FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text] Question: Does the First Amendment protect online speech? Answer: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Under the First Amendment and cases interpreting it, the federal government (and states, under the Fourteenth Amendment) must meet a high level of scrutiny before restricting any kind of speech. In the first Supreme Court case dealing with the Internet, Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court affirmed that online speech deserves as much protection as off-line speech. [back to notice text] Question: What is a "Permanent Injunction"? Answer: An injunction is "A court order commanding or preventing an action. * To get an injunction, the complainant must show that there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law and that an irreparable injury will result unless the relief is granted... [A]permanent injunction [is] [a]n injunction granted after a final hearing on the merits. * Despite its name, a permanent injunction does not necessarily last forever." [back to notice text] Question: What is a hyperlink? Answer: Unless you typed the URL directly into your web browser, you probably followed a hyperlink to get to this page. A hyperlink is a location reference that the web browser interprets, often by underlining the text in blue, to "link" to another information resource when clicked. In HTML (HyperText Markup Language, the code used to write web pages), a hyperlink looks like this: link [back to notice text] Question: If a hyperlink is just a location pointer, how can it be illegal? Answer: It probably isn't, however, a few courts have now held that a hyperlink violates the law if it points to illegal material with the purpose of disseminating that illegal material: In the DeCSS case, Universal v. Reimerdes, the court barred 2600 Magazine from posting hyperlinks to DeCSS code because it found the magazine had linked for the purpose of disseminating a circumvention device. (See Anticircumvention (DMCA).) The court ruled that it could regulate the link because of its "function," even if the link was also speech. In another case, Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, a Utah court found that linking to unauthorized copies of a text might be a contributory infringement of the work's copyright. (The defendant in that case had previously posted unauthorized copies on its own site, then replaced the copies with hyperlinks to other sites.) By contrast, the court in Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com found that links were not infringements of copyright. Like anything else on a website, a hyperlink could also be problematic if it misrepresents something about the website. For example, if the link and surrounding text falsely stated that a website is affiliated with another site or sponsored by the linked company, it might be false advertising or defamation. Finally, post-Grokster, a hyperlink might be argued to induce copyright infringement, if the link were made knowing that the linked-to material was infringing and with the intent of inducing people to follow the link and infringe copyright. In most cases, however, simple linking is unlikely to violate the law. [back to notice text] Question: What is defamation? Answer: Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation. [back to notice text] Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim? Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements: a publication to one other than the person defamed; a false statement of fact; that is understood as a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice. [back to notice text] Question: What is libel per se? Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se: A statement that falsely: Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity. Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact. [back to notice text] Question: What is the "publication" of a defamatory statement? Answer: Publication is the dissemination of the defamatory statement to any person other than the person about whom the statement is written or spoken. [back to notice text] Question: May someone other than the person who originally made the defamatory statement be legally liable in defamation? Answer: One who "publishes" a defamatory statement may be liable. However, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 says that online service providers are not publishers of content posted by their users. Section 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law. [back to notice text] Question: What is a "Permanent Injunction"? Answer: An injunction is "A court order commanding or preventing an action. * To get an injunction, the complainant must show that there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law and that an irreparable injury will result unless the relief is granted... [A]permanent injunction [is] [a]n injunction granted after a final hearing on the merits. * Despite its name, a permanent injunction does not necessarily last forever." [back to notice text] Question: What is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"? Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury. As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability. Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury. (See What is contributory infringement?.) Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party [back to notice text] Question: What are Chilling Effects? Answer: "Chilling Effects" refers to the deterrent effect of legal threats or posturing, largely cease and desist letters independent of litigation, on lawful conduct. The Chilling Effects clearinghouse will catalogue cease and desist notices and present analyses of their claims to help recipients resist the chilling of legitimate activities (as well as understand when their activities are unlawful). The project's core, this database of letters and FAQ-style analyses is supplemented by legal backgrounders, news items, and pointers to statutes and caselaw. Periodic "weather reports" will sum up the legal climate for online activity.

Topic maintained by Chilling Effects