Candeub and Volokh on Section 230 and Removing "Otherwise Objectionable" Content From Websites

 At Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh flags a brief article that he coauthored with Adam Candeub that was recently published in the Journal of Free Speech Law. Here's the abstract:

[Communications Decency Act] Section 230(c)(2) immunizes platforms' decisions to block material that they "consider[] to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." The ejusdem generis interpretive canon suggests that "otherwise objectionable" should be read "to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words."

In this instance, the similarity is that all those words refer to material that was traditionally viewed as regulable in electronic communications media—and was indeed regulated by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, as part of which § 230 was enacted. And restrictions on speech on "the basis of its political or religious content" were not viewed as generally permissible, even in electronic communications.

Candeub and Volokh argue that "otherwise objectionable" material should not be interpreted as a catch all category, but should instead be construed in light of the other terms in Section 230(c)(2)'s list of materials. As a result, they urge that Section 230(c)(2) be read as immunizing Internet companies and websites from restricting "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, or harassing communications," and that the statute not be read to immunize these actors from the removal of content that is objectionable based on its political content.

I think there are several problems with this argument. With the caveats that these are my initial impressions and that it's been a while since I've done intensive research into Section 230, these concerns are listed below. I've tried to list my objections in order of most technical and specific first, followed by broader points.

First, I think the ejusdem generis interpretive canon has less power in the particular context here because Section 230(c)(2) immunizes platforms' decisions to block "otherwise objectionable" content rather than "other objectionable" content. The latter wording would be a clear example of specific terms followed by a general term, and would be in line with most examples in Candeub's and Volokh's article which involve statutes listing examples, followed by "other" things. But the way the statute is actually worded includes the term, "otherwise," which suggests material that is objectionable in ways that are distinct from the preceding examples. Candeub and Volokh do not address this, and their esjudem generis argument therefore seems stronger than the language of the statute warrants, as it implicitly reads the statute as prohibiting "other objectionable" content rather than "otherwise objectionable" content.

Second, this reading takes an overly narrow view of the purpose of the provision it analyzes and the Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. case that played a significant role in prompting the inclusion of the provision. In Stratton Oakmont, the plaintiff sued a website message board for defamation based on several allegedly defamatory posts from message board users. The plaintiff alleged that the message board was liable because it exercised editorial control over the message board, noting that the site set forth detailed content guidelines that discourage the posting of "insulting" notes, as well as notes that "harass other members or are deemed to be in bad taste or grossly repugnant to community standards, or are deemed harmful to maintaining a harmonious online community" stating that such content would be removed when brought to the site's attention. The court cited this choice to engage in this editorial control as opening up the site to greater liability than other sites that did not take such measures. 

Congress was aware of this case when it passed Section 230, which Candeub and Volokh recognize. But they only focus on remarks from legislators who cite the blocking of material that is not "family-friendly," which (sort of) lines up with their restrictive reading of the statute. But this narrow focus ignores the extent of editorial restrictions at play in Stratton Oakmont, which included guidelines for the removal of "insulting," [non]-harmonious," and "bad taste" comments. It also suggests a narrow view of "family friendly," content, which may well exclude truthful, politically significant content such as images and discussions of war or terrorism, litigation and legislation over sexual privacy and abortion, and other such political content. Stratton Oakmont illustrated the danger of any sort of editorial policy giving rise to heightened liability, and Section 230(c)(2) was the response. Candeub and Volokh's narrow reading is inconsistent with this broad concern that prompted the immunity provision.

Third, a reading of the statute that removes immunity concerning the removal of political content while immunizing the removal of other content would run into significant First Amendment problems. Those who run websites or forums may have their own political preferences, and may moderate content based on these preferences. Limiting this ability would infringe on those providers' First Amendment rights--an aspect of online content moderation that is often ignored by Section 230 critics (and misinterpreters) who prefer to focus only on the purported rights of users.

To Candeub's and Volokh's credit, they recognize that the First Amendment may be relevant, but set it aside for the purpose of their article. Because of this, though, the article's analysis is in a misleading vacuum.  What is the point of this discussion about ejusdem generis if the First Amendment will ultimately require a different reading? Indeed, the First Amendment may well be relevant to discussions of interpretive canons: to the extent that the narrow reading of "otherwise objectionable" content leads to First Amendment problems, the canon of constitutional avoidance would weigh in favor of an expansive interpretation that avoids this issue.

These are my initial concerns with the conclusions in the article, but I'll be interested in seeing what others have to say--particularly those who are more involved in Section 230 research and litigation than me.

READ MORE - Candeub and Volokh on Section 230 and Removing "Otherwise Objectionable" Content From Websites

Labels:

Iowa's Law Targeting "Critical Race Theory"

A few weeks ago, Iowa's governor signed a law that she claimed would address the teaching of "critical race theory." Shortly after she signed the bill into law, the Des Moines Register reported:

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a new law that she said will target the teaching of critical race theory and other concepts in government diversity trainings and classroom curriculum.

“Critical Race Theory is about labels and stereotypes, not education. It teaches kids that we should judge others based on race, gender or sexual identity, rather than the content of someone’s character,” Reynolds said in a statement. “I am proud to have worked with the legislature to promote learning, not discriminatory indoctrination.”

Critical race theory, a decades-old legal theory that examines how slavery's legacy continues to influence American society, is not specifically named in the new legislation. But the law would ban teaching certain concepts, such as that the U.S. or Iowa is systemically racist.

The new law, House File 802, goes into effect July 1.

Reynolds' signing comes as other Republicans across the country have said they want to eliminate teaching critical race theory and associated concepts from classrooms. Iowa is among more than a dozen states that have considered legislation this year aimed at eliminating similar concepts from classroom curriculum.

That same Register article notes that Iowa's law is based "nearly word for word" on an executive order issued by the Trump Administration (that is now repealed) that banned certain forms of diversity training for federal contractors. The Register's prior reporting on that order is here, the order itself is here.

There are a number of glaring practical problems with the law, which appear to be based, in part, on the bill's origin in a ban on training for contractors. For one, the law contains no penalty or disciplinary provisions, so it is unclear what would result from a violation of the law. The bill also includes prohibitions on certain types of training, but also includes restrictions for school curricula. While the restrictions on training are somewhat explicit, the restrictions on school districts and their curricula are woefully vague.

These defects, and others, are addressed in the remainder of this post, which walks through the law and tries to make sense of what is being restricted.

The Law's Definition of "Scapegoating," "Stereotyping," and Specific Defined Concepts

To start, the law defines a few key phrases:

Section 261H.7(1)(a) defines "Race or sex scapegoating" as "assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex, or claiming that, consciously or unconsciously, and by virtue of persons' race or sex, members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others, or that members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others.

261H.7(1)(b) defines "Race or sex stereotyping" as "ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex."

Before moving on to other defined terms, a few thoughts on these definitions.

The "scapegoating" notion is more limited than it may first appear, because it only addresses instances where fault, blame, or bias is attributed to a particular race or sex, or members of a race or sex, because of that person's race or sex. This includes the portion of the definition that addresses conscious and unconscious bias--the definition only applies if that bias is because of the biased person's race or sex. While I am not an expert on the subject, it is my understanding that most discussions of bias often focus on biases being prompted by those being targeted or evaluated, rather than by the holder of the bias. This means that people of all races may have a particular, stereotyped view of a particular race--for example, both White and African-American police officers may hold an unconscious bias against African-American suspects and think that they are more likely to be dangerous. Because such a bias is not dependent on the race of the bias-holder, it would not be encompassed by the definition in the law.

The section on Race or sex stereotyping includes the notion that "privileges" cannot be ascribed to an individual because of their race or sex. This appears to apply to any notion of white privilege, male privilege, or similar concepts. If "Race or sex stereotyping" is prohibited, such a prohibition would prevent teaching or training that teaches people to recognize these types of privilege.

The law then addresses, "Specific defined concepts," which includes:

(1) That one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.

(2) That the United States of America and the state of Iowa are fundamentally or systemically racist or sexist.

(3) That an individual, solely because of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

(4) That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's race or sex.

(5) That members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex.

(6) That an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by the individual's race or sex.

(7) That an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.

(8) That any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of that individual's race or sex.

(9) That meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.

(10) Any other form of race or sex scapegoating or any other form of race or sex stereotyping.

I haven't dug into the history of this bill or of the Trump Order on which it was based, so I am not sure where this list of defined concepts comes from. There is a bit of overlap with tenets of critical race theory (again, based on my limited knowledge and exposure of it), but this list is largely imprecise, all over the map, and prone to abuse.

To start, the terms "racist" and "sexist" aren't defined. It's therefore unclear whether those notions refer to conscious, intentional racism and sexism, unconscious bias, or disparate impacts of policies and practices that result from historic racism that is no longer as overt (or legally sanctioned) as it once was. For example, concept number 9--the notion that "meritocracy" is racist or sexist--could be implicated by training or teaching that points out that standardized tests tend to favor more privileged white people. While those who write these tests and use these tests in admissions practices likely aren't sitting down and saying "I can't wait to write/evaluate this test in a manner that disadvantages racial minorities!" the imprecise and undefined wording of the statute seems to go beyond this, and prohibit discussion of disparate impacts based on race or sex.

This causes problems for other concepts on the list, including number 2, which addresses fundamental and systemic racism of the United States and the state of Iowa. Perhaps those who hear charges of systemic racism think that critics are accusing most or all people in government of being intentionally biased against particular groups. But such explicit, biased actions are often hidden behind racially-coded proxies (e.g., heightening police presence in "high crime" areas; discussions of "inner cities," and many more examples). Systemic racism may also manifest through facially neutral laws or policies that end up having a disparate impact as a result of historic power structures and discrimination. All of this may be characterized as systemic racism, and all of this may be encompassed by this concept--which is a shame, because there is a great deal of truth behind these concerns.

Affirmative action may also be covered by this list to the extent that its opponents describe it as "reverse racism." If affirmative action is framed as taking away opportunities for, say, white people in favor of racial minorities, it can easily fall under concept number 4, which prohibits adverse treatment because of race or sex.

Number 8 is also particularly concerning: while it is limited to the concept that people "should" feel discomfort of guilt because of their race or sex, it will likely be implemented to prohibit the teaching of any concept that happens to cause such discomfort in members of the audience. The teaching itself may not demand that those in the audience feel discomfort or shame--it may instead call on them to view the world from a different perspective, recognize their privilege, and consider how their seemingly benign conduct may cause greater harm than they realize. Many people confronted with these notions will likely feel uncomfortable, though, which will likely lead them to accuse the teacher of asserting that they should feel uncomfortable. This concept may therefore be used to ban the teaching or training of any concept that happens to cause discomfort in certain audience members and creates a significant potential for abuse.

What Practices Does the Law Affect?

While the law devotes a lot of space to defining stereotyping, scapegoating, and specific concepts, the scope of the law appears, at first, to be limited. Section 25A.1 applies to training by and for members of governmental entities or agencies. It requires that the heads of those agencies:

ensure that any mandatory staff training provided by an employee of an agency, governmental entity, or governmental subdivision, or by a contractor hired by the agency, governmental entity, or governmental subdivision does not teach, advocate, encourage, promote, or act upon stereotyping, scapegoating, or prejudice toward others on the basis of demographic group membership or identity.

I have no idea what this means, primarily because it uses only portions of terms defined at length elsewhere in the law. This provision prohibits the teaching, advocating, encouraging, or promoting of "stereotyping" and "scapegoating." First, this does not explicitly prohibit the teaching of the "Specific defined concepts," nor does it even explicitly prohibit "Race or sex stereotyping" or "Race or sex scapegoating"--as it only uses the (undefined) terms, "stereotyping" and "scapegoating." Are those terms broader than the defined terms? Do they encompass the same behaviors, but with applicability to demographics beyond race and sex? It's unclear. Second, the broad "encouraging" and "promoting" terms may encompass a far broader set of behaviors than actually teaching the specific defined concepts or notions that fall under those defined Race or sex stereotyping/scapegoating. This blog post, for instance, by criticizing the definitions and breadth of the specific defined concepts, may be viewed as "encouraging" or "promoting" those concepts. These imprecise terms will likely result in overcautious behavior by those arranging for training, resulting in the unnecessary chilling of speech (for more background on the problem of vagueness in the First Amendment context, see here).

This section tries to save itself with a list of items it purports not to do, including preventing agencies and entities from promoting diversity and prohibiting a curriculum that teaches sexism, slavery, racial oppression and segregation, and related topics. But the failure to define the scope of what is prohibited and what is not prohibited leaves everything vague--are the restrictions supposed to be read broadly? Are the exceptions supposed to be read broadly? If there is an apparent conflict, which provision wins out?

These problems, which apply to training by and for members of governmental entities or agencies, apply to the law's restrictions on school districts as well. Section 279.74 includes the same vague language--prohibiting any curriculum or student training that "advocate[s], encourage[s], promote[s], or act[s] upon specific stereotyping and scapegoating toward others on the basis of demographic group membership or identity." Again, none of these terms are defined, and the broad "encourage" and "promote" language urges a broad reading that will result in restricted curricula. While the law does not explicitly say that teachers are prohibited from teaching the specific defined concepts, I'd be willing to bet that those who drafted the law would think that doing so would "encourage" or "promote" stereotyping or scapegoating.

The only restriction in the law that mentions the defined terms is the restriction on "each public institution of higher education," from allowing training that happens to "teach, advocate, act upon, or promote specific defined concepts." Why the section about higher educational institutions is the only one that explicitly mentions the "specific defined concepts" is unclear.

This law purports to take on "Critical Race Theory," a notion that the bill's proponents almost certainly do not understand. It takes an imprecise, scattershot approach at banning the teaching and training of various concepts. Through its use of broad notions of "encouraging" or "promoting" undefined notions of "stereotyping" and "scapegoating," the law will almost certainly chill a great deal of speech--including the teaching of facts and well-accepted concepts that happen to make certain audience members uncomfortable. I won't get into the law's constitutional implications and whether it would survive a challenge, as this post is long enough as it is, but it's a shame to see the passage of such a shortsighted and poorly written law.

READ MORE - Iowa's Law Targeting "Critical Race Theory"

Labels:

Illinois Supreme Court Rejects First Amendment Challenge to "Revenge Porn" Restriction

In Illinois v. Austin, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the State's prohibition on the non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images (also known as "revenge porn"). The law at issue, 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5(b), states:

A person commits non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images when he or she:
(1) intentionally disseminates an image of another person:
(A) who is at least 18 years of age; and
(B) who is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image; and
(C) who is engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part; and
(2) obtains the image under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private; and
(3) knows or should have known that the person in the image has not consented to the dissemination.

The Court's opinion has resulted in criticism from some commentators, and praise from others. While some of the criticism is correct, the Austin Court's recognition that the Illinois law targeted lesser-protected speech and therefore warranted an intermediate level of scrutiny appears to be a correct basis for its conclusion. Critics of the Austin opinion have failed to fully recognize this aspect of the decision by either mischaracterizing it or downplaying its basis in Supreme Court precedent. 

I. Summary of the Opinion

In Austin, the defendant and her fiancé shared an iCloud account, which meant that all text messages that the fiancé sent or received were visible on the defendant's iPad. 3. The fiancé and a neighbor exchanged several text messages, some of which included nude photographs of the neighbor. 4. The defendant and her fiancé then cancelled their wedding plans and broke up. The fiancé began telling people that the relationship ended because the defendant "was crazy and no longer cooked or did household chores." 5. The defendant, in turn, wrote a letter that included several nude photos of the neighbor and sent this letter to the fiancé's cousin. 6. The fiancé called the police, who interviewed the neighbor. The neighbor told them that while she was aware that the fiance and the defendant shared an iCloud account, she thought the account had been deactivated when she sent the nude photos and had intended that only the fiancé see the photos. 7.

The defendant was charged with one count of non consensual dissemination of private sexual images and moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute was a content-based restriction on speech that violated the First Amendment. The lower court agreed with the defendant and held that the law was unconstitutional on its face. 10.

The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court and held that the statute did not violate the First Amendment. The Court first stated that it rejected the State's request that it recognize that the dissemination of private sexual images as an unprotected category of speech.  33-36. While some categories of speech, such as incitement, obscenity, defamation, and fighting words are recognized as falling outside of the category of protected speech, the Court stated that it would not add the dissemination of private sexual images to this list absent the Supreme Court addressing the issue.

While the Court refused to recognize the speech as entirely unprotected, it ended up reaching the significant conclusion that the dissemination of private sexual images was subject to a lesser amount of protection than other speech. The Court recognized that content-based restrictions on speech typically require court's to apply strict scrutiny to the restriction, which, in First Amendment cases, almost always results in the restriction being overturned. Here, however, the Court held that only an intermediate level of scrutiny was required, which meant that the law needed to serve "an important or substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech" and that the law "not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further that interest."  59.

The Court advanced two justifications for its use of intermediate scrutiny. First, the Court claimed that the restriction was not a content-based restriction. While acknowledging that the law only applied to the dissemination of sexual images, the Court noted that the dissemination of this content was only unlawful if it was done so in a situation where the person sharing the content obtains the image under circumstances where a reasonable person knows or should know that the image is to remain private and that the person has not consented to the image's dissemination. The Court therefore concluded that the illegality of the dissemination was not premised on the content of the image, but rather on the manner of the dissemination. The law was therefore a time, place, or manner restriction, which warrants only intermediate scrutiny.  49.

Separately, the Court noted that the law only restricted the dissemination of information that is of purely private concern.  The Austin Court noted that the Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. has recognized that restrictions on speech involving "purely private" matters does not threaten "free and robuse debate of public issues" and is less likely to "pose the risk of 'a reaction of self-censorship' on matters of public import." 54. The Court concluded that the defendant's sharing of sexual images did not involve an issue of public concern as they were privately-sent sexual images that did not "relate to any broad issue of interest to society at large." 56. The restriction on the dissemination of these issues therefore warranted intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny.

The Court concluded that the restriction survived intermediate scrutiny, noting that it served a substantial government interest of protecting individual privacy rights and acknowledging that the dissemination of private sexual images causes "unique and significant harm to victims in several respects." 66. The Court then concluded that the restriction was tailored narrowly enough to survive a First Amendment challenge, as it defined what body parts or activities needed to be included in the prohibited images, required that the person in the image be identifiable from the image or information displayed with the image, required that the image be obtained under circumstances where a reasonable person would know or understand that it was to remain private, required that the person disseminating the image know that there was no consent to share the image, and also required that the person disseminating the images do so intentionally. 79-83. The law also included exemptions to the prohibition that included the dissemination of images for purposes of reporting a crime or for a "lawful public purpose."

II. The Court's First, Mistaken Rationale for Applying Intermediate Scrutiny

The Austin Court's first basis for concluding that the Illinois law was not subject to strict scrutiny was that it was a "time, place, or manner" restriction, rather than a content-based restriction on speech. The Court got to this conclusion by stating that the illegality of the dissemination of the sexual images is premised on the manner of how the images are shared. While sharing sexual images with the consent of the person pictured or in circumstances where the image was not expected to be private is permissible, doing so when there is no consent or where a reasonable person would recognize that the image was intended to remain private is prohibited. 

While this is correct, the fact remains that the illegality of sharing the sexual image is also premised on the content of the image. The law is a time, place, and manner restriction on speech, but it also only applies to certain content. Mark Bennett correctly notes that when restrictions have "both content-based and content-neutral elements," they are content-based restrictions that are subject to strict scrutiny. He cites R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, where the Court addressed a law that prohibited "fighting words" that "insult[ed] or provok[ed] violence on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." R.A.V., at p. 391. While fighting words are an unprotected category of speech, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibited a content-based subset of that category. Id. at pp. 392, 396.

The approach used in R.A.V. undermines the Austin Court's reasoning. While some elements of the law involve the manner in which sexual images are shared, the law only applies to the sharing of sexual images or images of sexual content -- which is a content-based limitation. The law therefore is content-based, and the Court's attempt to sidestep this is a mistake.

III. The Second Rationale: Lesser Protection for Speech of Purely Private Matters

While the Austin Court's analysis on time, place, or manner restrictions is incorrect, it gave a second, stronger basis for its use of intermediate scrutiny by concluding that the speech at issue was "purely private" speech that was subject to a lower level of scrutiny.

In Dun & Bradstreet, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling affirming a jury's award of punitive damages after the defendant credit reporting agency shared a credit report for the plaintiff construction contractor that included false information. Dun & Bradstreet, at pp. 752-53. The Supreme Court noted that while it had previously recognized strong protections for speech on matters of public concern, speech of "purely private concern" warrants "less stringent" protection under the First Amendment. Id. at p. 760. The Court concluded that the credit report was speech of purely private concern, as it was made "solely in the individual interest of the speaker and its specific business audience." Id. at 762. The Court therefore held that permitting recovery of presumed and punitive damages was permitted, even absent a showing of actual malice.  Id. at 762.

The Austin Court uses Dun & Bradstreet and similar language from Snyder v. Phelps to support its conclusion that laws against disseminating private, sexual content are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Scott Greenfield criticizes this move by referring to "purely private speech" as a "non-category category" and accuses the Austin Court of relying solely on dicta from Snyder.  While this criticism is warranted to the extent that Snyder's invocation of lesser protection for purely private speech is dicta, it overlooks the basis for this doctrine in Dun & Bradstreet, which applied that lesser level of protection in upholding presumptive and punitive damages in a defamation case. Admittedly, the context of Dun & Bradstreet was different--as the Supreme Court was not evaluating the constitutionality of a criminal law restricting speech. But the rule set forth in Dun & Bradstreet was broad, and the Court applied that rule favorably in upholding an award of damages in a defamation case. It is neither surprising nor incorrect for a state court to apply this broadly-stated rule to a different set of circumstances, particularly one involving a law that requires the disseminated content to have been initially shared or kept in private circumstances. 

Bennett's criticism is less substantive, as he claims that the Austin Court identifies "speech on purely private matters" as a category of speech that is not subject to the same protection as other speech and that the Supreme Court has never recognized such a category. This misses the mark, as the Supreme Court in both Snyder and Dun & Bradstreet has recognized that speech on matters of purely private concern warrants a lesser level of First Amendment protection. It may not be a category of unprotected speech like defamation, fighting words, or obscenity, but as the Austin opinion demonstrates, the Supreme Court's First Amendment doctrine recognizes that purely private speech is subject to lesser protection, and this reasoning is certain to appear in future cases that involve similar laws against revenge porn. 

Bennett raised this same criticism back in 2014 when Danielle Citron set out proposed language for revenge porn restrictions. At that time, I argued that Bennett's critique of Citron's proposed law was misguided, as it ignored Supreme Court case law on lesser-protected speech of purely private concerns. Bennett dismissed that argument, claiming that the Supreme Court had not considered the "purely private concern" issues in recent cases involving First Amendment challenges to criminal statutes. In light of Austin, it seems that simply dismissing this aspect of First Amendment law is an unwise approach for those who wish to argue that revenge porn laws are unconstitutional. It is also unsurprising that Courts would look to this area of First Amendment law, as revenge porn prohibitions are often drafted to apply only to sexual images and content taken in a private setting and shared in a context where there is an expectation that the images will remain private. (For much more on how technology facilitates invasions of privacy and proposals to address these issues through legal and market efforts, see Citron's article, Sexual Privacy).

As the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative notes, the Illinois law is one of the strongest laws against non-consensual sharing of sexual imagery to survive a First Amendment challenge. Other states are likely to use the reasoning from this case in addressing challenges to their own laws. As other courts address these challenges, they will hopefully use the correct components of Austin's reasoning on lesser-protected speech rather than perpetuate the incorrect analysis on time, place, or manner restrictions.

UPDATE - 10/23/2019

In a measured response here, Bennett takes me to task for not reading extensive briefing that he filed in a separate case in Texas. His post on the Austin case was, after all, simply a "copy-and-paste" version of a brief he filed in the Texas case. My failure to review the briefing on that separate case--which was neither linked to nor referenced in his post on Austin--apparently "annoyed" him.

Bennett's brief from the Texas case, Ex Parte Jones, is included in his response. A link to the Court of Criminal Appeals page for that case where all the briefs can be downloaded is here. I have looked over the brief in Bennett's response and, to his credit, it addresses the private speech issue in far more detail than his original post. Heck, I might even write a separate post in response to those arguments one of these days now that it has been brought to my attention.

READ MORE - Illinois Supreme Court Rejects First Amendment Challenge to "Revenge Porn" Restriction

Labels:

White on Trump "Opening Up" Libel Laws

I have written several posts on the implications of Trump's presidency on various constitutional rights. I was going to write one on the First Amendment, but after reading this article by Ken White of Popehat, there is not much more that I want to add. From the article:

As President, Trump will appoint federal judges, from the Supreme Court to the various Courts of Appeal to the trial judges on the many District Courts. But that's not a clear or easy path to "opening up" defamation law and changing either the actual malice standard or the requirement that defamation involve false statements of fact. The Supreme Court has supported the First Amendment very strongly in the last generation, particularly in comparison with other rights. The Court has repeatedly rejected recent attempts to create new exceptions to the First Amendment or to narrow it. Consider Snyder v. Phelps, in which the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Westboro Baptist Church protests at funerals were protected speech. That represented a firm refutation of the notion that speech could be limited because it is hurtful or offensive. Or consider the somewhat obscure but incredibly important United States v. Stevens, in which the Court — ruling 8-1 again — overturned a federal law against "crush videos" (don't ask) and sternly rebuked the government's position that courts can create new ad hoc exceptions to the First Amendment based on a weighing of the value of speech. Or consider Reed v. Town of Gilbert last year, in which the Court unanimously (though with some justices taking a different route) held the line on the idea that laws that restrict speech based on content are subject to strict scrutiny.

I recommend reading the whole article. The Wall Street Journal Law blog also highlights White's article and additional similar commentary here.

I think that Trump's support for "opening up" defamation law suggests, at best, ignorance of First Amendment law and, at worst, contempt for constitutional rights. But when it comes to defamation, the First Amendment will likely emerge unscathed from Trump's presidency, though I agree with White that his brash statements about libel may embolden more litigants to file defamation lawsuits.

READ MORE - White on Trump "Opening Up" Libel Laws

Labels:

Melania Trump Demands Removal of "Actionable" Statements from People Article

So reports Politico:

Donald Trump may not be planning to sue People over the magazine's story accusing him of sexual assault, but his wife Melania apparently is.

At 7:15 p.m. on Thursday night, Melania tweeted a copy of a letter bearing the return address of her lawyer, Charles Harder, and addressed to People editorial director Jess Cagle and People writer Natasha Stoynoff, who wrote a first-person account about Donald Trump forcibly kissing her at Mar-a-Lago in 2005.

Harder — who represented Hulk Hogan in his suit against Gawker, which was funded by Trump supporter Peter Thiel, and has sent threatening letters on Melania's behalf before — wrote that Stoynoff's account contained "actionable" falsehoods (though it did not call the article defamatory). The specific passage Melania Trump disputes: the account of the writer bumping into Melania and having a brief conversation with her outside of Trump Tower.

"The true facts are these: Mrs. Trump did not encounter Ms. Stoynoff on the street, or have any conversation with her. The two are not friends and were never friends or even friendly," Harder wrote.

A complete copy of the letter is here, and it is reprinted in full in the above Politico article.

The letter, which Politico notes uses the term "actionable," rather than "defamatory," does not specify what causes of action Melania Trump has against People. Melania's attorney contends that the statement gives rise to "claims of damages," but it is unclear how the mere statement that Melania recognized and said hello to Stoynoff is damaging in any way, even if it is false.

The letter states the vague threat that People's failure to retract the statements and issue an apology "will require Mrs. Trump to consider her legal options." Perhaps Melania and her attorneys should have considered the legal options before writing the letter, as Melania's legal options seem to be nonexistent.

READ MORE - Melania Trump Demands Removal of "Actionable" Statements from People Article

Labels:

Iowa's Law Against Simulated Intoxication

Back when I lived in Iowa City, the local police blotter was a reliable source of intrigue and occasional amusement. I would read it now and then, seeing if I could spot any elementary school acquaintances or unusual stories. As Iowa City is the home of the University of Iowa, a one time number one party school, accounts of public intoxication were rampant. While reading of these arrests, I sometimes wondered what would happen if I were to simply act intoxicated around police officers.

As it turns out, such activity could result in an arrest for public intoxication, and rightly so -- at least under the language of Iowa Code section 123.46, the statute prohibiting public intoxication. Section 123.46(2) states:

A person shall not use or consume alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer upon the public streets or highways. A person shall not use or consume alcoholic liquor in any public place except premises covered by a liquor control license. A person shall not possess or consume alcoholic liquors, wine, or beer on public school property or while attending a public or private school-related function. A person shall not be intoxicated or simulate intoxication in a public place. A person violating this subsection is guilty of a simple misdemeanor. (emphasis added)

I blogged about this section previously when the Iowa Supreme Court decided that you can be as drunk as the heck you want on your porch because it is not a "public place." In that previous post, I speculated that criminalizing simulated intoxication may violate the First Amendment, but I did not look into the question further.

For those who were disappointed with the short shrift I paid to this unusual law, you are in luck! At long last, here is my analysis on whether the law violates the First Amendment...


There are two scenarios I will discuss in this post. First, could any actual intoxicated person challenge the law on First Amendment grounds, even if they were truly intoxicated when arrested? And second, what about somebody who is arrested for merely simulating intoxication?

Under the overbreadth doctrine, one may challenge a law on First Amendment grounds if that law is likely to substantially restrict protected speech. A defendant can lodge this challenge even if his or her conduct is not protected speech. The logic behind this doctrine is that allowing such a challenge will lead to a constitutional evaluation of the law when lawful actors may feel chilled from exercising protected speech that the statute would prohibit.

So, let's say that Joe Sixpack drinks his namesake and is subsequently arrested. Could he successfully challenge the constitutionality of Section 123.46 on First Amendment overbreadth grounds?

In short, probably not. the Iowa Court of Appeals has held here and here that the prohibition of simulated intoxication does not prohibit a substantial amount of activity protected by the First Amendment. From the Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Gear:

The Supreme Court has held that, "particularly where conduct and not merely speech is involved, we believe that the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2917, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830, 842 (1973). Even if one of the alternative means of violating section 123.46(2), simulating intoxication, could be interpreted as restricting free speech as shown by actions, application of overbreadth principles would result only in partial invalidity of the statute. See Clark v. Miller, 503 N.W.2d at 424. Gear was convicted of actual intoxication in public. This falls within the statute's "plainly legitimate sweep." Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615, 93 S. Ct. at 2917, 37 L. Ed. 2d at 842; see also Iowa Code § 123.1. We reject Gear's overbreadth argument. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err in denying Gear's motion to dismiss on this ground.

The Gear Court also dismissed the defendant's argument that the law was unconstitutionally vague, although that analysis was less intensive:

Although the statute does not reference an explicit, objectively measurable standard for "intoxication," such as the 0.08 blood alcohol concentration used in section 321J.2, describing operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, we do not agree the language of section 123.46(2) that applies to Gear's case encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. We conclude the statute provides sufficient guidance to law enforcement personnel so that they can understand what conduct is prohibited and does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Loathe as I am to concede a constitutional challenge to such a peculiar law, I agree with the Court's overbreadth analysis. Even if the law restricts activity protected by the First Amendment, instances of simulated intoxication are so infrequent and distinct from actual intoxication that any chilling effect is likely to be minimal. The vagueness argument is a bit more of a problem, especially as "intoxicated" is undefined (compare with California's law against public intoxication [Penal Code 647(f)] which requires that one be unable to exercise care for one's own safety or that one obstruct a road or sidewalk). I suspect, in light of the Gear Court's reasoning, that a vagueness argument would also fail.

But what about Tommy the Teetotaler who refuses to drink alcohol but has a penchant for reenacting plays or books in which the main character is constantly intoxicated? If Tommy decided to put on a play in a public park, would his arrest under Section 123.46 be subject to a First Amendment challenge?

Yes it would. Tommy's public recitation of a play would likely be found to be protected speech, and prosecuting him for merely portraying an intoxicated character in the course of the act would violate the First Amendment.

I, however, am not aware of any Iowa cases involving a set of facts like Tommy's case. This is not surprising, however, because the probability of somebody being arrested for merely simulating intoxication is minimal. Arresting these people is a low priority, especially when there are people who are truly intoxicated in the vicinity. And law enforcement officers may not even realize that simulated intoxication is technically illegal.

A tougher question might be where a troublemaker feigns intoxication simply to prompt their own arrest by a law enforcement agent. Why somebody would do something so stupid is beyond me, and the probability of this person admitting to acting intoxicated simply to get arrested is extremely low. Such a case would fall into gray area between my Tommy the Teetotaler hypothetical and the Gear case. The troublemaker isn't drunk, and therefore does not appear to fall into the "plainly legitimate sweep" of the statute under Gear. But the troublemaker would have a difficult time arguing that their simulated intoxication is expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, especially if it was done for the sole purpose of distracting and provoking a police officer.

Perhaps one day an Iowa court will find itself confronted by such a troublemaker. I won't hold my breath, however, since it would take some remarkably misguided actions on a defendant's part for such a scenario to arise.

While Iowa's law against public intoxication could criminalize some activity protected by the First Amendment, I do not expect any arrests for this protected activity to happen anytime soon. By that same token, I do not expect any successful First Amendment overbreadth challenges to the law.

So to all my Iowan readers, feel free to portray your favorite drunk character in play and song in both public and private places. But if you do decide to partake, don't gamble on finding redemption in the First Amendment.

READ MORE - Iowa's Law Against Simulated Intoxication

Labels:

Sorry Iowa, Political Robocalls Are Protected by the First Amendment

While I currently live in California, I spent most of my life in Iowa, and I regularly visit my family in Iowa around the holidays. It is nice to go back, but if it happens to be a month before a caucus, I find that the phone rings off the hook with repeated robocalls from various candidates -- a phenomenon that I simply do not experience now that I live in such a politically irrelevant state. During my 2012 visit home I would try to guess which Republican candidate would greet me with their pre-recorded voice -- Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich were the safest bets.

If somebody had proposed banning these robocalls, I would have welcomed the proposal without hesitation. But, according to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, my enthusiasm would have been misplaced.

So reports the Wall Street Journal Law Blog:

Political robocalls may be an irritating feature of modern campaigning, but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve protection under the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled. 

A decision handed down Wednesday in Arkansas federal court struck down a state law passed 35 years ago that banned political robocalls. The statute restricted commercial robocalling and also made it unlawful to solicit information “in connection with a political campaign” using an automated phone system for dialing numbers and playing recorded messages. 

. . .

The state attorney general’s office defended the robocall prohibition as a justifiable effort to respect people’s privacy interests and protect them from unwanted intrusions into their homes. They also argued that the law prevented “the seizure of phone lines, which could interfere with emergency calls being placed or received.” 

U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes was unpersuaded. He said the state’s motives would be more convincing had the law targeted robocalling more broadly.

The full text of the opinion is here.

Content-based restrictions on speech must pass the difficult "strict scrutiny" test -- meaning that advocates for the law must argue that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. The Arkansas law and the courts ruling on it present an interesting case in which the law was deemed underinclusive -- that is, the government interest in preventing privacy violations from automated calls is only partially served by a ban on one subset of automated calls. Often, in the context of freedom of speech, it is more likely that a statute will be deemed overinclusive in that the law prohibits too much speech to be narrowly tailored to achieve its goal.

It looks like Iowans and others will continue to suffer political robocalls. Additionally, if I were a law student, I would take note of this case, as its emphasis on underinclusiveness highlights an aspect of strict scrutiny that is often unaddressed, and that may be likely to make its way onto a future exam...

READ MORE - Sorry Iowa, Political Robocalls Are Protected by the First Amendment

Labels: