[syndicated profile] snopes_feed

Posted by Kim LaCapria

Are shoppers falling prey to Walmart's "phantom charge" of $10, which has been appearing on random receipts for a decade?
[syndicated profile] snopes_feed

Posted by Dan MacGuill

A July 2017 Facebook post is the latest to digitally add political slogans to a photograph of the actor.
[syndicated profile] snopes_feed

Posted by Dan Evon

A meme made the demonstrably false claim that Wendy's had replaced workers with machines at thousands of its restaurants, thanks to a minimum wage increase.
[syndicated profile] snopes_feed

Posted by Bethania Palma

An article reporting that a federal judge had implemented "sharia law" in the United States is fake news that was originally posted on a satire site.
[syndicated profile] snopes_feed

Posted by Dan MacGuill

River Falls-based Three Square Market is giving its workers the option of voluntarily having a microchip implanted in their hands.
[syndicated profile] snopes_feed

Posted by Associated Press

Connie Yates and Chris Gard have given up their legal battle for experimental treatment for their terminally-ill 11-month-old son.
[syndicated profile] eff_feed

Posted by karen

EFF has asked a federal court to rule in its favor in a lawsuit we filed against an Australian company that sought to use foreign law to censor us from expressing our opinion about its patent. While the company, Global Equity Management (SA) Pty Ltd (GEMSA,) knows its way around U.S. courts—having filed dozens of lawsuits against big tech companies claiming patent infringement—it has failed to respond to ours. Today we asked for a default judgment, which if granted means we win the case.

It all started when GEMSA’s patent litigation was featured in our June 2016 blog series “Stupid Patent of the Month.” The company wrote to EFF accusing us of “false and malicious slander.” It subsequently filed a lawsuit and obtained an injunction from a South Australia court ordering EFF to take down the blog post and blocking us from ever talking about any of its intellectual property.

We have not removed the post. The South Australian injunction can’t be enforced in the U.S. under a 2010 federal law that took aim against “libel tourism,” a practice by which plaintiffs—often billionaires, celebrities, or oligarchs—sued U.S. writers and academics in countries like England where it was easier to win a defamation case.

The Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act) says foreign orders aren’t enforceable in the United States unless they are consistent with the free speech protections provided by the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as state law. Our lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, maintains that GEMSA’s injunction, which seeks to silence expression of an opinion, would never survive scrutiny under the First Amendment in the United States and should therefore be declared unenforceable. We stood ready to defend our right to express constitutionally protected speech.

GEMSA, which has three pending patent lawsuits in in the Northern District of California, had until May 23 to respond to our case. That day came and went without a word. We can’t speculate as to why GEMSA hasn’t responded. To get a default judgment, we need to show that not only has GEMSA failed to answer our claims but also, regarding our claim that the South Australia injunction is unenforceable in the U.S., the law is on our side.

We believe that we should prevail. The law does not allow companies or individuals to make an end run around the First Amendment by finding a judge in another country to sign an injunction that censors speech in the U.S. The law the Australian court applied to grant the injunction didn’t provide as much protection for EFF’s speech as American law, which means it’s unenforceable under the SPEECH Act. Additionally, the injunction is unconstitutional under American law as it prohibits all future speech by EFF about any of GEMSA’s patents. Such prohibitions are also known as prior restraints, and are allowed only in the rarest of circumstances, none of which apply here.

Our laws also don’t allow plaintiffs to be left under a cloud of uncertainty as to their ability to speak publicly about something as important as patent litigation and reform. The Australian injunction states that failure to comply could result in the seizure of EFF’s assets and prison time for its officers. GEMSA attorneys have threatened to take the Australian injunction to American search engine companies to deindex the blog post, making the post harder to find online.

The court should set the record straight and grant our request for a default judgment. Our laws call for no less.

Profile

submitconsumeobey: (Default)
Alicia

October 2015

M T W T F S S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 31 

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2017 20:47
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios