You are on page 1of 16
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA
MATTHEW CHAN, ) Appellant, ) Docket No.: ) S14A1652 -against- ) ) Lower Court No.: LINDA ELLIS, ) SU13DM409 Appellee.
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO SECOND AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF TIMOTHY B. MCCORMACK
Respectfully Submitted, Oscar Michelen (Courtesy Admission)  NY State Bar No.: 2058477 CUOMO LLC 9 East 38
th
 Street  New York, NY 10016 William J. McKenney GA State Bar No.: 494725 MCKENNEY & FROEHLICH 50 Polk Street NW Marietta, GA 30064
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Citations ……………………………………………………… ii I. Preliminary Statement ……………………………………………….. 1 II. Discussion of Facts …………………………………………………. 1 II. Argument and Citation of Authorities ………………….…………... 2 A.
 
THE
 
US
 
SUPREME
 
COURT
 
HAS
 
ANALYZED
 
CIVIL
 
INJUNCTIONS BETWEEN
 
PRIVATE
 
LITIGANTS
 
AS
 
PRIOR 
 
RESTRAINTS
 
ON
 
SPEECH
 
……….....
 
2 B.
 
BECAUSE APPELLANT’S POSTS ARE NOT “TRUE THREATS” THEY ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND WERE THE SUBJECT OF AN OVERLY BROAD RESTRICTIVE ORDER 
 
…………………………………………… 4 C.
 
APPELLANT HAS NOT WAIVED HIS RIGHTS
………………………………
 
7 D.
 
THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT MAKES APPELLANT IMMUNE FROM LIABLITY FOR POSTS MADE BY OTHERS
 ……………………………… 8
 
E.
THAT APPELLANT CAN POSSIBLY SPEAK ABOUT APPELLEE ON OTHER OUTLETS HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER THIS ORDER IS CONSTITUTIONAL
. . . 9 IV. Conclusion …………………………………………………………10
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
 
 Austin v. Keefe
 402 U.S. 415 (1971)………………………………………….. 2
 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roomates.com
, 521 F.3d 1157 (9
th
 Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................................... 9
 Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC.
840 F. Supp 2d 1008 (ED Ky. 2012) ..............................................................................................................10
 Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc.
, 512 U.S. 753 (1994). ............................... 4
 McGuire v. Reilly
, 386 F.3d 45 (1
st
 Cir. 2004)( ......................................................... 4
 Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson
, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) ............................................. 2
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York.
519 U.S. 357 (1997) ......... 4
Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad 
, 420 U.S. 546 (1979) ..............................10
Tory v. Cochran
, 544 U.S. 734 (2005) ...................................................................... 5
U.S. v. Alaboud 
, 347 F.3d 1293 (11
th
 Cir. 2003) ....................................................... 8
Statutes
 
Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) ..........................................................
9
 
Other Authorities
 1.
"Doxing" 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing .................................................... 6 2. “
Social Shaming Works Faster Than Legal Recourse”
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/07105419881/social-shaming-works-faster-than-legal-recourse.shtml .................................................................. 7 3.
 “Why Social-Media Shaming is Okay”
 http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattbuchanan/why-social-media-shaming-is-okay ..... 7

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505