The Internet and the State

  1. Jurisdiction I: US Law
    1. Reading
      1. U.S. vs. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (CA 6, 1996).
      2. Playboy Enterprises v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
      3. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997)
      4. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, (9th Cir. 1997)
      5. U.S. v. Kammersell, 196 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 1999)
      6. 15 USCA § 1125(c) & (d) (as amended)
      7. The Florida Attorney General's Opinion on Internet Gambling (October 18, 1995).
      8. The decision of the Minnesota court of appeal in the Granite Gate case, 568 N.W.2d 715, affirmed by an equally divided court, 576 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. 1998)
    2. Optional Reading
      1. A useful review of the background on many types of jurisdiction is found at pages 38-92 of ABA, Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet (London Meeting Draft)
      2. Bochan v. LaFontaine, 68 F.Supp.2nd 692 (E.D. Va. 1999)
      3. Porsche Cars N.A. v., 51 F.Supp.2d 707 (E.D. Va. 1999) [pre-ACPA case]
      4. Dan Burk, Federalism in Cyberspace, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 1095 (1996).
      5. Thomas R. Lee, In Rem Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 75 Wash. L. Rev. 97 (2000).

  2. Jurisdiction II: That Unruly World
    1. Reading
      1. ABA, Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet (London Meeting Draft) [pages 7-37]
      2. Hague Conference on Private International Law: Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Oct. 30, 1999)
      3. James Love, Views of the Consumer Project on Technology [re: Hague Convention]
      4. Attorney General's Dept.(Australia), International Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil Matters: Draft Hague Convention Issues Paper
      5. Welcome to Sealand. Now bugger off. Wired 8.07 (July 2000).
      6. Sealand's View of its history: "History of Sealand"
      7. About HavenCo and Why HavenCo and HavenCo FAQ and HavenCo AUP
    2. Optional Reading
      1. Sealand Factfile
      2. Legal opinions on Sealand (available on reserve in the library).
      3. David Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367 (1996)
      4. Jack Goldsmith, Against Cyberanarchy, 65 U.Chi. L. Rev. 1199 (1998).
      5. ABA, Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet (London Meeting Draft) [pages 92-end]

  3. Content Control I: Porn Control
    1. Reading
      1. Speech regulation online & off
        1. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
        2. COPA
        3. American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162 (3rd Cir. 2000)
        4. Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000)
        5. PSINET v. Chapman (W.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2000) [concentrate on parts I(C), III & IV]
      2. Introduction to content filtering
        1. Paul Resnick, PICS, Censorship, & Intellectual Freedom FAQ
        2. Lawrence Lessig & Paul Resnick, Zoning Speech on the Internet: A Legal and Technical Model, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 395 (1999).
      3. Filtering in the courts
        1. Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F.Supp.2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998)
      4. Miscellany
        1. Reuters, Florida Council votes to shutter "Voyeur Dorm"
    2. Suppose you were a parent seeking some sort of filtering software to install on a home computer that would be connected to the Internet and used by a child.
      1. What would you want to know about the software?
      2. Determine to what extent this information is available about two products of your choice from this list at Yahoo (if possible, please investigate products with a listing that starts as the same letter as your last name).
    3. Optional Reading
      1. ACLU, Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the Internet
      2. Lawrence Lessig, What Things Regulate Speech: CDA 2.0 vs. Filtering, 38 Jurimetrics 629 (1998)
      3. Internet Filter Effectiveness: Testing Over and Underinclusive Blocking Decisions of Four Popular Filters
      4. Jonathan Wallace, Why Libraries Shouldn't Buy Censorware
      5. Mark S. Nadel, The First Amendment's Limitations on the Use of Internet Filtering in Public and School Libraries: What Content Can Librarians Exclude?, 78 Texas L. Rev. 1117 (2000).
      6. Junichi P. Semitsu, Burning Cyberbooks in Public Libraries: Internet Filtering Software vs. The First Amendment, 52 Stan. L. Rev. 509 (2000).
      7. Daniel Laprès, Webliography on the Yahoo Case

  4. Content Control II: Thought Control?
    1. Hate regulation
      1. LICRA ET UEJF vs YAHOO! Inc. and YAHOO FRANCE (Superior Court of Paris May 22, 2000) [unofficial translation of this decision]
      2. Carl S. Kaplan, French Nazi Memorabilia Case Presents Jurisdiction Dilemma, New York Times (Aug 11, 2000)
      3. Reuters, German Urges Global Rules on Hate on Web (June 28, 2000)
      4. Canada Tries to Bar Pro-Nazi View on Internet, New York Times (Aug. 2, 1998)
    2. The 'Great Firewall of China' and other cases of subversive speech regulation
      1. Leonard R. Sussman, Censor Dot Gov: The Internet and Press Freedom 2000
      2. Human Rights Watch, Freedom of Expression on the Internet
      3. AP, Chinese govt. seeks control of Web, Aug. 4, 2000
      4. Craig S. Smith, Ambivalence in China on Expanding Net Access, New York Times, Aug. 11, 2000
      5. Reuters, China says provinces setting up Internet Police
      6. Please review Froomkin, The Internet As A Source of Regulatory Arbitrage
    3. Dangerous speech regulation
      1. David A. Vise, EPA to limit web information (Apr. 27, 2000)
      2. Reuters, Fight Brews Over Swiss Bid to Block Web Sites (May 16, 2000)
      3. Tom Spring, CNN, Surfing with U.S. Customs (Oct. 20, 1999)
    4. Optional Reading
      1. Bertelsmann Foundation: Self-Regulation of Internet Content (1999) [.pdf]
      2. Balkin, Noveck & Roosevelt, Filtering the Internet: A Best Practices Model (Sept. 15, 1999) The summary doesn't really do it justice: Click here to download the full report.
      3. Christopher D. Hunter, Negotiating the Global Internet Rating and Filtering System: Opposing Views of the Bertelsmann Foundation's Self-regulation of Internet Content Proposal

  5. Service Control I: Spam Control
    1. Legislation
      1. Washington State
        1. Washington Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act
        2. Court Transcript before Washington Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson, March 10, 2000 on e-transcript (via U.Washington). I've included the text of this decision in your packet, but you should try the link, download the program, and see what you think about an "e-transcript". Is this going to catch on?
        3. Note that the state is appealing direct to the state supreme court
      2. California
        1. Bus & Prof Code §§ 17538.4 and § 17538.45
        2. Ferguson v. Friendfinder, Cal. Sup. Ct. (S.F.) (June 7, 2000)
    2. Civil Actions to Block Spam
      1. Jane Doe One v. Oliver, 2000 WL 863093 (Sup. Ct. Ct. March 7, 2000)
      2. CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyberpromotions, Inc.., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio 1997)
    3. Technical Means...
      1. Lawrence Lessig, The Spam Wars, The Standard (Dec. 31, 1998)
      2. Spam-L FAQ, Tracking Spam & Blocking Spam
      3. Paul Vixie, Realtime Blackhole Rationale
      4. David G. Post, Of Black Holes and Decentralized Law-Making in Cyberspace, Vand. J. Ent. L. & Pract. (forthcoming 2000)
    4. ...and the Ensuing Lawsuits
      1. Laurie J. Flynn, Harris Files Suit Against AOL Over Blocking of E-Mail, New York Times (Aug. 3, 2000);Judge Denies TRO in Harris v. Maps Case(Aug. 8, 2000)
      2. Patricia Odell, Richard H. Levey, Yesmail Gets Restraining Order Against MAPS Blacklist, DirectNewsline (July 17, 2000); Yesmail and MAPS Agree to Put Litigation on Hold, DirectNewsline (July 26, 2000)
    5. Optional: Harris's Complaint Against MAPS [.pdf file - scanned so it's enormous and slow]
  6. Service Control II: Anonymity Control
    1. Reading
      1. Froomkin, Part II.A of Flood Control on the Information Ocean: Living With Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed Databases
      2. Froomkin, Legal Issues in Anonymity and Pseudonymity, 15 The Information Society 113 (1999). [This document is not available online, but a more dated treatment of the same topic can be found in parts II.B of Froomkin, Flood Control on the Information Ocean: Living With Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed Databases ]
      3. Stefanie Olsen, Nearly undetectable tracking device raises concern (July 12, 2000)
      4. Edgar Bronfman, Jr, Remarks (May 26, 2000).  This document seems to move every week.   If that link doesn't work, try this one.
      5. Michael M. Mostyn, The Need for Regulating Anonymous Remailers, 14 Int'l Rev. L. Computers & Tech. 79 (2000)
    2. Pondering
      1. In light of American Library Ass'n v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), can states legislate against anonymity?
      2. Imagine your client wants to run an anonymous remailer.  Are there any civil or criminal liaibility issues you might wish to warn your client about?
    3. Optional Reading:
      1. Claudia Rocio Vasquez R., Columbia Orders Control of All Pre-Paid Call Cards (Aug. 17, 2000 )(Use the babelfish translator if you don't read Spanish)
      2., Loi sur la liberté de communication, 28 juin 2000 (In French, but there's always babelfish)
      3. PGP
        1. Freeware int'l PGP:
        2. The original PGP rant (by Phil Zimmerman):
        3. PGP FAQ Pages:
        4. A good modern PGP rant:
  7. Crime
    1. Draft convention on cyber-crime: available as a MS word file or a .pdf file
    2. Pages 1-9 of John F. Murphy, Computer Network Attacks By Terrorists: Some Legal Dimensions (note: this link takes you to a page from which you can access the document).
    3. Carnivore Diagnostic Tool, Statement for the Record, United States Senate, the Committee on the Judiciary, 09/06/2000, Laboratory Division Assistant Director Dr. Donald M. Kerr
    4. United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 2000 WL 1059852, also in HTML
    5. AOL Detective Finds Clues in E-Mail, Washington Post Aug. 28, 2000 p. A1
To Part 1
To Syllabus Index
To Class Policies