 |
Moot Court |
The following are possible cases for the Spring 2005 moot court
COPYRIGHT AND ANONYMOUS P2P LINKS --
RIAA v. Telecom University --
Counsel for petitioners (RIAA):
Counsel for respondents (Telecom Corp.):
In this case, the RIAA is moving on from a victory in A&M v. Napster (See this backgrounder). and its loss in RIAA v. Verizon. These two cases established that music downloads were not "time sharing" (and were therefore illegal) but that user identities could not always be obtained from phone companies or other internet service providers in order to prosecute illegal downloaders. That case became somewhat moot when RIAA was able to use better software to identify individual computers that are used for illegal music uploads and downloads. Now, the question is what will happen to students and others who are caught with illegal downloads.
RIAA would like to see universities confiscate the computers of students who violate copyright law. Their lawsuit asks that Telecom University retain for resale all computers searched and siezed on suspicion of illegal downloads when the computers are found to contain these files. But is this punishment for downloading copyrighted music proportional to the crime? Is it appropriate? RIAA says that law enforcement authorities need to confiscate computers because only then will the epidemic of illegal music be stamped out. Telecom University says that the punishment does not fit the crime; that it is too harsh; and that students should be treated with more consideration.
ANONYMOUS SPEECH AS FREE SPEECH
Redford School System v. Johnny Doe --
Counsel
for petitioners (RHS):
Counsel for respondents (JD):
In 2001, a high school student attending Redford
High in Redford, West Virginia, created a web site that called the prinipal
of his school a "bloated ninny" and alleged that several teachers
(whom he did not name) were having affairs in the janitor's closet after hours.
Subsequetly two teachers were fired for reasons that were not disclosed. The
School Board publicly blamed the web site for exposing the school system,
and the principal, to ridicule. In response, the web site threatened that
"Gods Wrath" would "descend on them all one day." The
school system is suing the ISP where the web site is located to learn the
identity of Johnny Doe and charge him with making a threat.
In considering the case at the trial level, the courts considered the Verizon v. RIAA case, Columbia Insurance Company v. Seescandy.com, et al, and several others concerning the balancing of a plaintiffs right to reputation against the historical precedents and apparent Constitutional right to anonymity in political speech. Can the courts compel the ISP to reveal the names of anonymous critics, especially high school students who may make threats?
LIBEL / PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT
Vegetarians of America v. Virginia Fish Producers --
Counsel for petitioners (VoA):
Counsel for respondents (VaFish):
This is a "veggie libel" case involving concerns about a fish disease and its impacts on humans.When Virginia Fish Producers started bringing in the shad catch for the 2001 season they were surprised at the low demand in the markeplace. They soon found that consumers were responding to warnings about a fish disease called "pfisteria" which causes symptoms of dimentia, loss of memory and lack of coordination in humans. The warnings came from a group called the Vegetarians of America who insisted that their opinion was based on scientific evidence. Their views were expressed in ads, in press releases, in brochures and in news interviews.
The evidence seems to have come from studies conducted in the Chesapeake Bayand Pamlico Sound by Maryland and North Carolina scientists and was concerned with waters in those states. No research has been done in Virginia. In fact, the Virginia state government has not cared to fund any research. Therefore, in the absence of both positive and negative proof with regard to product defamation, what criteria can be applied to judge whether there has been reckless disregard?
Bear in mind that Virginia Fish Producers have lost $50 million on the shad harvest and the Vegetarians have lost money defending against this lawsuit. The question is this: How far can public health advocates go in making their opinions heard when economic impacts may result and scientific evidence may not be absolutely conclusive?
Note: In this case we will assume that Virginia has adopted the Texas product disparagement law as the model for its own statute. Other state laws are available at this web site.
OBSCENITY --
Art-TV v. Butterfield --
Counsel for petitioners (Art TV):
Counsel for respondents (Butterfield):
A local access cable television channel was convicted in a state court of displaying obscene materials when they showed a 19th century Gustave Courbet painting on the air during prime time. They are appealing the conviction. To see the Courbet painting in question, click here In 1998, a Richmond grand jury returned a true bill for obscenity charges against the Art-TV for displaying a 19th century work, "The Painter's Studio," by Gustave Courbet on the program. The studio was raided and videotapes with images of the famous painting were confiscated. Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Steven Butterfield brought the studio owners to trial and they were convicted of displaying and selling obscene materials.
Butterfield pointed out that the painting depicted a nude woman and a young child looking at her, and said it was as near to child pornography as was possible without actually displaying nude children. An attorney for the studio owners countered that the painting had been on display in major urban centers many times over the past century. The judge instructed the jury to disregard other community standards and to consider solely whether the painting violated the community standards of Richmond, Va.
Note: Be sure to check POPE v. ILLINOIS, 481 U.S. 497 (1987).
The issue is in part whether the third part of the three part Miller test
(whether a reasonable person would find value in the material taken as a whole)
is in conflict with the first two parts.
See: Miller
v. California and the Thomas
case.
PRIVACY --
Lawrence v. American Christian Council --
Counsel for petitioners (Lawrence):
Counsel for respondents (ACC):
Joseph Lawrence, an MD, sued the ACC under the Federal Access to Clinics Entrances law for printing details of his family life over an anti-abortion web site called "The Eichman Papers."
Joseph Lawrence, an MD, was pictured in a "Wanted for Murder" poster on a web site run by the American Christian Council, a non profit Martinsville, Va. anti-abortion group. The ACC used a picture of Lawrence, gave his home and work addresses, showed pictures of his family, explained where his wife worked and where his children went to school.
Lawrence sued under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, noting that in the past few years year there have been six murders and several attempted murders by anti-abortion militants, including the fatal shootings of three doctors shortly after they had been identified in such "wanted" posters. While ACC had applauded those murders as "justifiable homicide," it also never actually said "go murder abortion providers" or anything similar to that. The ACC said it was perfectly within its rights under the First Amendment and the Brandenburg case as it interpreted prior restraint.
The web site, called the "Eichman Papers," contains several hundred names, addresses and personal details of doctors who perform abortions nationwide.
(This case is similar to the "Nuremburg" case, Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists).
FREE SPEECH / PRIOR RESTRAINT --
Johnson v. Blue Ridge Community College Television --
Counsel for petitioners (Johnson):
Counsel for respondents (BRCCT):
Fred Johnson, a student-manager of Blue Ridge Community College Television, said in an on the air editorial that he did not think US troops should be protecting Saudi Arabia "because it is governed by cruel tyrants who do not allow basic freedoms such as free speech". The Saudis denied this and also noted that such criticism is prohibited under Saudi law. Unfortunately for Fred, the Saudis were also major donors to the college's Petroleum Broadcasting Service, a major income source for select members of the faculty and administration.
Fred was fired and sued under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. BRCC TV is arguing that under Arkansas Educational TV v. Forbes the college has complete discretion over editorial content in broadcasting. Not so, says Fred, pointing to bunches of cases in favor of student free expression on campus, including Rosenberger v Rectors of the University of Virginia, Tinker v. Des Moines, Papish v. Board of Curators at the Univ. of Missouri, and so on.
Also, see the Student Press Law Center briefing on public forums and university broadcasting.
BROADCAST LICENSING
--
D.P. Roberts v. FCC --
Counsel for petitioners (Roberts):
Counsel for respondents (FCC):
D.P. Roberts Inc. has a reputation as a freewheeling, fun loving radio broadcasting company. They have set up "pirate" stations on oil rigs in the North Sea and on various Caribean islands. Now they are trying to establish a chain of low power community stations that would provide alternative voices in college towns. Plenty of frequency space exists for the stations.
The only problem is, their previous pirate history runs afoul of the law prohibiting FCC from granting low power FM station licenses to pirate radio stations.So the FCC decided that this kind of chain of community radio stations would not serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity" and denied the license application. D.P. Roberts is appealing.
See cases involving licensing as a fundamental free speech right (Trinity v. FRC, 1933 and Dr. John R. Brinkley and KFKB from the 1930s) as well as regulations regarding low power FM.
Sigma Pi owns a sports information signalling company that allows students and others to follow a game in progress on their cell phones. Sigma Pi broadcast the game scores and also still digital photos taken from the audience and sent voluntarily to Sigma Pi from the audience members. The Commonwealth of Virginia, acting for the Radford University Rugby Association, sued Sigma Pi for copyright infringement and misappropriation of its broadcast information. The Commonwealth argued that Sigma Pi's broadcast unfairly took RU rugby information from copyrighted broadcasts for re-sale. Sigma Pi countered that facts themselves were not copyrightable.
Among the cases to consider here are especially: International News Service v. Associated Press, NBC v. Motorola, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc.
ADVERTISING
Swift Shoes v Virginia Consumer Council --
Counsel for petitioners (Groceries to Go):
Counsel for respondents (J.C.Forrester):
The Virginia Consumer Council alleged that Swift Shoes lied under Virginia laws prohibiting allegedly false advertising about the behavior of the shoe manufacturer with respect to its foreign operations. The case is remarkably similar to Nike v. Marc Kasky.
FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS --
Van Wilder v. Blue Ridge State U. --
Counsel for petitioners (Van Wilder):
Counsel for respondents (J.C.Forrester):Charlie Van Wilder is suing Blue Ridge State U. because a poster put up by the Young Republicans Club urging students to vote for the Republican candidate for president was torn down by administrators. Van Wilder asserts a Constitutional right to free speech without prior restraint, but the college says it cannot maintain order without rules governing time, place and manner of speech.
Disclaimer: All cases on this site are hypothetical They do not exist. You cannot "look up" the DP Roberts petition for cert.