeda v. Zepeda 2001 SD 101 (S.D. August 1, 2001) Engaging in "cybersex" outside the presence of the child is not itself grounds for denying child custody.
• Zeran v. America Online 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) 47 U.S.C. § 230 "Plainly immunizes computer service providers like AOL from liability for information that originates with third parties."

 

Statutes

• 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) Interstate communications. (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

Cases

• U.S. v. Jake Baker, 890 F. Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995) The government's enthusiastic beginning petered out to a salvage effort once it recognized that the communication which so much alarmed the University of Michigan officials was only a rather savage and tasteless piece of fiction.

 

Constitution

• The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cases

• Cubby v. Compuserve 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Case about defamatory statements made in a publication on a computerized database.

• U.S. v. Thomas Violation of federal obscenity laws based on content of an electronic bulletin board

 

Statutes

• Communications Decency Act Information on the law and the U.S. Supreme Court opinion finding it unconstitutional.
• The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments Public Law 104-231 (October 2, 1996).