Graphic

You Aren't as Free as You Think - Your Private Emails Can Land You in Jail

In the latest case involving the absurd and unconstitutional obscenity statutes, the Fourth Circuit has upheld a conviction of a man for mere private possession of allegedly obscene material. See United States v. Whorley, __F.3d__ (4th Cir. 2008). While the facts may not fit any conduct in which you might engage, the logic could very well ensnare you one day.

Read on. You should be outraged.

Introduction

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

The Oklahoma Publishing Company v. Conradt

Date: 

07/14/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

James W. Conradt

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma

Case Number: 

5:08-cv-00713-C

Legal Counsel: 

Pro se

Publication Medium: 

Forum
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Retraction Issued
Settled (total)

Description: 

The Oklahoma Publishing Company and one of its reporters, Jacob Trotter, sued James W. Conradt in federal court in Oklahoma in July 2008, after he posted a fake article that mimicked the appearance of the publishing company's NewsOK.com website and purported to be written by Trotter. According to the complaint, the fake article falsely stated that two University of Oklahoma football players had been arrested for intent to distribute cocaine. Conradt allegedly posted links to the article from his Nebraska football fan site, darthhusker.com, and from the Rivals.com message board. The day after it was posted, Conradt admitted creating the article.

The complaint included claims for federal trademark infringement and dilution, copyright infringement, federal and state unfair competition, violation of Trotter's right of publicity, false light, libel, and deceit. The parties settled for an undisclosed sum, and the court dismissd the case in September 2008.  As part of the settlement, Conradt wrote a letter of apology to be published by the publishing company and Conradt and agreed to never again publish an article in a manner that makes it appear the article was published in The Oklahoman or NewsOK.com.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

MLRC

Vegas Nightclub's Trademark Claims Against Blogger Likely a Bust

Privé Vegas, LLC and two of its owners sued Las Vegas-based blogger Michael Politz last week, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and "disaparagement" under the Lanham Act, defamation, trade libel, tortious interference with business relations, and extortion.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Privé Vegas, LLC v. Politz

Date: 

08/20/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Michael Politz; Does 1 through IV; Roe Corporations XVI through XXX

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Nevada

Case Number: 

2:08-cv-01104

Legal Counsel: 

James E Whitmire, III - Santoro, Driggs, Walch, Kearney, Johnston & Thompson

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Privé Vegas, LLC and two of its owners sued Las Vegas-based blogger Michael Politz in August 2008, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and "disaparagement" under the Lanham Act, defamation, trade libel, tortious interference with business relations, and extortion. The company operates a nightclub called "Privé" in the Planet Hollywood Casino in Las Vegas.  Politz operates the TheVegasEye.com blog, which covers goings-on in the Las Vegas entertainment and hospitality industries and provides restaurant reviews and reports on celebrity sightings and the like.

Prive logo According to the complaint, filed in federal district court in Nevada, Politz published a post on July 23, 2008 reporting on a lawsuit Privé brought against four former employees. In his post, Politz allegedly made false statements about the lawsuit and about management "shaking down" employees for tip money to be placed in a "Slush Fund." Cmplt. ¶ 20. At the top of his post, Politz included a graphic of  Privé's trademark (shown on the right).

In addition, on August 12, 2008, Politz allegedly posted on his blog an anonymous letter to the State of Nevada Gaming Control Board, which purported to be written by a former employee of Privé.  The letter made a number of allegedly defamatory statements, including that Privé forced employees to work late hours without pay, that management sold drugs through the nightclub, and that management allowed underaged girls to enter the club and served them liquor. Cmplt. ¶¶ 25, 28, 30, 32, 33. At the top of the post, Politz included a graphic of the Privé trademark surrounded by a red circle with a line through it:

Prive logo 2

The nightclub filed suit in federal court after Politz did not comply with a demand letter sent in August.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Google Blogs

CMLP Notes: 

to-do: create entry for demand letter, see para 47 of complaint.  be careful when drafting this entry -- we don't want to repeat the allegations/defamatory statements unless they are referenced to the complaint, which may be kind of awkward in a correspondence threat.

Bronx D.A. Withdraws Subpoena Seeking Identity of Anonymous Room Eight Posters

Earlier this month, the District Attorney for Bronx County, New York, withdrew a subpoena seeking the identities of anonymous posters on political blog Room Eight. The posters had criticized local politicians and Bronx Republican Party officials in blog posts and comments. District Attorney Robert T.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

New York v. Tsabar

Date: 

01/23/2008

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Gur Tsabar; Ben Smith; Room Eight LLC; "Republican Dissident," "Dissident Hunter," Does

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County

Case Number: 

Grand Jury No. 45278/2007

Legal Counsel: 

Paul Alan Levy and Allison M. Zieve (of Public Citizen Litigation Group); Deepa Rajan; Charles Spada

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

Bronx District Attorney Robert T. Johnson issued a grand jury subpoena to New York political blog Room Eight seeking identifying information for several anonymous bloggers and commentors. The subpoena ordered Room Eight operators Gur Tsabar and Ben Smith not to disclose the subpoena's existence -- not even to the anonymous posters -- because doing so could "impede the investigation" and "interfere with law enforcement."

In the disputed posts, Room Eight posters using the pseudonyms "Republican Dissident" (RD), "Dissident Hunter," and "Anonymous" criticized local politicians and Bronx Republican Party officials. According to copies of posts attached to the subpoena, a poster accused Bronx Board of Elections Commissioner J.C. Polanco and board employee Dawn Sandow of having an extramarital affair and other posters accused them of committing misdeeds. Many of the posts focused on Sandow, including one that included a graphic of a witch flying on a broom and told her to "HAVE A NICE FLIGHT" (caps in the original). Other postings attached to the subpoena alleged that Bronx Republican Party official Jay Savino and other local politicians and officials had engaged in fraudulent and illegal activities.

According to Room Eight's court filings, anonymous poster "Republican Dissident" also criticized the Bronx Republican Party for failing to run candidates against District Attorney Johnson, the D.A. who issued the subpoena to Room Eight. However, the District Attorney did not include these posts when he sent the subpoena requesting the information from Room Eight.

Following receipt of the subpoena, Tsabar and Smith sought permission from the D.A.'s Office to notify the anonymous posters about the subpoena so they could object to the revelation of their identifying information. Negotiations between the parties failed, so the non-disclosure demand remained in force.

On May 22, 2008, Tsabar and Smith moved to quash the subpoena in the Supreme Court of New York for Bronx County. They argued that the subpoena threatened the posters' First Amendment right to speak anonymously, analogizing to numerous civil cases protecting online anonymity rights in the context of subpoenas. According to Public Citizen, counsel for Tsabar and Smith, Room Eight also threatened to file a federal suit on the ground that the threat of criminal prosection violated the posters' right to criticized the District Attorney.

After Room Eight filed its motion to quash, Johnson withdrew the subpoena. Public Citizen advised the D.A. that it still would file suit if he intended that the subpoena's non-disclosure language remain in force. The D.A. then freed the defendants to disclose information regarding the subpoenas.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

MSM

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Paul Levy, Public Citizen Litigation Group

MCS editing.

Priority: 

1-High

T-Mobile v. Engadget

Date: 

03/20/2008

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Weblogs, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Organization

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

On March 20, 2008, Deutsche Telekom, the parent company of T-Mobile, sent a letter to Weblogs, Inc., the company that runs Engadget, requesting that it stop using the color magenta in the logo for its Engadget Mobile news blog. The letter, which is available on Engadget, states that T-Mobile has been "using the color magenta as a company identifier and core branding element for years," and that "the company therefore holds trademark protection for the use of this color in connection with its products and services in many territories around the world."

The letter goes on, in an uncommonly polite tone for a C&D, to indicate that customers might be confused about T-Mobile's relationship to the blog. Even more diplomatically, it continues: "we would therefore appreciate if you would replace the color magenta in the Engadget Mobile logo and discontinue using the color in a trademark-specific way on your website." The letter concludes with a request that Engadget "respond with any comments" within two weeks. T-Mobile officers deny that this is a cease-and-desist letter at all (which is a plausible reading), indicating instead that it was meant to "open a dialogue."

Engadget does not see the letter as a request or invitation to dialogue, but as a demand (also a plausible reading). And the blog has responded by posting the letter and arguing that there are no grounds for confusion. Engadget has also changed its logo in jest to make it look more like T-Mobile's. A number of other tech and mobile phone bloggers have "gone magenta" in solidarity with Engadget (here, here, here, and here). As of April 3, T-Mobile has taken no further action.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Likelihood of Confusion blog

Status checked on 6/9/2008, no new information. There was a related posting on Engadget about T-Mobile's loss in a similar magenta-related suit against Telia in Denmark, which I thought was too tangential to include in the description, but salient enough to throw into the related links field. (AAB)

T-Mobile Asks Engadget to Stop Using the Color Magenta

I was sure that this was an April Fool's joke. But alas, it's true. Deutsche Telekom, the parent company of T-Mobile, sent Engadget a letter a few weeks ago, requesting that the popular tech blog stop using the color magenta in the logo for its Engadget Mobile news blog. Here are the two logos side-by-side (courtesy of Engadget):

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Court Rejects Wal-Mart's Bid to Silence Criticism Through Trademark Law

Last Thursday, a federal court in Georgia handed down a big win for free speech when it ruled that Wal-Mart could not use trademark law to stop a critic from disseminating his virulently anti-Wal-Mart views over the Internet. From Public Citizen's press release:

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Wal-Mart v. Smith (Counterclaims)

Date: 

03/28/2006

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Charles Smith

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Case Number: 

No.1:06-cv-526-TCB

Legal Counsel: 

Paul Alan Levy; Margaret Fletcher Garrett, Elizabeth Lyn Littrell, Gerald R. Weber

Publication Medium: 

Website
Other

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Wal-Mart filed counterclaims in a lawsuit against Charles Smith, asserting trademark and unfair competition claims under federal and state law. The case arose after Smith created a website using the domain name www.walocaust.com and started selling nazi-themed "Walocaust" merchandise through his account on Cafepress.com. Smith, a passionate critic of Wal-Mart, created a number of "Walocaust" graphics that parodied Wal-Mart's familiar trademarks and slogans by likening Wal-Mart's business practices to nazism and its effect on communities to the Holocaust. Smith reproduced these graphics on his website and printed them on T-shirts and other novelty merchandise that he sold through Cafepress. Wal-Mart sent cease-and-desist letters to Smith and CafePress in December 2005 and February 2006. Smith responded by filing a lawsuit in federal court in Georgia seeking a declaration that his use of the "Walocaust" was lawful, and Wal-Mart counterclaimed.

Wal-Mart asked the court for an injunction barring Smith from making any commercial use of the prefix "Wal," for an order awarding it ownership of Smith's Wal-Mart-related domain names, and nominal damages. After the lawsuit commenced, Smith registered the domain names www.wal-qaeda.com and www.walqaeda.com and developed a new series of graphics for CafePress merchandise combining "Wal-Mart" with "Al-Qaeda" and expressing Smith's virulently anti-Wal-Mart views.

In March 2008, the federal district court granted summary judgment to Smith on all counts and dismissed Wal-Mart's counterclaims. The court held that Smith's use of Wal-Mart trademarks was a parody, and that no reasonable person would be confused by Smith's parodic use. The court further ruled that Wal-Mart's trademark dilution claim was barred because Smith's use of the company's trademarks was protected "noncommercial" speech, despite the fact that he placed his graphics on items like T-shirts sold to the public.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source : Randazza and Likelihood of Confusion.

Updated 6/6/08 (JMC)

Wal-Mart v. Smith (Letters)

Date: 

12/28/2005

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Charles Smith

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Legal Counsel: 

Paul Alan Levy; Margaret Fletcher Garrett, Elizabeth Lyn Littrell, Gerald R. Weber (in subsequent litigation)

Publication Medium: 

Website
Other

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

On December 28, 2005 and again on February 1, 2006, Wal-Mart sent cease-and-desist letters to Charles Smith and CafePress asserting trademark and unfair competition claims. The letters came after Smith created a website using the domain name www.walocaust.com and started selling nazi-themed "Walocaust" merchandise through his account on Cafepress.com. Smith, a passionate critic of Wal-Mart, created a number of "Walocaust" graphics that parodied Wal-Mart's familiar trademarks and slogans by likening Wal-Mart's business practices to nazism and its effect on communities to the Holocaust. Smith reproduced these graphics on his website and printed them on T-shirts and other novelty merchandise that he sold through Cafepress.

In response to the cease-and-desist letters, CafePress removed all of Smith's Wal-Mart-related merchandise from his online "store." With the help of Public Citizen, Smith filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Georgia asking the court for a declaratory judgment that his use of "Walocaust" was lawful. Wal-Mart counterclaimed, asserting various federal and state trademark claims and asking the court for an injunction barring Smith from making any commercial use of the prefix "Wal," for an order awarding it ownership of Smith's Wal-Mart-related domain names, and nominal damages. After the lawsuit commenced, Smith registered the domain names www.wal-qaeda.com and www.walqaeda.com and developed a new series of graphics for CafePress merchandise combining "Wal-Mart" with "Al-Qaeda" and expressing Smith's virulently anti-Wal-Mart views.

In March 2008, the federal district court granted summary judgment to Smith on all counts and dismissed Wal-Mart's counterclaims. The court held that Smith's use of the Wal-Mart trademarks was a parody, and that no reasonable person would confused by Smith's parodic use. The court further ruled that Wal-Mart's trademark dilution claim was barred because Smith's use of the company's trademarks was protected "noncommercial" speech, despite the fact that he placed his graphics on items like T-shirts sold to the public.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source : Randazza and Likelihood of Confusion

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Valdosta State University v. Barnes

Date: 

05/07/2007

Threat Type: 

Disciplinary Action

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

T. Hayden Barnes

Type of Party: 

School

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia

Case Number: 

108-CV-0077

Legal Counsel: 

Robert Corn-Revere (for Barnes)

Publication Medium: 

Social Network

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

T. Hayden Barnes, a student at Valdosta State University, expressed opposition on environmental grounds to the planned construction of two parking garages on the University campus. His campaign included a cut-and-paste collage that he posted on his FaceBook page depicting a garage, a globe flatten by a tire tread, and the University's president, as well as text such as "more smog." He also posted flyers around campus, sent e-mails to administrators and students, and wrote a letter to the editor in the campus paper.

Barnes was expelled from the university for these actions. The university stated that he presented a "clear and present danger" to the university.

Barnes appealed his expulsion to the university's Board of Regents. When his hearing was delayed several times, he filed a lawsuit against the University, its president and the Board claiming that his expulsion violated his First Amendment freedom of speech rights. He also alleged that the University had failed to respect his right to due process under the Georgia Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, and had failed to follow the procedures for dismissals in the University student handbook or the Board's policies.

On January 16, 2008, the Board reversed Barnes' expulsion.

Update:

11/19/2008 - The federal court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss Barnes' complaint.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Jill Button editing

Prince v. Prince Fan Sites

Date: 

11/06/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Princefans.com, Prince.org, and Housequake.com

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Organization

Publication Medium: 

Website

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Lawyers for the musician formerly known, and now currently known, as Prince have sent cease-and-desist letters and at least one DMCA takedown notice to the three largest Prince fansites, Prince.org, Princefams.com, and Housequake.com, demanding that they remove all photographs, images, lyrics, album covers, and anything linked to Prince's likeness.

The fan sites were also requested to provide Prince's lawyers with "substantive details of the means by which you propose to compensate our clients [Paisley Park Enterprises, NPG Records and Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG)] for damages."

The fansites formed a coalition, Prince Fans United (PFU), which has issued a press release saying that the letter campaign goes too far, effectively stifling critical commentary and impinging on freedom of speech. It does not appear that a lawsuit been initiated.

Update:

3/13/2008 - Prince Fans United reported that negotiations between the coalition and Prince were at a standstill for unknown reasons.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Status updated on 6/6/2008 (AAB)

Ubisoft v. Kyanka

Date: 

11/15/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Richard Kyanka

Type of Party: 

Individual
Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka is the webmaster of SomethingAwful, an online community forum with the catch phrase: "The Internet Makes You Stupid." A member of the community posted a link on the forum to a comic that depicted Jade Raymond engaged in sexual activities. Raymond is a video game producer for Ubisoft.

Ubisoft sent Kyanka a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that the comic be taken down from the site and threatening legal action. The letter claims that the comic infringed upon Ms. Raymond's "personal rights," caused emotional distress, and constituted trademark infringement, among other things.

Mr. Kyanka posted the letter on SomethingAwful in his own forum posting. In the posting, Kyanka claimed that he had no connection to the comic except that a link to it was posted on the forum. He said that he does not know who drew the comic and does not know where the image is located. Kyanka also sent Ubisoft's legal counsel a reply email, indicating that perhaps he did not take the legal threat seriously:

Please let it be known that hereforth I have read the express mail and email sent thereforth by Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP, and furthermore a declaration shall be expressed on the part of Internet User Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka that that forth herethrough I have conducted rigorous tests implemented through a vigorous barrage of legal studies, and furthermore hitherthrough these rigorous tests have therefore proven Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP shall be recognized as a man of the fag persuasion.

Pursuant to the United Dairy Council

Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka
Internet

The link to the comic is no longer on SomethingAwful, and Ubisoft has not taken any legal action against Kyanka.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Requested a PDF of the letter from Kyanka, but haven't heard anything back yet. -Stefani

SB - we have a copy of the comic at issue. We probably don't want to post it, as it is sexually explicit.

DA - I agree.

As of 6/09/2008  - no developments. Do we still want to try and get the letter? (JMC)

Avis v. Turkewitz

Date: 

10/23/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Eric Turkewitz

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Legal Counsel: 

Pro Se

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney who operates a blog. On September 17, 2007, Turkewitz used the Avis and Hertz logos in a blog post concerning a federal court decision striking down the "Graves Amendment," a federal law that had abolished vicarious liability for automobile lessors and renters based solely on ownership. On October 23, counsel for Avis posted a comment to Turkewitz's post. The comment asserted that Turkewitz did not have the right to use Avis's trademark and requested that he immediately remove the Avis logo from his blog and refrain from using it in the future.

Turkewitz published a subsequent post explaining his belief that use of the logo was fair and asking his readers for their opinions. He then published a public response to Avis, outlining his argument that use of the logo was protected by the First Amendment as news reporting. At this time, Avis has not taken any legal action.

As of July 7, 2009, it appears that no action has been taken by any of the parties.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Status checked on 6/02/08 (AAB)

7/7/09 - no new information (CMF)

Fitch v. Doe

Date: 

02/04/2004

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John or Jane Doe

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Cumberland County Superior Court; Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Case Number: 

CV-04-78 (trial court); Cum-04-295 (on appeal)

Legal Counsel: 

George J. Marcus, Jennie L. Clegg

Publication Medium: 

Email

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Description: 

In February 2004, Ronald Fitch filed a John Doe lawsuit in state court in Maine based on a fake e-mail that was circulated in his name. According to papers filed in the lawsuit, an anonymous person set up an e-mail account (fitchisland@hotmail.com) using Fitch's name. On Christmas Eve 2003, several members of the board of directors of the gated community where Fitch lived received an e-mail from the account. The e-mail, entitled "Happy Holidays," contained a cartoon attachment that Fitch claimed was derogatory and was meant to depict him and his wife.

Fitch sued, alleging that the person who sent the email had misappropriated his identity, violated his privacy, portrayed him in a false light, inflicted emotional distress, and committed fraud. Fitch filed a motion to compel disclosure of information about the user of the email account from Time Warner Cable, who allegedly provided Internet access to the user. Time Warner refused to release any information without a court order referencing 47 U.S.C. § 551, a provision in the Cable Communications Policy Act that regulates cable companies' use of subscriber information. Counsel for the anonymous defendant appeared in the action and opposed the disclosure motion.

The trial court ordered disclosure, finding that the anonymous defendant had consented to disclosure in his user agreement. The anonymous defendant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, which affirmed the lower court's decision, but based on different reasoning. The court held that, regardless of consent, section 551(c) and (h) of the Cable Communications Policy Act authorized disclosure of subscriber information pursuant to a court order so long as the cable provider notified the subscriber in advance.

Public Citizen Litigation Group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Maine Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Judicial Court, opposing disclosure based on First Amendment protections for anonymous speech. Counsel for the anonymous defendant also made the First Amendment argument on appeal. The court rejected this argument, however, because the anonymous defendant had not raised it before the trial court.

The record is unclear as to whether and how the lawsuit was resolved following disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Status checked on 6/4/2008, no new information. (AAB)

Weedsport Central School District v. Wisniewski

Date: 

04/26/2001

Threat Type: 

Disciplinary Action

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Aaron Wisniewski

Type of Party: 

School

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Northern District of New York

Case Number: 

5:02-cv-01403-NAM-DEP

Legal Counsel: 

Dennis G. O'Hara, Stephen Ciotoli

Publication Medium: 

Other

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Description: 

Aaron Wisniewski, an eighth grader, sent instant messages to several of his friends using his home computer. The instant messages contained a "buddy icon" that Aaron had designed, which was a picture of a pistol firing at a man's head with the words "Kill Mr. VanderMolen." Philip VanderMolen was one of Aaron's teachers at his school.

Upon learning about the buddy icon, school officials initially supsended Aaron for 5 days, but the punishment was extended to a full semester after a Superintendent's hearing took place. The school also barred Aaron from participating in extracurricular activities during this time period.

Aaron and his parents sued the school district and superintendent in federal court in New York, alleging that the suspension violated his First Amendment rights. The district court granted the school district's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the icon constituted a true threat, which is not protected by the First Amendment. On appeal, the 2nd Circuit affirmed.

 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

 

 

Pages