Mediaboss Marketing

Google is asking the California court to declare that the rights established by the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act are not merely theoretical, in response to an order from the Supreme Court of Canada to de-list all instances of suspected fraudulent company Datalink.

Google has already de-indexed 343 Datalink sites from the Google Canada branch of its search engineby the early days of 2013, in cooperation with demands made by Vancouver-basedEquustek, from whom Datalink allegedly stole trade secrets and relabeled products.

Not content with its actions, Equustek is pushing for Google to be forced to completely de-list Datalink from its search engine worldwide, rather than limit itself to the Canada-specific Google.ca. A court in British Columbia granted that demand, which was further upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In response, Google has asked the U.S. court to uphold its right to [publish]within the United States search result information about the contents of the internet. They assert that right under both the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts them from liability for the actions of most users.

In their words, the Canadian order is repugnant to those rights, and the order violates principles of international comity, particularly since the Canadian plaintiffs never established any violation of their rights under U.S. law. And additionally, thatthe Canadian Order is further repugnant to United States public policy because it issued an injunction against Google, an innocent non-party, merely for the sake of convenience.'

Furthermore, forcing Google to edit access to content based on the order of a single foreign government creates a precedent that they must follow the restrictions of any government that objects to certain search results. In an e-mailed statement to Ars Technica, Google lawyer David Price said:

Were taking this court action to defend the legal principle that one country shouldnt be able to decide what information people in other countries can access online. Undermining this core principle inevitably leads to a world where Internet users are subject to the most restrictive content limitations from every country.

Staunch advocates for freedom of speech have taken a decisive stand with Google on their complaints. Among them,The British ColumbiaCivil Liberties Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Human Rights Watch.

In all of this, only Google has been targeted as the determinative player in allowing harm to occur. Yahoo and Bing have received no such orders, and continue to freely list all Datalink sites.

FollowNateChurch@Get2Churchon Twitter for the latest news in gaming and technology, and snarky opinions on both.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

See the original post here:
Google Asks American Court to Protect its First Amendment Rights ... - Breitbart News

Years after controversy in the community, the City of Crystal will pay a $20,000 settlement to Communities United Against Police Brutality and receive annual Open Meeting Law and First Amendment training, according to court orders stemming from a lawsuit filed by the organzation in May 2016. The organization sued the city after allegations that members First Amendment rights were stifled by city leaders at council meetings, and that the council illegally conducted closed-door sessions and engaged in a closed meeting via email, both of which actions were in violation of Minnesotas Open Meeting Law. The allegations occurred during a period spanning from December 2012 through December 2014, when CUAPB members said they were silenced or denied the ability to freely participate in open forums during council meetings, primarily to voice opposition to the termination of two whistle-blowing Crystal police officers. According to allegations, officers Alan Watt and Robin Erkenbrack were fired in retaliation for speaking out against misconduct in the citys investigation of a 2008 incident, during which the now-disbanded West Metro Gang Strike Force confiscated the belongings of the Ramirez family of Crystal, who later filed a theft report. The city maintained that both Watt and Erkenbrack were terminated with just cause and that an investigation had proceeded, although Erkenbrack later settled with the city for $160,000 and was reinstated as a sergeant.

Continue reading this Sun Post story.

See the original post:
Crystal settles with community group over First Amendment violation allegations - ECM Publishers

President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have laudably made passing tax reform real tax reform, not just shuffling money from one group to another a top priority. Now, however, some supply-side economics skeptics are open to the possibility of taxing free speech a constitutional right to fill Washingtons coffers.

As you read this, the Big Six are meeting to discuss which deductions to keep oreliminate, and Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady must quell these whispers of taxing advertising. Imposing such a levy would trample on our countrys liberty and values, setting a dangerous precedent for further constitutional breaches in the foreseeable future.

As substantial pay-forssuch as the border adjustment tax begin to fall out of the publics favor, some in Congress have begun to look at provisions from Dave Camps 2014 tax reform proposal as a blueprint for replacement. Camps proposal would have changed the tax treatment of advertising from a normal, 100 percent deductible business expense to one that is only 50 percent deductible, with the rest being amortized over the course of a decade.

Self-proclaimed liberty-loving conservatives whoare prepared to advocate for such a provision need to reflect on American history after all, what did we fight the American Revolution over?

Perhaps the biggest boiling point for the then-British colonists was the Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed an advertising levy of two shillings for every ad, among other printed material, no matter its circulation or cost. The provision was wildly unpopular so much so that the colonists engaged in mob violence to intimidate stamp-tax distributorsinto resigning, forcing the British Parliament to repeal it just a year later.

The principles and rallying cries that were brought on from the Stamp Act's introduction led to the colonists' rising in armed rebellion against their mother country a decade later.

The Continental Army won that war, and when they formed their new country they made sure to prevent the government from getting in the way of the freedom to advertise, as per 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."

This is a law and precedent that has been abided by for centuries. Aside from some exceptions related to false and misleading content, the federal government has always respected the constitutional mandate to leave advertising alone. That's why the Supreme Court case Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) was overturned the bench's declaration that "the Constitution imposes no restraint on the government as to the regulation of 'purely commercial advertising'" was 100 percent unconstitutional.

Now Congress wants to limit free speech by regulating the First Amendment one of our country's core founding principles as an excuse to extort more wealth from American businesses' pocketbooks? Camp's 50-50 proposal would treat advertising like an asset, such as a machine, instead of like an expense, such as research and salaries an unprecedented, unconstitutional move. (go to page 2 to continue reading)

Read the original:
Republicans Toy with a Misguided Tax on the First Amendment ... - LifeZette

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)