Cases on the Internet Freedom of Speech

Internet Pornography Cases

Internet Pornography Cases
Automating Content Controls
Hate Speech and Online Threats
Spam as Commercial Free Speech
Spam or Free Speech at Intel?

In Miller v. California (1973), the Supreme Court established a three-part test to determine whether or not speech falls in this category of obscenity.

Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 15 (1973): New York's law banning the sale of speech "harmful to minors" to anyone under the age of 17 is upheld.

Reno v. ACLU 521 U.S. 844 [1997]. An alliance of Internet users, Internet Service Providers, and civil libertarian groups challenged the legislation as a blatant violation of the First Amendment right of free speech.

See Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. # 223 (d) (1) (B).
See Child Online Protection Act (COPA)

Plaintiff's Complaint, Multnomah Public Library et al. v. U.S. (402 E.D. PA [2001]): this suit argues that CHIPA is unconstitutional: "By forcing public libraries to install such technology, CHIPA will suppress ideas and viewpoints that are constitutionally protected from reaching willing patrons.

See Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA)

Cases on Automating Content Controls

Mainstream Loudon v. Loudon County Library 2 F. Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. Va, [1998]): whether a public library could adopt a policy "prohibiting the access of library patrons to certain content-based categories of Internet publications."

Cases on Hate Speech and Online Threats

Yahoo, Inc. v. La Ligne Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, et al. C-00-21275 N.D. Cal [2001]: Despite Yahoo's initial victory, the implications of Judge Gomez's ruling, which holds an American company accountable for breaking French laws, are still significant.

Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activist 41 F. Supp 1130 (9th Cir. [2001]): Planned Parenthood argued that the material on thACLA Web site (along with other activities of the ACLA) violated a 1994 law called the Federal Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act that makes it illegal to use "force or threat of force" against those who provide or seek out abortions.

Spam as Commercial Free Speech

Washington v. Heckel, 24 P. 3d 404 [Wash., 2001]: Jason Heckel, an Oregon resident who mailed junk messages called "How to Profit from the Internet" and falsified his address.

Spam or Free Speech at Intel?

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, No. 98A505067, (Cal Super Ct. [1999]): Mr. Hamidi, a former Intel employee, was issued an injunction barring him from sending e-mail to Intel employees connected to the company's network.