Bob Murray Demands John Oliver Be Silenced... While HBO Moves Case To Federal Court

from the hey-bob dept

We've been covering just how silly coal boss Bob Murray's SLAPP lawsuit against John Oliver is, and things keep getting sillier. Late last week, Murray's lawyers dug themselves in even deeper, asking for a gag order on Oliver and HBO (first reported by Betsy Woodruff at the Daily Beast). Specifically, they filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to gag Oliver. They even admit that it's a "gag order" on Oliver and HBO. This kind of prior restraint is not supposed to be allowed under the First Amendment, but Murray's lawyers already have shown some fairly wacky legal theories, so it doesn't seem likely that "what the law says" is going to stop them from asking for ridiculous things.

The document specifically requests that the defendants in the case be barred from re-broadcasting Oliver's hilarious report (which already has 6.6 million views and counting) and also that he be stopped from "publicly discussing the substance of this litigation." Of course, Oliver himself has already said on his show that, on the advice of HBO's lawyers, he won't be discussing the case until it's over, so this request is even more bizarre. But it's also silly legally. The First Amendment doesn't allow for a gag order to prevent someone from discussing a case. That's blatant prior restraint, and in the immortal words of Walter Sobchak, "the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint."

The motion, like the original lawsuit, is highly theatrical, but has little relation to the actual law. It's basically a litany of complaints about how people are mocking Bob Murray for suing Oliver.

Plaintiffs are quickly learning firsthand about the phenomenon that Time and Fortune magazines have dubbed the "John Oliver Effect." When Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, they did not appreciate the extent of the destructive aftermath that Defendants" malicious and false broadcast would cause. Mr. Murray and his employees and family have been inundated with an onslaught of threats, harassment, and intimidation by people that are simply following Defendants' lead as they view and re-view the Defamatory Statements. Murray Energy's website has been overrun with messages of "Eat Shit, Bob." Employees who once enjoyed coming to work now spend their days receiving countless phone calls and e-mails telling them they are "a worthless piece of shit," and worse. Mr. Murray's family members have even received death threats. None of this would have occurred but for Defendants' broadcast of the Defamatory Statements. Worse yet, Defendants knew that fans of the show would react in this manner. Continued publication and public access to the Defamatory Statements will only enlist additional people to Defendants' perverse "call to action," with additional grave consequences.

Moreover, the John Oliver Effect has already spilled over to directly affect this litigation: numerous media outlets are commenting on their views of this action in a biased fashion that often times provides viewers with access to the entire June 18 broadcast. Additionally, the broadcast's YouTube video has been viewed 1.9 million times more since the Complaint was filed. The pervasiveness of the Defamatory Statements is unfairly tilting public opinion in Defendants' favor so much so that third parties have specifically directed threats and harassment at Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the perceived merits of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' ability to assemble a fair and impartial jury diminishes every day that the Defamatory Statements are available to prejudice the individuals that might be called upon to serve justice in this matter.

Basically, this request for a gag order boils down to: "OMG, people are making fun of our lawsuit and the lawyers writing this, so please make them stop." Perhaps the reason people are making fun of you is because the lawsuit is a bad one, guys. And that's all protected free speech under this great American thing we have called the First Amendment of the Constitution. You guys are the lawyers -- you're supposed to know that stuff.

The complaint goes on to list out some excerpts from some phone calls to Murray's companies that were clearly people responding to the Oliver piece and the lawsuit. I'm sure it's no fun at all to be on the receiving end of those calls -- but, again, that's not against the law. Hell, some of the phone calls don't sound particularly harassing: "Others demanded that Plaintiffs "stop with their bullshit lawsuits" or asked "Why are you suing John Oliver?" Who knew that merely asking why are you suing someone would be held up as evidence of harassment? Who knew that Bob Murray was such a snowflake? The report also highlights a bunch of emails all saying "eat shit Bob" in some form or another (a statement that comes directly from the Oliver broadcast):

Of course, if this is really so bothersome, why doesn't Murry just set up a filter to route all emails with "eat shit" in them to trash? Seems like a pretty easy solution.

There's more in the filing in which they try to tap dance around the First Amendment claims by saying that there's no harm in censoring speech and putting a gag order on Oliver/HBO. This goes against basically all historical precedent noting that prior restraint on speech is, by itself, a form of harm. But Murray's lawyers don't want to talk about that. They pull out a classic anti-First Amendment trope, that because there are a few, very narrowly tailored exceptions to the First Amendment, their own requested exception surely must be okay:

Defendants doubtless will resist an injunction using words such as "First Amendment" and "free speech." But these rights do not give anyone the right to say anything, anywhere, to anyone. Indeed, our Nation's founding founders and The Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly noted that false and defamatory statements deserve no Constitutional protection.

Sure. The courts have noted that defamation isn't protected by the First Amendment, but this gag order request is not asking for a blocking of just defamatory statements (hell, they barely identify any potentially defamatory statements amidst all the hand waving). They're literally asking for a gag order on discussing the case itself. The case itself is not defamatory. You can't silence a defendant from talking about the fact that you stupidly sued him. That's not what the Supreme Court is saying. Indeed, the two citations that Murray's lawyers point to from the Supreme Court notably do not support injunctions against speech. They merely note that defamation is not protected speech. But plenty of other cases explicitly make it clear that injunctions on speech should not be granted because of prior restraint. In Near v. Minnesota, the court said that a law granting injunctions on defamation was unconstitutional. In Bantam Books v. Sullivan the court famously said that "[a]ny system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."

Murray's lawyers do nothing to counter this fairly set-in-stone precedents. They just go with the "well, there are exceptions, therefore gag order."

They also play up -- once again -- the fact that Murray has health problems, insisting that this weighs in favor of granting an injunction. Amazingly, they point to a case that said an injunction could be issued against a landlord for trying to bring in an exterminator, because it might impact a tenant's pulmonary fibrosis, as a reason to grant this injunction against speech. Really.

And indeed, pulmonary fibrosis has been specifically recognized to be an ailment that can warrant injunctive relief, including under less aggravating circumstances than those found here. See 2 Perlman Drive, LLC v. Stevens 2017 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50173(U), (N.Y. Civ. Ct. Feb 9, 2017) (enjoining landlord from employment of chemical exterminators in apartment tenanted by sufferer from pulmonary fibrosis).

Yes, that's Bob Murray's lawyers stating that people mocking Bob Murray is a more aggravating circumstance than someone getting sprayed with harmful chemicals. That takes some level of chutzpah on the part of his lawyers.

They also pull out another old trope, insisting that all this mocking press coverage might influence a jury, so surely a gag order is appropriate. Except, of course, this isn't the UK where there are superinjunctions or whatnot. The press is allowed to talk about stuff, and they're even allowed to give their opinion on things. And if that opinion includes mocking the bad decisions of Bob Murray, that too is protected speech. Amusingly, among the complaints about those biased press reports, Murray's lawyers call out Ken "Popehat" White's opinions of the lawsuit in the Daily Beast (without naming Ken):

The Daily Beast ran an article on June 22, 2017, titled "Republican Coal King Sues HBO over John Oliver's Show," in which it features a statement by an attorney describing this lawsuit as "frivolous and vexatious."

Yes, and so? That's a protected opinion backed up with lots of experience.

Either way, this request will now be viewed by a federal judge, rather than a local West Virginia court. Because, just as we (and basically everyone else) predicted, HBO has removed the case to federal court. Murray's lawyers may try to get the case sent back to the local court, but that's unlikely to work. When you have defendants in other states (and even some of the plaintiffs in other states) and a cause of action over $75k, then you have what's known as diversity, and the case should rightfully be kicked up to federal court. In fact, the Notice of Removal argues that there really isn't even any West Virginia parties in the lawsuit at all, since the only "real" plaintiffs are Bob Murray and Murray Energy -- both of which are from Ohio. Yes, the lawsuit lists a bunch of West Virginia subsidiaries of Murray Energy, but Oliver never mentioned any of them at all, so there's no legitimate claim any of them can make for defamation. Indeed, the filing argues they were just thrown into the case to pretend that it belonged in West Virginia local court.

I get the feeling we've still got plenty of future filings to look forward to in this SLAPP suit (again, West Virginia, tragically, has no anti-SLAPP law). Wouldn't it be nice if we finally got a federal anti-SLAPP law to deal with these kinds of suits?

Filed Under: bob murray, defamation, first amendment, free speech, gag order, john oliver, prior restraint

NY Judge Says Prior Restraint Is America's Best Defense Against Internet 'Chaos'

from the as-American-as-baseball,-apple-pie,-and-microfiche dept

A Long Island judge is swiftly making a (terrible) name for himself with a (terrible) ruling in a defamation lawsuit. The ruling making Acting Supreme Court Justice John Galasso look like an unconstitutional idiot has nearly nothing to do with the defamation claims, but rather his granting of the plaintiff's unconstitutional wish to have unflattering "memories" of himself pre-erased before the underlying lawsuit even gets going.

Here's a bit of background: Jessica Pelletier, an employee at a medical marijuana company, Tikun Olam, sued her co-worker Eric Lerner, as well as her supervisor, for sexual harassment and retaliation.

Pelletier, 23, of Rocky Hill, Conn., charged she was demoted and then fired after complaining to her bosses about alleged raunchy treatment from her colleagues.

Her suit charged she was sexually harassed, taunted about her fight with breast cancer — and ridiculed for her Catholic faith.

She was let go after 20 months with the company. According to her lawsuit, Tikun Olam management charged that she had “an attitude” by reacting badly to the inappropriate comments of her bosses.

The New York Daily News ran an article about the lawsuit, naming everyone involved, including Eric Lerner. This is something newspapers do, especially when the lawsuit covers public interest subjects like workplace harassment. This is something newspapers have every right to do, as filed lawsuits are public records and any coverage of filed suits is very definitely covered by the First Amendment.

Eric Lerner filed a countersuit against Pelletier roughly six months after she filed her harassment suit. Lerner's suit alleges Pelletier has defamed him with false claims, both in and out of court. (How some of those claims will manage to survive a motion to dismiss is unknown, considering statements made in courtroom filings are generally impervious to libel litigation. Statements made in court documents are almost aways given absolute immunity from civil actions.)

Before the defamation suit even got going, Lerner asked the court to grant him a restraining order against Pelletier to prevent her from distributing the Daily News article Eric Lerner is so concerned about. This is already an unconstitutional request, but it gets worse. He also requested his name and picture be removed from the New York Daily News' article about the harassment lawsuit.

Unbelievably, both of these have been granted by Judge Galasso. The Daily News wasn't a party to the defamation lawsuit, nor was it asked to make an appearance to defend its interests. It was informed the day before the injunction hearing, however, and its representative argued (to no avail) that the requested order was prior restraint -- something that's blatantly unconstitutional. Here's the pertinent part of the order, which instructs the Daily News to alter an article based on obtained court documents -- in other words, completely factual:

pending the hearing and determination of this motion [which is to be decided May 16] … the Daily News shall remove plaintiff Lerner’s name and photograph from the Article and its associated keywords and Facebook posts.

The Daily News argued several things, all of which were heard, but ignored, by Judge Galasso. First off, its legal rep points out the article in question is six months old, which makes Lerner's demand for an immediate injunction illogical. From the hearing transcript [PDF] (which also contains the granted injuction):

Another important detail to note is that this article was published on October 7, 2016, nearly six months or more than six months ago. The Daily News is therefore perplexed as to why this extraordinary relief and Order to Show Cause has been brought because it's not apparent how there could be the kind of immediate and irreparable harm that would warrant preliminary injunctive relief for defendant -- for plaintiff. Plaintiff in this case has been aware of the article for six months.

[...]

We find it difficult to believe that Mr. Learner [sic] will be able to make a cognizable showing of irreparable harm given that he's waited six months to bring these proceedings [rather than] when the article was first published if the harm was really so immediate and irreparable…

Judge Galasso's answers to all the Daily News' legitimate First Amendment assertions is "because the internet."

The issue here too is that the internet has changed dissemination of information. It's always there. If people want to check somebody, it comes up all the time. Prior, a newspaper article is printed, that was the end of it. You had to go to a library or try to research it to try and get that out.

And this unbelievable word salad where Galasso gets going about the internet, harassment, the First Amendment, and what he believes America is --- and it apparently isn't searchable online newspaper articles:

Even on other aspects, Facebook, something gets published on Facebook or Twitter and something like that, even if it's false, people are harassed out of their houses, they are chanted in stores. This is not what America is about, and it has to be decided by a higher authority, all of this set aside. Nobody wants to limit the First Amendment rights from freedom of speech, but you don't want chaos either.

This incomprehensible statement allows Galasso to grant the order to silence part of the "chaotic" internet while simultaneously allowing him to wash his hands of it. It's up to the appeals court now -- no longer his problem. But the order remains in place. Not that it matters to the Daily News, which released this editorial in response:

A judge on Long Island has ordered the Daily News to remove the name of a defendant in a civil lawsuit from our website.

Supreme Court Justice John Galasso, who wants us to scrub the man’s name from an October 2016 story, must have missed the day the Constitution was taught in law school.

The defendant’s name is Eric Lerner. Eric Lerner. Eric Lerner. Eric Lerner. Eric Lerner. Eric Lerner. Eric Lerner. Eric Lerner. Furthermore, Eric Lerner.

Maybe Galasso would have been better staying in his lane, as Scott Greenfield points out:

Lack of familiarity with the First Amendment is one thing. But jurisdiction? The Daily News wasn’t subject to his jurisdiction. While some judges seem to have a general impression that their powers extend wherever they want them to extend, they have certain fairly obvious limits. Foremost among them is they can’t issue orders requiring non-parties to do anything. Not good things. Not bad things. Nothing. They are not within the ambit of their jurisdiction just because the judge says so.

Not only did Galasso order a non-party to do something unconstitutional, but he did so before any of the facts were in. Lerner's defamation accusations have not been proven. In fact, nothing has been discussed thus far but how to censor a newspaper's article about Lerner being named as a defendant in public court documents.

Galasso overstepped here, not just in terms of the Constitution, but in terms of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the overreach that resulted in the stupid granting of an unconstitutional request may also limit the Daily News' options when it comes to appealing the order.

The flip side of a judge issuing an order to a non-party to do something is that they’re a non-party when they want to challenge the judge’s order. The News would first need standing to intervene, which means they would have to obtain the court’s approval for sticking their nose into somebody else’s litigation.

But the judge ordered them to do something, so how could that be possible? Darn good question, and that’s the sort of questions that arise when a judge does something beyond his authority, outside the law and for which there are no procedures.

The only thing guaranteed is that when all's said and done -- no matter how Lerner's defamation case turns out -- this is all that will be remembered about it: a defendant with a countersuit and the unconstitutional dream of living an untroubled internet existence until vindicated (possibly twice!) in court.

For Judge Galasso, it's much, much worse:

Eric Lerner doesn’t like his name associated with this sordid story of a 23-year-old woman claiming sexual harassment? Who would? Win the case and the problem is solved, but the one thing you can’t accomplish is forcing a newspaper to remove your name because, hey, it’s unpleasant.

The Daily News isn’t going to do it. If anything, this will Streisand Lerner’s name across the internet. And Justice John Galasso’s too, which is going to make it really hard when he has to get a new job after everyone knows how badly he sucked at his current one.

Galasso's order -- and his "this is all up to other people except for the part where I granted the injunction" flailing -- is the judicial equivalent of leaving a flaming bag of feces on the Appeals Court's front door step. All it can hope to do is extinguish it without having to scrape too much off of its shoes.

Filed Under: defamation, eric lerner, first amendment, free speech, john galasso, prior restraint
Companies: daily news

EFF Goes To Court To Stop Australian Patent Troll From Stifling Free Speech

from the censorious-patenting dept

As you probably know, each month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posts its "Stupid Patent of the Month" post, highlighting particularly egregious patents that never should have been approved and/or particularly egregious patent litigation around those patents. You might know about this even if you don't follow the EFF's own website, because we almost always repost those posts here on Techdirt, under EFF's Creative Commons' license. In fact, last summer, we reposted EFF's article about US Patent 6,690,400, held by Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. ("GEMSA"), an Australian company that has all the hallmarks of a classic patent troll. You can read that post for the details of the patent in question, but suffice it to say, EFF described it as "storage cabinets on a computer" and GEMSA has sued dozens of companies, rarely explaining how they possibly infringe. For example, in suing Airbnb, all GEMSA notes is that the site's user interface "infringes one or more of the claims of the '400 patent."

Not surprisingly, GEMSA was not particularly thrilled about being named the holder of a "stupid patent of the month" or to have EFF make fun of its lawsuits. Unlike, say, IBM, who upon being named a stupid patentholder of the month appeared to see the error of its ways, GEMSA decided to really double down. It went to court. In Australia. And got an order telling EFF to take down the article and barring EFF from publishing anything about any of GEMSA's patents.

Now, we've written multiple times in the past about Australia's questionable views on internet free speech and prior restraint. However, we've also noted -- quite directly, that the SPEECH Act quite clearly bars such Australian court orders from being valid in the US.

It appears that the good folks at the EFF will now be putting that to the test. They've filed for declaratory judgment in federal court in the Northern District of California to have the court say that the court order from Down Under is unenforceable here. You can check out the full filing here or embedded below.

The filing goes into fairly great detail about just how really upset GEMSA is. It literally claims that calling its patent "stupid" is "misleading" because the patent "is not in fact 'stupid.'" Very convincing. There are also some bizarre conspiracy theory claims, including saying that the filings in some of GEMSA's lawsuits against Airbnb and Zillow "are not available in the public domain" despite them being available on PACER (and "GEMSA's own press release announcing its first wave of lawsuits attaches a copy of one of the complaints and explicitly notes that they are public records available on PACER.")

Whether or not Australians' somewhat twisted views on free speech say that you cannot give your opinion that a patent is stupid, in the US that's very clearly protected speech. Furthermore, here in the US, you cannot bar someone from ever talking about your patents. That's known as prior restraint and, as good old Walter Sobchak from the Big Lebowski eloquently stated: "The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint."

That said, as EFF notes, without a declaratory judgment, GEMSA can continue to threaten EFF with enforcement (it is already demanding that EFF remove the article, pay it money, and get others to remove links). Or, worse, GEMSA might use the Australian court order to get the article delisted from search engines. There is a real possibility of chilling effects:

... the Australian Injunction has cast a shadow over the legality of EFF’s speech about GEMSA’s ’400 patent and litigation, and is chilling EFF’s further speech. Given the present uncertainty concerning the injunction’s enforceability in the United States, EFF feels constrained from speaking further about these topics – indeed, about any of GEMSA’s patents, since the order sweeps that broadly – aside from simply reporting about this declaratory judgment action to its readers.

Also of significant concern to EFF is that, absent an order from a United States court declaring the Australian Injunction repugnant to U.S. law and unenforceable here, GEMSA will follow through on its counsel’s threat and successfully use the injunction to persuade American search engines to “deindex” the Article, which would effectively preclude EFF from speaking publicly on this important U.S. legal and political issue altogether.

This should be a layup for EFF, but as we know, these kinds of disputes can be both time consuming and costly. But, really, of all the organizations to go after with an attempt to censor their opinions, you've got to be pretty short-sighted to think that EFF is a proper target.

Filed Under: australia, free speech, patent trolls, patents, prior restraint, speech act
Companies: eff, gemsa

Judge Decides Free Speech Is Still A Right; Dumps Prior Restraint Order Against Mattress Review Site

from the hearing-from-both-sides:-it's-a-thing dept

A couple of weeks ago, a federal judge in Utah decided prior restraint was the best way to handle a recently-filed defamation suit against Honest Mattress Reviews by Purple Innovations, makers of the Purple Mattress.

Purple's lengthy filing contained numerous allegations of harm caused by Honest Mattress Reviews' extended commentary on the white plastic powder covering every mattress Purple ships. It also alleged HMR was just a front for site owner Ryan Monahan's brand management work with Purple's competitor, Ghostbed. Rather than give HMR a chance to respond, the judge decided the review site could publish nothing further about Purple or the lawsuit. It wasn't even allowed to refer to its previous rating of Purple's mattress.

Honest Mattress Review didn't care much for this decision -- one it had been given no chance to contest. It immediately posted an article about the case and offered to comply with the letter of the order, but perhaps not its spirit.

This temporary order commands that we take down all reviews, and even cease rating this company with a rating of “Poor.” Yes, indeed, we are no longer even permitted to rate this company as Poor. I guess we will change its rating to “💩.”

[...]

Do you trust a company that, rather than compete in the marketplace, decides that it will just try and sue negative reviews out of existence?

Purple Innovations immediately returned to court, demanding it find HMR in contempt of its order, in particular pointing to the poo emoji and HMR's claims about the unconstitutionality of the order and Purple's alleged disingenuousness in filing the libel suit.

That review has since been reinstated and given this header image.

And HMR has published a long list of court documents it has filed in this case. This includes a motion to dissolve the restraining order and a preliminary examination of the powdery substance Purple claims is harmless and that HMR claims could be hazardous to purchasers' health.

In the motion [PDF] to dissolve the order, attorney Marc Randazza points out that fashioning a libel lawsuit as a tortious interference lawsuit doesn't change the ultimate goal of the litigation: to silence criticism.

The action is a quintessential SLAPP suit designed to suppress negative consumer journalism. Plaintiffs have cleverly attempted to disguise this defamation claim as a Lanham Act claim – presumably to ensure the availability of Federal Court jurisdiction and to try to side-step the clear case law that cuts against them in defamation actions. But, no matter how eloquently someone may call a “dog” a “chicken,” it will never lay eggs. And styling a specious defamation claim as a Lanham Act claim does not remove the underlying speech from the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

He also points out that Purple's claims that the plastic packing dust is harmless haven't been supported by anything Purple's willing to let customers and competitors view. Instead, it's only made vague assertions about its safety. And those statements are ultimately meaningless when examined closely.

Plaintiff sells mattresses that are made of a rubber honeycomb, which they then dust with a powder that they claim is made of plastic and has been shown to be polyethylene microspheres. In other words, someone who sleeps on these mattresses would be expected to inhale these microspheres. The Plaintiff claims that it is “non toxic” and “food grade” plastic – but this does not assuage the concerns. After all, a plastic fork is “food grade” and “non toxic” but you most certainly would not want to actually eat it. The same goes for what a person wants to put in their lungs. It was reasonable to be concerned about this “plastic powder” since (a) if the particles that make up this plastic “powder” are of a certain size, they will pass through the alveoli into the bloodstream; or (b) if they are a bit larger, they will simply lodge themselves inside the lungs.

To support its claims, HMR put a Harvard Professor of Pathology to work. Dr. John Godleski's report [PDF] is far from complete at this point, but what's contained in his preliminary examination of the powder doesn't appear to agree with Purple's assertions of harmlessness.

By Fourier Transformed Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), the white powder particles were shown to be polyethylene, and the purple frame was found to be polyethylene-polypropylene copolymer. The foam portion of the mattress is still understudy, but has characteristics of butadiene, and may be a form of butadiene polymer.

Polyethylene is a common plastic formed into many structures. As inhalable microspheres, these have the potential to cause respiratory irritation especially when inhaled in large numbers as shown in my laboratory (1- 4). In addition, polyethylene has been associated with allergy in the form of either asthma or contact dermatitis in sensitized individuals (5-7). Based on this assessment, it is important for consumers to be aware of the composition of this fine particulate matter in the mattress which may be released into the air and has the potential for the development of respiratory or dermal hypersensitivity in some individuals.

Also included in the filed documents is an affidavit that undercuts Purple's claims about HMR's site owner being a competitor's "brand manager." This is central to Purple's Lanham Act claims -- the claims it's using to sidestep anti-SLAPP motions. The affidavit from the competitor (Ghostbed) notes HMR's site owner has never been directly employed by Ghostbed and that Ghostbed told him to stop referring to himself as its "brand manager" after noticing that statement on his Twitter profile.

The judge presiding over the case appears to have been overwhelmed by the pile of documents landing on his desk. A short order [PDF] issued on the 15th shows what can happen when a normally adversarial process is allowed to be, you know, adversarial.

For the reasons set forth in the parties’ briefing and at oral argument, the court finds a lack of “clear and unequivocal” support for a right to relief that is necessary for the entry of the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction. Greater Yellowstone Coal v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1256 (10th Cir. 2003). As such, the court hereby grants Defendants’ motions to dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 36), and denies Plaintiff’s oral Motion to convert the Temporary Restraining Order into a Preliminary Injunction. The court similarly denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery (Dkt. No. 39) and Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should not be Held in Contempt (Dkt. No. 17). The court further denies Defendants’ request for sanctions, finding that such sanctions are not warranted here.

The restraining order is lifted and HMR's turd-laced post isn't in danger of being found contemptuous. The lawsuit should continue in a more constitutional fashion from this point forward.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, mattress reviews, prior restraint, ryan monahan, temporary restraining order
Companies: honest mattress reviews, honest reviews, purple innovation

NY Legislators Looking At Installing A Free Speech-Stomping 'Right To Be Forgotten'

from the order-your-Constitution-Doormat-today! dept

New York state legislators apparently think the state's so cosmopolitan it may as well be Europe. As Adam Steinbaugh points out on Twitter, though, local comparisons aren't nearly as flattering.

[If you can't read/see the tweet]

New York legislature working diligently on overtaking California and Arizona on demonstrating least understanding of the First Amendment

There's nothing like being negatively compared to Arizona (remember the short-lived "First Amendment-protected activity is against the law" bill?) to take the gloss off the latest legislative ridiculousness. A new bill in the state legislature would make New York an outlier in constitutional protections (or no, it wouldn't, because it wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge, but for the sake of argument…). For no conceivable reason, the bill seeks to implement a New York-located "right to be forgotten." How that's supposed to work out when it's not the law in the other 49 states remains unexplained.

§ 50-f. Right to be forgotten act.

1. Upon the request from an individual, all search engines, indexers, publishers and any other persons or entities that make available, on or through the internet or other widely used computer-based network, program or service, information about the requester, shall remove information, articles, identifying information and other content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "inadequate" or "excessive" within thirty days of such request, and without replacing such removed information, article or content with any disclaimer, takedown notice, hyperlink, or other replacement notice, information or content, or cooperating with any other person or entity who does any of the foregoing. For purposes of this section, "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "inadequate", or "excessive" shall mean content, which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse, especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information, article or other content is causing to the requester's professional, financial, reputational or other interest, with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester's role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.

This is a horribly-written, horribly-broad, no good, terrible-all-around proposal. I have no idea what sort of information could be described as "inadequate" or "excessive," and the chances are information that's truly "irrelevant" will sink to the bottom of search engine rankings soon enough.

The bill does not define any of these terms (well... not in any meaningful way), nor does it address how information that fits its inadequate definitions will be removed from the web when a great deal of hosting services lie far outside the law's jurisdiction.

On top of that, there's the question of what's "material to public debate/discourse." Who gets to decide what's still material? The person bringing the complaint? If so, the law is entirely subjective and provides no affirmative defense for those facing charges/fines under the law. It's as if the legislators crafting this law looked at the DMCA and decided it just wasn't abusable enough. Citizens clearly deserve a second, more streamlined route for the removal of criticism, unflattering photos, or whatever doesn't further the marketing of a person's brand.

Then there's the prior restraint. (This bill is truly breathtaking in its sheer level of unconstitutional shittiness.) The law forbids those served with a "right to be forgotten" order from discussing the government's content removal demands.

...without replacing such removed information, article or content with any disclaimer, takedown notice, hyperlink, or other replacement notice, information or content, or cooperating with any other person or entity who does any of the foregoing.

It's not just prior restraint on those served with an order. It's prior restraint that effectively silences everyone in the law's jurisdiction. Site A's order and subsequent content removal can't be discussed anywhere on that site. And Site A can't point to other sites discussing Site A's content removal, even if these other sites lie outside the law's jurisdiction.

This bill should -- if there's any amount of brain activity in the NY legislature -- die a swift and unceremonious death. But nothing this bad stays dead forever. It will return in some other shape or form months or years later because some people truly believe information doesn't want to be free -- it wants to be forgotten.

Filed Under: first amendment, gag order, new york, ny, prior restraint, right to be forgotten

Utah Judge Won't Let The Constitution Get In The Way Of A Little Prior Restraint

from the another-libel-and/or-Lanham-case dept

For reasons unknown, a federal judge has said the hell with free speech and steered the court into the First Amendment-troubling waters of prior restraint.

It's another defamation lawsuit that doesn't spend too much time dealing with defamation, preferring to focus on Lanham Act violations and tortious interference. Purple Innovations, maker of a (purple) bed-in-a-box mattress, is suing the Honest Mattress Reviews website, along with Ryan Monahan, former "Chief Brand Officer" for Purple Innovations competitor, Ghostbed, and creator of the site.

Unlike other defamation suits we've covered here -- especially those attempting to dodge anti-SLAPP motions by presenting themselves as trademark suits -- Purple's complaint is long and detailed. Purple feels multiple posts at Honest Mattress Reviews have falsely disparaged the company and its products. All of the posts center on the white "powder" Purple uses to coat its mattresses during packaging to prevent it from sticking to itself.

Purple's Lanham Act claims rest on Monahan's alleged conflicted interests, even as it admits in its filing that Monahan is no longer associated with GhostBed. It points to several statements posted at Honest Mattress Reviews which infer the powder used by Purple might be dangerous or unhealthy. HMR offers no proof of these assertions, but very few of them are actual assertions. In most cases, they're merely implications, surrounded by phrasing and pull quotes that help make the patent-pending substance appear more dangerous than Purple claims it is. Purple hasn't offered too many specifics in defense of its white powder, citing its pending patent as the reason it can't be more specific about the powder's composition.

At this point, we don't know much about the merits of Purple's arguments, and nothing at all about the merits of Honest Mattress Review's defense. The defendants haven't been allowed to respond yet. The path to Purple's granted restraining order has been completely non-adversarial. Not a single document has been filed or motion entered by the defendants. [click through to enlarge]

In less than a week, Purple has:

(a) accidentally sued itself

(b) had the case transferred from a magistrate to district court judge

(c) asked for a restraining order

(d) received a restraining order

(e) asked for contempt charges to be brought against the defendants

Purple has filed a 102-page complaint [PDF] and a 174-page restraining order request [PDF], the latter of which is basically the 102-page complaint with 70 pages of website screenshots. Without seeing anything more than Purple's allegations, Judge Dee Benson has granted the request [PDF]. Not only does it require Honest Mattress Reviews to take down existing posts about Purple Innovations and its packing powder, it forbids the defendants from discussing the lawsuit in any way the court disapproves of.

Defendants shall not attempt to circumvent the intent of this Order by make new statements about Purple or its products which are false and misleading and convey the same substantive message as in the statements referenced in preceding sub-paragraphs (a)-(c), including through the “clever use of innuendo, indirect intimations, and ambiguous suggestions.”

[...]

Defendants are hereby restrained from making false, misleading, or confusing posts or discussions on social media or otherwise about the existence of this lawsuit, the Court’s temporary restraining order or other any other orders that may be issued by the Court, or about Purple’s efforts in this lawsuit to restrain Defendants from continuing to engage in the conduct at issue, in an attempt to circumvent the purpose of the injunctive relief sought by Purple.

We'll have to see if Honest Mattress Review's post about the lawsuit adheres to the confines of the restraining order. It doesn't make any false statements but does contain wording the plaintiffs are sure to find objectionable, even if the court doesn't.

This temporary order commands that we take down all reviews, and even cease rating this company with a rating of “Poor.” Yes, indeed, we are no longer even permitted to rate this company as Poor. I guess we will change its rating to “💩.”

[...]

Do you trust a company that, rather than compete in the marketplace, decides that it will just try and sue negative reviews out of existence?

The court says the 14-day (minimum) restraining order does not harm the public in any way, while continued publication of HMR's inferences and allegations would continue to do "irreparable harm" to Purple Innovations. It also says HMR is fully aware of the situation, even if it's not being allowed to participate in the process yet.

Plaintiff has provided multiple declarations, reflecting notice to the Defendants, through various means. The Court is satisfied that the Defendants have notice of these proceedings.

All well and good, but we're not talking an inordinately lengthy delay between the filing of the suit and the defendants' response. We're talking about one week from filing to prior restraint, without a single nod being given to the "adversarial" part of the process.

The defendant website is now being represented by Marc Randazza, who's collected several First Amendment-affirming wins for clients over the years. The allegations in this case may not be as baseless as in others he's handled (Tobinick v. Novella, Roca Labs v. Opinion Corp.), but he tends to find prior restraint to be rather triggering. The first move will be to put the Constitution back in play. After that, there are dozens of pages of allegations to address, so this isn't going to be resolved anywhere near as fast as it went from mere allegations to ignoring Walter Sobchak.

Filed Under: first amendment, injunction, mattress reviews, prior restraint
Companies: ghostbed, honest reviews, purple innovations

Another Day, Another Horrible Ruling That Undermines The First Amendment And Section 230

from the and-wtf-california dept

Not sure what's going on in California, but it's been suddenly issuing a bunch of really bad rulings concerning Section 230 of the CDA (the most important law on the internet). As we've explained many times, Section 230 says that online services cannot be held liable for actions of their users (and also, importantly, that if those platforms do decide to moderate content in any way, that doesn't impact their protections from liability). This is massively important for protecting free speech online, because it means that platforms don't have to proactively monitor user behavior out of fear of legal liability and they don't feel the need to over-aggressively take down content to avoid being sued.

Over and over again the courts have interpreted Section 230 quite broadly to protect internet platforms. This has been good for free speech and good for the internet overall (and, yes, good for online companies, which is why some are so against Section 230). But, as we've been noting, Section 230 has been under attack in the past year or so, and all of a sudden courts seem to be chipping away at the protections of Section 230. Last week we wrote about a bad appeals court ruling that said Section 230 did not protect a website from being sued over failing to warn users of potential harm that could come from some users on the site. Then, earlier this week, we wrote about an even worse ruling in San Mateo Superior Court (just a block away from my office...) exempting publicity rights from Section 230.

And now, Eric Goldman points our attention to an even worse ruling coming out of California state's appeals court for the First Appellate district. In this ruling, the court determines that Yelp can be forced to delete reviews that the court found defamatory (though entirely based on a default judgment, where the defendant didn't show up in court). In previous cases most courts have found that even if content is found to be defamatory, a third party website cannot be forced to delete it, because of the pesky First Amendment.

In this case, the court doesn't care. The background of the case involves a lawyer, Dawn Hassell, who sued a former client, Ava Bird, who allegedly posted negative reviews of Hassell's work. Hassell sued, Bird ignored, and the court ruled for Hassell as a default judgment. As part of this it also ordered Yelp to remove the reviews. Yelp protested. The court then twists itself into all kinds of questionable knots to ignore both Section 230 and the First Amendment. The court first questions whether or not Yelp can even make the First Amendment argument, seeing as it's also claiming that it's not the author of the content in question. Of course, that totally misses the point: it's not necessarily just about the content in the review, but also Yelp's First Amendment rights in presenting content on its website.

In order to claim a First Amendment stake in this case, Yelp characterizes itself as a publisher or distributor. But, at other times Yelp portrays itself as more akin to an Internet bulletin board—a host to speakers, but in no way a speaker itself. Of course, Yelp may play different roles depending on the context. However, in this context it appears to us that the removal order does not treat Yelp as a publisher of Bird’s speech, but rather as the administrator of the forum that Bird utilized to publish her defamatory reviews.

But, uh, the administrator of a forum still has separate First Amendment rights in determining how they present things in their forum. That's kind of how it works. As Eric Goldman notes:

What the hell is an “administrator of the forum,” and what legal consequences attach to that status? We’re not talking about the free speech rights of a janitor with a mop. This case involves a curator of speech–and even if the curator is just “administrating,” telling a curator how to administrate raises significant speech interests that deserve more respect than this court gave it.

The court then suggests that the First Amendment doesn't apply because Yelp has no right to question a court.

To the extent Yelp has ever meant to contend that an injunction requiring Bird to remove defamatory statements from the Internet injuriously affects Yelp, we disagree. Yelp’s claimed interest in maintaining Web site as it deems appropriate does not include the right to second-guess a final court judgment which establishes that statements by a third party are defamatory and thus unprotected by the First Amendment.

Yikes! That of course, ignores the actual issue at play -- especially the fact that the finding of defamation was on default, rather than through an actual adversarial process.

But the really scary part is how the court gets around Section 230. Goldman refers to it as "jujitsu" and that's a pretty apt analogy:

Yelp argues the authority summarized above establishes that the removal order is void. We disagree. The removal order does not violate section 230 because it does not impose any liability on Yelp. In this defamation action, Hassell filed their complaint against Bird, not Yelp; obtained a default judgment against Bird, not Yelp; and was awarded damages and injunctive relief against Bird, not Yelp.

Okay... but then it's ordering Yelp to remove the reviews, despite being a non-party. And if Yelp does not remove the reviews, then it's in contempt of court, which means that yes, the court is absolutely applying liability. But, no, says the court, because [reasons].

If an injunction is itself a form of liability, that liability was imposed on Bird, not Yelp. Violating the injunction or the removal order associated with it could potentially trigger a different type of liability which implicates the contempt power of the court.

Got that. It's not liability because it's "a different type of liability." WHAT?!? Where in the law does it say that "a different type of liability" (with no clear definition) is allowed? The court clarifies by muddying the waters some more:

In our opinion, sanctioning Yelp for violating a court order would not implicate section 230 at all; it would not impose liability on Yelp as a publisher or distributor of third party content.

This makes no sense at all.

Separately, the court keeps relying on the fact that Yelp itself was not sued by Hassell, and that all other cases involved service providers that were parties to the case. But that leads to ridiculous results:

As we have pointed out, Hassell did not allege any cause of action seeking to hold Yelp liable for Bird’s tort. The removal order simply sought to control the perpetuation of judicially declared defamatory statements. For this reason, Yelp seriously understates the significance of the fact that Hassell obtained a judgment which establishes that three reviews Bird posted on Yelp.com are defamatory as a matter of law, and which includes an injunction enjoining Bird from repeating those three reviews on Yelp.com. Indeed, that injunction is a key distinction between this case and the CDA cases that Yelp has cited, all of which involved allegations of defamatory conduct by a third party, and not a judicial determination that defamatory statements had, in fact, been made by such third party on the Internet service provider’s Web site.

But under that standard, the court has just offered up a huge hole to avoid Section 230: just don't name the service provider, and then you can force the service provider to take down the content. If that stands, very bad things will happen as a result. As Goldman points out in response to this, the court is simply wrong:

So the court is flat-out wrong. While I believe it’s correct that none of the cases were posed as contempt proceedings, the actions in both Blockowicz and Giordano also came after lower court findings of defamation. And in any case, WTF? Is the court saying that Section 230 preempts a direct lawsuit against a UGC site seeking injunctive relief, but it’s totally OK to reach the same result by not naming the UGC site in the lawsuit and then enforcing an injunction via contempt proceedings?

Goldman goes on to note how this ruling will create all kinds of mischief opportunities:

Step 1: sue the content poster for defamation in California state court. Do not sue the UGC site because (a) they are immune under Section 230, or (b) they might decide to fight substantively.

Step 2: take advantage of loose service of process rules and or otherwise hope the poster doesn’t appear in the case. For example, non-California residents aren’t likely to fight in a California court even if they get notice.

Step 3: get a default judgment finding defamation. If the user does make an appearance, a stipulated judgment with the user could reach the same result.

Step 4: seek an injunction requiring removal by the UGC site. Once the judge accepts the service of process and concludes the defendant didn’t show, the judge will probably do just about whatever the plaintiff asks. With the default judgment, the plaintiff can then use the coercive effect of contempt to force the UGC site to remove the content so long as the UGC site is under California’s jurisdictional reach–which most UGC sites are.

Voila! A right to be forgotten in the US, despite the First Amendment and Section 230.

As an added bonus, in the same lawsuit, the plaintiff can target multiple items of unwanted content by claiming it’s also written by the defendant or someone working in concert with the defendant. For example, I don’t believe it was ever confirmed that Birdzeye and JD are the same person, but consistent with the less-stringent approach deployed by judges when faced with default proceedings, the court treats both reviews as if the author(s) of the opinions was in court. If, in fact, JD is a different person, then Hassell successfully scrubbed JD’s content without ever suing the actual author or serving proper notice on the author. As you can see, there’s a great collateral damage potential here.

Goldman also warns that this ruling may not be easy to overturn. Yelp can (and should) appeal to the state Supreme Court, but there's no guarantee it will take the case. There are legislative solutions, but those are unlikely as well. But for the time being, this ruling is a ticking time bomb. It can and will be abused. We see so many attempts to censor content by abusing copyright law, and now California has given people a playbook for how to abuse defamation law to do the same thing.

Filed Under: ava bird, california, cda 230, censorship, dawn hassell, defamation, default, first amendment, prior restraint, reviews, section 230
Companies: yelp

Court Dumps Hastily-Granted Restraining Order, Says MuckRock Can Publish Smart Meter Documents

from the prior-restraint-much? dept

It took a little less than a week, but the EFF, with the invaluable assistance of Venkat Balasubramani of FOCAL PLLC, has persuaded a Washington state judge to strike down the temporary restraining order against MuckRock he hastily granted back on May 27th.

Landis+Gyr, a multinational corporation owned by Toshiba, recently secured a contract to upgrade Seattle's "dumb" meters to smart meters. Privacy activist Phil Mocek requested information on the city's smart meter plan through MuckRock and was handed two Landis+Gyr documents in unredacted form by the city.

These documents worth suing over spent a month uploaded to MuckRock before Landis+Gyr took notice. Once it had secured the city contract, L+G then demanded -- via a request for a temporary restraining order -- that MuckRock take the documents down, turn over info on site users who may have seen/downloaded them, and somehow help L+G shove its smart meter genie back into the bottle.

Fortunately, the judge has now struck down the restraining order he issued earlier in the week.

Agreeing with EFF, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing ruled that the previous order amounted to a prior restraint on speech that violated the First Amendment, and rescinded it along with denying plaintiffs’ request to extend it.

Not that Landis+Gyr didn't try to keep its restraining order alive -- despite openly acknowledging that one of the two documents contained nothing worth withholding. In its final attempt to salvage its request, L+G claimed that an internet full of evildoers now has access to sensitive information that could place citizens in danger.

Defendants knowingly posted Landis+Gyr’s protected information on its publicly-accessible website, where Landis+Gyr’s competitors, as well as hackers and saboteurs, had access to the information. In fact, internet traffic surrounding the disclosure reveals the danger caused by Defendants’ refusal to remove the information. See Second Supplemental Declaration of Eric Lee Christensen in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ¶¶ 2, Exhs. A. (“I read all your secret information, you [expletives deleted]”), ¶ 4, Exh. C, p. 8 (“visit the link below to download disputed documents”).

Without access to the exhibits, I can only assume the deleted expletives were "censorious asshats" and that "visit the link below to download disputed documents" is internet code for "seize the means of production, starting with the power grid."

Landis+Gyr's fears of terrorism are overblown, if these are the best pull quotes it could find to illustrate its "hackers n' saboteurs" theory. It may be that its trade secret claims are more based in reality, but that still doesn't explain its attempt to silence a third-party FOIA clearinghouse for doing nothing more than publishing documents handed to it by a government body.

Filed Under: foia, prior restraint, seattle, smart meters, streisand effect
Companies: eff, landis+gyr, muckrock

Court Says MuckRock Must Take Down Smart Grid Company's Documents Because Judge Has 'No Time' To Review Case Properly

from the ain't-nobody-got-time-to-consider-free-speech-implications dept

Last week, we covered a multinational corporation's attempt to force MuckRock to take down documents supplied by the city of Seattle to Phil Mocek. Landis+Gyr, which was awarded the contract to supply the city with "smart meters" in conjunction with the publicly-owned utility, claimed the documents released -- along with documents the city was planning to release -- would be a boon to competitors and terrorists, although it didn't specify which of these it was more worried about.

The company also demanded MuckRock turn over information on site users who may have seen or downloaded the documents. It also (hilariously) demanded MuckRock assist it in the "retrieval" of disseminated documents.

The company's request for an injunction against MuckRock and the city of Seattle went before a judge on Thursday. It has been (partially) granted. Ansel Herz of The Stranger says, after speaking to Landis+Gyr reps, that the judge granted its request -- not on its merits but because there just aren't enough hours in the day.

At a King County court hearing yesterday, Commissioner Carlos Velategui granted the companies' request for a temporary restraining order, lawyers for the companies told me. "There's no way that I can spend the time to look at all this," Velategui said. Neither Mocek nor the city showed up to defend themselves.

The request was filed on the 23rd and granted on the 26th. That's an impressive turn radius for government machinery. This compressed timeframe likely explains the court's harried decision, as well as the lack of defendants in the courtroom.

MuckRock will be fighting the order, but it will now have help. The EFF has stepped in to represent MuckRock and Mocek against Landis+Gyr (Update: Mocek notes in our comments that EFF has only offered to help MuckRock so far). The documents MuckRock is currently unable to provide to the public can be found here: L+G Managed Services Report and L+G Security Overview (in case you want a copy).

Landis+Gyr may have achieved the first step in its plan to herd its PDF cats back into the bag, but its complaint should have been limited to the government organization that released the documents it claims are sensitive, rather than the FOIA requester and clearinghouse that received them. And, trade secrets or not, the company is working in conjunction with a city government to install devices with possible privacy implications on every home -- so more transparency, not less, is exactly what's needed.

Filed Under: carlos velategui, foia, injunction, phil mocek, prior restraint, seattle, smart grid, smart meters
Companies: landis+gyr, muckrock

Judge Blocks Release Of Anti-Abortion Videos As The Arbiter Of Journalism

from the prior-restraint dept

Abortion is one of those issues that infuriates me chiefly because it causes everyone to retreat to whichever camp they call home while throwing nuanced discussions out the window. In case I'm not being clear: that's stupid. Around these parts, however, we love a good moral stand, and we love a moral stand all the more when it forces us to stand up for a person or group we don't particularly like. That's what a moral stand is, after all. Take the Center for Medical Progress, for instance. These are the folks that propelled the abortion issue back into the public consiousness through sheer force of will and by publishing videos of their interactions with Planned Parenthood staff that was equal parts subterfuge and crass editing. Even as political candidates continue to slam Planned Parenthood as a result of these videos, state investigation after state investigation has found that the carefully edited work done by CMP portrayed a lie and that no criminal wrongdoing was uncovered. In fact, CMP has found itself indicted in Texas (!), rather than Planned Parenthood.

In other words, whatever your opinion on abortion might be, these people suck. Editing videos to make it seem like something that isn't happening is happening isn't virtuous. It's called lying, and it's a no-no.

And yet it's also at least questionable to attempt to silence these people. Echoing a judge in California who tried to suppress the original videos, a federal judge has now issued an injunction on CMP from releasing further videos it has produced of undercover interactions with abortion providers.

The ruling, by US district judge William Orrick, also details for the first time how members of the group, the Center for Medical Progress, pursued their targets and tailored their footage to maximize political damage. At the annual meeting, hosted by the National Abortion Federation, activists operated off a “mark list” and, in one case, waited to approach a particular doctor until after she had been drinking.

Before releasing its first videos of Planned Parenthood employees, the center circulated a press release with “messaging guidelines”, Orrick wrote. The goal, the release said, was to inspire “Congressional hearings/investigation and political consequences” for Planned Parenthood, and increase “political pressure”.

Orrick previously blocked the center from releasing any footage taken at the NAF meeting. On Friday, he rejected claims by the Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David Daleiden, that its activities were a form of investigative journalism protected by the first amendment.

Again, operating under the stipulation that the CMP is disingenuous at best and that its videos are the worst kind of biased journalism, it's difficult to see exactly on what grounds Judge Orrick has deemed himself the arbiter of journalism standards. And he better have some hefty ground on which to stand, because prior restraint of speech isn't the sort of thing entered into lightly in America. Garbage journalism is still journalism, after all, and if we're really going to consider stripping speech rights from those that selectively edit content in order to make their point, then we're going to have to cull a great deal of the journalism out there as well.

Orrick focuses on how misleading the videos are and then claims them to not qualify as journalism. But, should these new videos indeed constitute defamation by being so egregiously edited, there are legal remedies for that. That's what the courts are for, after all. But to proactively attempt to restrain speech on the evaluation of a single judge?

For what it's worth, reports seem to suggest that the CMP has decided to ignore the judge's orders and has released at least some of the new videos anyway. That will likely lead to more legal action against the group. But it shouldn't. Speech is to be protected as a moral stance, even bad speech.

Filed Under: abortion, abortion rights, free speech, journalism, prior restraint, reporting, videos, william orrick
Companies: center for medical progress, planned parenthood