- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Domain case rulings by a county judge “threatens free speech and commerce across the Internet”
November 14, 2008 (InfoPowa News) — Three U.S. organizations that support the concept of freedom of the Internet, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the American Civil Liberties Union, this week urged a Kentucky Court of Appeals to vacate a lower court’s order authorizing the seizure of more than 100 Internet domain names associated with websites operating around the globe.
The seizure, and the lower court’s exercise of jurisdiction over global domain names, threatens free speech across the Internet, a spokesman for the three groups said.
In its amicus brief filed with the Court of Appeals in support of a writ vacating the judge’s order, EFF, CDT, and the ACLU argue that the First Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution prohibit state courts from interfering with Internet domain names that were registered and maintained outside the state. The brief argues that the seizure order was invalid because it threatened to impede access to a broad range of materials protected by the First Amendment.
“The court’s theory — that a state court can order the seizure of Internet domain names regardless of where the site was registered — is not only wrong but dangerous,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “If the mere ability to access a website gives every court on the planet the authority to seize a domain name if a site’s content is in some way inconsistent with local law, the laws of the most world’s most repressive regimes will effectively control cyberspace.”
As part of his ruling, the judge in Kentucky held that the domain names could be seized if they refused to implement “geographic blocks” to prevent Kentucky users from accessing the material. However, no such reliable filters exist, and even poor ones cost thousands of dollars, Zimmerman added. And any order requiring their use would unconstitutionally burden First Amendment rights.
“If the Kentucky order is upheld, no speech that conflicts with any law, anywhere in the world, would be safe from censorship,” said John Morris, general counsel for CDT. “Just as Kentucky is trying to take down sites located around the world, any government seeking to stifle free expression could try to interfere with lawful speech hosted in the United States.”
“A key free speech principle that has emerged from Internet litigation is this: Governments may not prohibit all access to websites as a remedy for unlawful behavior,” said David Friedman, ACLU of Kentucky General Counsel.
For the full amicus brief, click here: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/ky_v_domainnames/amicusbriefky.pdf
FYI: The Superior Court has stayed all further seizure hearings until they rule on it.
Don’t know how busy the Kentucky Superior court is, but in most Commonwealths, the Superior Court is the real workhorse for the system, and are generally pretty loaded down.
They might fast track the thing too, but I don’t think they would do that.
I’d say at least 6 months to year depending on whether the Attorneys involved want to maximize the time, or just get it over with.I believe the initial process involves 3 Judges, and if they don’t prevail there they can go one step further, and have a full review by the entire panel of Superior Court Judges.
From there of course, there’s always the Kentucky Supreme Court! LOL
Actually it should be in a Federal Court anyway. Just my leh opinion though.Anyway, these should be REAL Judges, :roflmao: , not some Traffic Court level Circuit Judge trying make International rulings, :sarcasm: ,so with any luck, they will just toss the Lower Court Ruling for the GARBAGE it was.
Is there anything we can do to ‘influence’ the decision as it relates to the Kentucky Court of Appeals?
No, there is nothing to be done, and if you tried, you’d probably get arrested.
The Attorneys know what to do, and how to guide the thing.I loved the one attorney’s reasoning when he said this:
The stay was sought by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association. IMEGA’s general counsel, Ed Leyden, told Online Casino Advisory the stay was necessary to prevent damage that might be undoable from occurring while the order was being appealed. He said, “Once you squeeze the toothpaste from the tube, it’s not really possible to put it back in.”
:roflmao:
Often they will stay a lower court ruling in Superior court, so it’s not like a really amazing feat, but it certainly takes the immediate heat off everyone until they get a REAL ruling.
Also understand, most Appeals LOSE, but this is so far out in left field, I personally think they will get the Lower court ruling tossed for a variety of reasons.
@The_CPA 186750 wrote:
The Attorneys know what to do, and how to guide the thing.
If that was the case I don’t think we even be in this situation, but we will see how it all works out :tongue:
If that was the case I don’t think we even be in this situation
Considering how they got sideswiped by something so outrageous to begin with, they did pretty good, IMO.
They probably knew the Circuit Judge would not reverse himself, so they made sure they got all of right things filed in the Lower court proceedings so they could “Preserve” them for a solid Appeal.
Who knows though? All of the Superior Court Judges might own Race Horses, and want to keep the money in town!
