Visibilitythings can be forwarded and can go viral...

not in same precise way

Searchability- can find things not by talking to people but whos hear...you can just search people
through the internetthis is harmful speech that spreads faster
o Gamer gate example

cyberbullying- verbal attacks that happen in a steady way over the web
o victims usually teens who commit suicide after being repeatedly harassed/ systematically
o criticism for what is appropriate punishment/ harassment that doesn't help conversation or good
values
How should we internalize these situations with speech?

Narrow tailored laws to deal with specific issues...but these then get used to capture and monitor more general
issues
- there is a fear of creep that more things will be monitored
- US is very speech protective even though that means that bad speech will be permitted
Cassidy Case
- AZ was American born tooku (what is this); she found out that D was not real and started harassing over
twitter and blogs and tweets caused AZ stress and fear of safety
- Criminal case- Cassy violated federal stalking statute
o Cassy is arguing that all calls and tweets were fine under 1st Amendment
This issue is specific to this case
Case example - Good when stalking statute has been applied appropriately- calling her
every 5 min on the phone not b/c of 1st amendment but b/c of harassing effect b/c the
conduct would serve as unavoidable
o Tweets are not the same as phone calls
- Some things can be appropriate points of criticisim BUT court makes distinction b/n harassing phone
calls, emails and twitter
o She could have blocked him on twitter but on phone calls you cant block someone
o Not true threats b/c they are not imminent they were just general and no time commitment
- Cassidy gets offtwitter/ blogs are like posting in a newspaper and she can ignore them so it doesnt
demand attention like harassment
Protrovic
- was in a relationship with someone who took nudie pics and put everything online
- put pictures online and
- court has 4 part test
o in this case communications convicted under statute were not protected by 1A
she was being extorted and thats what makes the big difference
-

revenge porn
o porn is constitionally protected
o how do you write law to capture what you want and what you dont
Danielle sitron- if picture was made for private consumption and not commercial then
you can ask site to take it down
public disclosure of private facts (truth isnt a defense)

Patrovick v Cassidy
- do they make sense together?
o Can look at persons conduct
Sexually explicit material is generally protected by 1st amendment
- obscenity is narrow and falls outside of1A protectionto be obscene it has to have a 3 part test

- (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find
that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Roth, supra, at 489,]
- (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
- (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately
protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary

- Porn/ Is it obscene?
o 3 prong test
-

child pornography
speech that is harmful to minors

** strict scrutiny test

Reno v ACLU - john barlow went nuts over this law
- talks about telecom act of 1996
o are 2 provisions of telecom act of 1996 consitutonal?
o If you take good faith steps to try and exclude/ protect minors you would be okay
Best argument that regulation of free speech is justified?
- duty to protect children
Killbride:
- either something is obscene or its not
Facts: Ds operated ad business where they would send emails and get businesssome ads had obscenity
- charged with export of obcene material
- contemporary community stndards
o need to use the least tolerate community as the process
- Ashcroft v. free Speech coalition- no majority opinion on question
- RULE: when court decides case and theres no single rationale you try to figure out holding by finding a
majority of justices agree on that is necessary for case to be resolved
o 5 judges agreed that contmepary standard raises consitional issues
o 5 disagreed
open question over how to decide what counts as obscene
- try to figure out what makes sense in the web where something someone says in one place can be
problematic someplace else
-