1. THE COMPUSERVE GERMANY CASE
Munich, Germany - May 1998
Former CompuServe official convicted in German court for not blocking access to pornographic pictures that were available on the Internet. May ultimately come to be seen as one of the most important turning points in the development of cyberspace law
and policy, since it serves to highlight the range of unresolved issues in the interrelated areas of jurisdiction, regulation, and enforcement.
2. U.S. v. MACHADO
No. SACR 96-142-AHS (S.D.Cal.) - February 1998
Former UC Irvine student convicted under federal civil rights law in "hate e-mail" case. Machado had composed an e-mail message on a university computer and sent it via the university network to 59 Asian students, signing it "Asian Hater" and warning that all Asians should leave UC Irvine or he would "hunt all of you down and kill your stupid asses." He also wrote: "I personally will make it my life's work to find and kill every one of you personally. OK? That's how determined I am. Do you hear me?" Many view this decision as a potentially significant milestone in the battle against racism online.
3. LOUDOUN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LOUDOUN COUNTY LIBRARY
1998 WL 164330 (E.D.Va.) - April 1998
In a high profile lawsuit focusing on Internet filtering in public libraries, Judge Leonie Brinkema denied defendant's motions to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, and scheduled a trial on the substantive issues. In late 1997, the Loudoun County Library Board had voted to adopt a "Policy on Internet Sexual Harassment," which requires that "[s]ite-blocking software ... be installed on all [library] computers" so as to: "a. block child pornography and obscene material (hard core pornography)"; and "b. block material deemed harmful to juveniles under applicable Virginia statutes and legal precedents (soft core pornography)." To implement the Policy, the Library Board chose "X-Stop," a commercial software product. Plaintiffs challenged this policy under the free speech clause of the First Amendment, alleging that it impermissibly blocks their access to protected speech. In her ruling, after analyzing relevant First Amendment cases (and particularly Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853), Judge Brinkema declared that "the Library Board may not adopt and enforce content-based restrictions on access to protected Internet speech absent a compelling state interest and means narrowly drawn to achieve that end."
4. U.S. v. HILTON
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5007, 1998 WL 167255 (D.Me.) - March 1998
Defendant prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. Section 2252 successfully challenged the constitutionality of provisions adopted in 1996, which expanded the definition of child pornography to include "computer or computer generated" images (See 18 U.S.C. Section 2256 (8) (B)). Previously, the law had only proscribed visual depictions of real children. The court determined that this new definition, which proscribes "visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," "sweeps within its prohibitions substantial protected expression. Because of the definition of 'minor' and its role in the definition of 'child pornography,' the statute impacts a significant amount of adult pornography featuring adults who appear youthful." The court concluded that "expression involving such adults will be chilled by the subjective language of the statute. Thus, the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad."
5. BLUMENTHAL v. DRUDGE AND AOL
992 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C.) - April 1998
The court granted America Online's motion for summary judgment, determining that under Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, the commercial online service was not liable for alleged defamatory remarks set forth by Internet journalist Matt Drudge. The remarks had been posted on AOL, but were also available via a mailing list and through Drudge's own web site. Section 230(c) provides: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Plaintiff argued that AOL was more than simply a "provider" in this case, because it had contracted with the journalist (at $3,000 a month) to put the Drudge Report on its service. However, the court disagreed, declaring that "Congress has made a different policy choice by providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others. In some sort of tacit quid pro quo arrangement with the service provider community, Congress has conferred immunity from tort liability as an incentive to Internet service providers to self-police the Internet for obscenity and other offensive material, even where the self-policing is unsuccessful or not even attempted."
6. PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. BUCCI
No. 97-7492, 3 Electronic Commerce & Law Report 221 (2nd Cir.) - February 1998
In a one-paragraph summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling enjoining an anti-abortion activist from using "www.plannedparenthood.com" to
promote anti-abortion literature (See 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)). The district court had found that the activist's domain name was nearly identical to the mark of Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion-related services. A similar decision was recently reached in Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2962 (D.N.J.).
7. LOVING v. BOREN
133 F.3d 771 (10th Cir.) - January 1998
Affirmed the lower court ruling in this case, which involved a First Amendment challenge to Oklahoma University's newsgroup policy by an OU journalism professor. In March 1996, responding to complaints from both a state legislator and the local director of the Center for a Family Friendly Internet, OU had stopped carrying about 100 newsgroups. Later, after Professor Loving had filed his lawsuit, OU revised its newsgroup access policy and set up a second on-campus "news server." The "A" server restricts access to those newsgroups "approved" by OU, while the "B" server allows unrestricted access to all newsgroups on the Internet. Persons wishing to use the "B" server must be over eighteen and must certify that they are accessing the newsgroups "for academic and research purposes." By allowing a public university to restrict student and faculty access in this manner, the court has arguably made a significant statement regarding the boundaries of free speech rights in higher education.
8.
UROFSKY V. ALLEN
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2139, 1998 WL 86587 (E.D. Va.) - February 1998
The court held that a Virginia statute prohibiting state employees from accessing sexually explicit material online was violative of the First Amendment. Judge Brinkema explained that what is at issue here is a state employee's ability to "read, research, and discuss" sexually explicit topics. Among other things, the court determined that since sexually explicit online material may very well contain information that would benefit the public, it is entitled to constitutional protection.
9. THOMAS v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS AND NSF
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4835, 1998 WL 191205 (D.D.C.) - April 1998
Dismissing 9 out of 10 counts in this lawsuit, the court rejected plaintiff's legal challenge to Network Solutions' role as a registrar of Internet domain names. However, it ruled for the plaintiff with regard to Network Solutions' collection of fees for this service, determining that such fees amounted to an illegal tax.
10.
LEIBOVITZ v. PARAMOUNT
137 F.3d 109 (2nd Cir.) - February 1998
Not a cyberspace law case per se, but arguably contains principles and analogies that may be applicable in future cyberlaw disputes. The court determined that the modification of plaintiff's famous photograph of a naked and pregnant Demi Moore by superimposing the head of actor Leslie Nielsen on the body amounted to a fair use parody under Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569. Photographer Annie Leibovitz had argued that the modification in a movie ad constituted copyright infringement, but Judge Jon Newman found for the defendant under the fair use doctrine's four-factor analysis as clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994.
Return to Cyberspace
Law
& Policy Institute
Home Page.