Mediaboss Marketing

Last month, Digital Music News reported on a controversial court ruling against Google. The Canadian Supreme Court ordered the search giant to remove specific piracy links not just in Canada, but worldwide. Now, Google has fought back, this time in a California courtroom.

In 2014, a Canadian court ruled that Google would have to remove a Canadian firm from its search results. Through Equusteks ex-employees, Datalink Technologies illegally sold their competitors products. Employees would set-up sites indexed on Google to sell the goods, sharing a strong percentage with Datalink.

After losing the initial court battle in British Columbia, Google filed, and subsequently lost, multiple appeals. Last month, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled against the search giant. It determined that Google was a determinative player in harming Equusteek.

The high court ruled that the search giant would have to de-index links from its search engine worldwide.

Now, Google has fought back. The search giant filed an injunction on Monday with the US District Court for Northern California. Digital Music News has obtained the documents.

Google filed the injunction to prevent enforcement of the Canadian ruling in the United States. It believes that the Canadian Supreme Court has compelled the search engine to wrongfully censor its information.

The Canadian trial court recognized that Google is an innocent bystander to the case. Nevertheless, it issued a novel worldwide order against Google, restricting what information an American company can provide to people inside of the United States and around the world.

Lawyers for the company claim that the court singled out Google, while leaving other search engines alone. They claim that people can still find links to the infringing sites through Yahoo and Bing.

In the complaint, lawyers for the company claim that Google is not the internet. It doesnt have the power to take down sites, as the ruling would suggest. Yet, the Canadian Supreme Court only found the search engine liable, leaving alone other websites.

Google is not the internet. The vast majority of internet websites are hosted by and operated through service providers other than Google. The entities with the technical ability to remove websites or content from the internet altogether are the websites owners, operators, registrars, and hostsnot Google.

Lawyers for the company laid out three causes of action.

In the first, the First Amendment protects search engine results. The complaint reads,

Enforcing the Canadian ruling in the United States would violate the companys First Amendment rights. The Canadian ruling, claims Google, furthers no compelling interest (nor a substantial interest). The existence of Datalinks search engine results remain a matter of public record.

Equustek has filed a claim only against the search engine; it has yet to file claims against Bing and Yahoo. It also hasnt gone after third-party websites that prominently display the infringing links, including social media and press websites. Equustek also hasnt filed a claim to stop the sale of Datalink products on Amazon.

For the second cause of action, Google cites the Communications Decency Act. This act provides clear legal immunity to providers of computer services for content on their services created by others. The Communications Decency Act reads,

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.

Equusteks initial filing is grounded in Canadian trade secret law, not US federal intellectual property or trade secret laws. Therefore, it cant enforce the order against Google in the United States. Once again, enforcement of the ruling will cause the search giant irreparable injury absent injunctive relief.

For the third cause of action, the search giant claims that enforcement of the ruling trespasses on comity. Siding with Google, the Canadian Attorney General said that the order constitutes an impermissible exercise of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction. The Canadian Supreme Court disregarded this statement, however. Instead, it declared that the Internet has no bordersits natural habitat is global. By saying this, the high court justified its global injunction against the company.

Equusteks counsel argued on the same principle.

Google calls the Canadian order repugnant to US public policy surrounding the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives the search giant immunity against imposing liability. Once again calling the order repugnant, the company claims that the high court singled it out. It issued an order against an innocent non-party for the sake of convenience.

Continuing on, lawyers claim,

Canadian courts failed to extend proper comity to the United States. Thus, the United States does not need to defer the order.

Google requests that the US District Court rule the Canadian order unenforceable in the United States. It also wants the court to issue a ruling in Googles favor and against the defendants, Equustek. Finally, lawyers want the court to grant the company preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from further enforcement.

You can read the injunction below.

Image by Ed Uthman (CC by 2.0)

View post:
Are Google Piracy Links Protected by the First Amendment? - Digital Music News

The Third Circuit recently joined the growing consensus of courts recognizing that the First Amendment protects the act of recording police officers conducting their official duties in public. In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, F.3d , 2017 WL 2884391 (3d Cir. July 7, 2017), two individuals brought claims against the City of Philadelphia and certain police officers for violating their First Amendment rights to record public police activity.

Amanda Geraci, a member of a police watchdog group, attended an anti-fracking protest at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in September 2012. When Geraci attempted to record the police arresting a protestor, an officer pushed her and pinned her to a pillar for over a minute, thus preventing her from observing or recording the arrest. Geraci did not interfere with any police activity. She was not arrested or cited.

In a consolidated case involving a similar issue, Richard Fields, a Temple University student, was on a public sidewalk when he observed police officers breaking up a house party in September 2013. The nearest police officer was 15 feet away from him. Using an iPhone, Fields took a photo of the incident. When Fields refused to obey an officers order for him to leave the area, the officer arrested and detained him, confiscated his phone, and opened several videos and photos on Fields phone. All charges against Fields were eventually dropped. According to Fields and Geraci, neither intended to share their recordingsthey merely wanted to record the police activity.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiffs First Amendment claims. Although the existence of the First Amendment right to record police activity was not in dispute, the Courton its owndeclined to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions.

The Third Circuit reversed, noting that the District Courts focus on expressive intent ignore[d] that the value of the recordings may not be immediately obvious. The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating the material. It reiterated that this case is not about people attempting to create art with police as their subjects. It is about recording police officers performing their official duties.

The Third Circuits reasoning is not novel. Several other circuit courts have reached the same conclusion. Traditionally, and as the text of the Constitution suggests, the First Amendments protections extend to speech, press, assembly, the right to petition, and religion. But recording police activity does not seem to fit squarely into any of these categories.

Without expressly relying on any of the five traditional First Amendment protections, the Court held that, subject to reasonable restrictions, the First Amendment protects the publics right of access to information about their officials public activities. At first blush, it appears that the Court has created a new First Amendment right of access to information. However, the Courts reasoning shows that the basis for this right is the freedom of press, and a recognition that in todays world, everyday citizens play a role in delivering the news.

The Court writes that to record is to see and hear more accurately. Recordings also facilitate discussion because of the ease in which they can be widely distributed via different forms of media. Accordingly, recording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information. As no doubt the press has the right, so does the public. The Court continues, [t]he publics creation of this content also complements the role of the news media. In addition to complementing the role of the traditional press, private recordings have improved professional reporting, as video content generated by witnesses and bystanders has become a common component of news programming.

Thus, Fields is a tacit recognition that in the age of electronics, the press is so much more than traditional broadcast news and newspapers. Today, everyone with a smartphone is essentially a member of the press and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Based on this expansive view of the press, the right to record police activity extends not only to the traditional press, but to the modern pressthat is, the public.

See original here:
First Amendment Protects Right to Record Police Activity, Third Circuit Holds - JD Supra (press release)

I recently took the photo that accompanies todays column on Swick Road off Route 89 in Romulus.

A woman contacted the Finger Lakes Times about the property. She found it offensive and thought it might even be illegal in New York. She says the resident claims to be a deer hunter. She has reported it to the town of Romulus and Seneca County officials.

It is likely not illegal, that is, unless it is regarded as a hate crime or hate speech against blacks being a reference to approval of lynching by the KKK. Then it is not just an ordinary rope.

If we give the home owner the benefit of the doubt, then the question is why keep the nooses hanging year-round knowing they might connote negative impressions to others?

For me, its just another instance of a pervasive attitude that seems to be taking shape culturally all over, where people just are going to do what they want regardless of right, wrong or political correctness.

Some might argue that this type of social and political climate is the result of Novembers presidential election. But the reality is what happens locally more often has a greater affect on peoples lives than anything nationally. And that includes politically.

The photo certainly raises First Amendment issues on both sides of the coin.

Briefly the First Amendment says: 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.

For me the First Amendment has very much become a focal point for things happening in the Finger Lakes region.

Lets take a look at the Geneva City Council. Not too long ago Mayor Alcock tried to move the public comment portion of the monthly meeting from the beginning of the session to the end. Since no ones knows how long each council meeting takes, often hours, I feel it was a clever way to stifle the voice of the public.

It was ultimately decided, however, to allow comments at the end and at the beginning with strict time limits imposed.

But that is nothing compared to what the Council did a couple of months ago. Its hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that a new rule was put into place that does not allow members of the public to address council members by name with their issues or complaints.

One of the guidelines from the current Rules and Procedures for Geneva City Council requires that All remarks shall be addressed to City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof.

I remind everyone it is 2017.

What may be a great example of political hypocrisy happened at a fairly recent meeting. Councilman Paul DAmico raised his concerns and was critical of city resident Jim Meaney and his website Geneva Believer, which often challenges the actions of Geneva city government. This when Meaney, who was at the meeting, was unable to directly address DAmico.

For a more detailed look at this issue go to genevabeliever.wordpress.com/author/geneva believer.

Now lets look at Seneca Falls Town Board meetings. Not only are signs banned from being brought into the meetings but if someone has a visual aid to show at the podium during their allotted time they are prevented from presenting it.

As a way to further restrict the publics right to free expression, they are holding the latest meetings in a room that only fits 80 people.

I have gone to several of the board meetings regarding the landfill issue. People certainly are passionate about the issue but never did I find it out of control nor inappropriate. Since the space in the new municipal building can only hold 80 people why not move the meetings to a larger venue that can accommodate more people if there is that much interest in an issue?

In a move that I feel is solely about control, a new rule also is now in place in Seneca Falls that does not allow anyone to stand unless speaking at the podium.

Again, I remind everyone it is 2017.

In Yates County the race for district attorney is once again getting down and dirty. Free speech is one thing but when one opponent distributes what are being considered false allegations against his opponent is another thing all together. That same candidate filed sworn statements under oath that his residency is at one address, and the petitions he filed state he lives at a completely different address a big no-no.

I cant leave Wayne County out. Even though New York State guidelines clearly state in Article 3 Election Officials, Statewide Provisions that local election officials are to establish rules allowing the admission of news media representatives to the area of the polling place where the canvass of ballots cast can be directly observed, the county Board of Elections has banned photographers from polling places the past few election days.

Once again, I remind everyone it is 2017.

Read the original here:
THE BIGGER PICTURE: First Amendment issues - Finger Lakes Times

Many LGBT people who run in leftie circles were pleased with last months ejection of women carrying Star of David pride flags from Chicagos Dyke March. Seeing the intersectionality between lesbian equality and Palestinian rights, they didnt want any hint of support for Israel at their event, even if only vaguely via symbols carried by Jewish women.

Though that clash appeared spontaneous, the coordinators of a Slut Walk in Chicago next month have Tweeted their intention to follow suit: We still stand behind Dyke March Chicagos decision to remove the Zionist contingent from their event, & we wont allow Zionist displays at ours.

These radical lesbian and feminist organizers insist that in a free country they have the right to control their message and theyre correct. Constitutional jurisprudence on this the freedom of association and assembly is clear: any organization has the right to exclude groups and even whole classes of people from its membership and its events if it feels welcoming them would dilute its message.

The irony, though, is that the Dyke March would not have the freedom to expel people it considers Zionists without two important Supreme Court cases from twenty years ago in which get this the people suing for the right to participate were gay themselves.

In 1995, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston that St. Patricks Day officials had the right to exclude gay and lesbian contingents if they felt including them would change their message. Since the organizers were overwhelmingly pre-Pope Francis Catholics, practitioners of a lifestyle they considered sinful were not welcome.

Writing on behalf of all his colleagues, Justice David Souter wrote One important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say.

The gay groups couldnt cry discrimination. Free expression was more important.

Five years later, in Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, a sharply divided Court found that the First Amendment allowed private organizations like the Boy Scouts to exclude a gay person if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the groups ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.

Again, the Supreme Court found that gay would-be Scouts and Scoutmasters could not hide behind allegations of discrimination in forcing an organization to accept them.

Which bring us back to Chicagos Dyke March. Had those two Court decisions gone the other way, the Jewish lesbians booted from the event could have sued for the right to participate.

Theres been a long-term war between discrimination claims and First Amendment freedoms. Because the gay community lost two battles at the turn of the millennium, LGBT groups are now free to tailor their messages by excluding outsiders.

Heres hoping theyll lose the next battle, too. The Supreme Court is about to consider a third clash between non-discrimination laws and the First Amendment (this time, both free expression and the free exercise of religion). Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission will determine whether the government can force people who service weddings to use their creative endeavors in a way that treats all marriages equally.

As were seeing in Chicago, our civil liberties dont change when the parties switch sides. As the LGBT community ponders its stance on the wedding cake controversy, it might remember that freedoms funny. You never know when youre going to need it.

David Benkof is a columnist for the Daily Caller. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidBenkof) and Muckrack.com/DavidBenkof, or E-mail him at [emailprotected].

Continue reading here:
Gays Love The First Amendment Except When They Don't - The Daily Caller

The ACLU of Maine claims Governor Paul LePage is violating the First Amendment with some of his actions on social media. (WGME)

AUGUSTA (WGME) - The ACLU of Maine claims Governor Paul LePage is violating the First Amendment with some of his actions on social media.

The issue is the governor's official Facebook page.

It has posts about the governor and first lady, links to videos of the governor giving speeches, everything you'd expect from the governor on Facebook.

But, the governor's office says they have nothing to do with that Facebook account, which is verified by Facebook.

The page itself says it's run by volunteers who don't work for the governor, or state government at all.

The ACLU says the Facebook page has been deleting comments and blocking people who disagree with the governor's opinion.

They believe those actions are in violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech.

Monday, the ACLU of Maine sent the governor a letter, asking him to stop what they call censorship on his Facebook page.

They say the governor shouldn't get to decide who speaks and who doesn't, but there is often some confusion because social media is a relatively new forum for public speech.

They believe there are court cases that set a precedent.

The ACLU has given the governor two weeks to reply to their letter, they say if they dont respond they may take him to court.

Read more from the original source:
ACLU claims Gov. LePage is violating First Amendment - WGME