Genelle Belmas, Ph.D.

Cal State Fullerton





Scalia Thomas CJ Roberts

Kennedy Ginsberg

California Supreme Court (left to right): The Honorable Carol A. Corrigan, The Honorable Kathryn M. Werdegar, The Honorable Joyce L. Kennard, Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, The Honorable Marvin R. Baxter, The Honorable Ming W. Chin, The Honorable Goodwin Liu.

com Contractor Christopher Dietz sued homeowner Jane Perez for $ and Yelp. except those specifically about Dietz’s work on her residence On Dec.Perez v. stealing jewelry. stating simply that the injunction “was not justified” . and employing deceitful billing practices Judge issued preliminary injunction requiring her to delete some critical comments. 2012.000 in libel damages. 2012): Virginia Supreme Court vacated preliminary injunction against a homeowner who had posted harsh reviews of a contractor on AngiesList. the VA Supreme Court issued a brief order vacating the injunction. Dietz Development LLC (Va. 28. she had posted scathing online reviews accusing Dietz of damaging her residence.

Gelareh Rahbar. CA Supreme Court declined to review the dentist’s challenge .Rahbar v.” and complaining about the treatment. sued for defamation and invasion of privacy Batoon moved to strike under state anti-SLAPP statute (“a cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in the furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech…in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike”) Batoon won $43k in attorney’s fees. and communication skills. MOST PAINFUL DENTIST EVER. billing. Batoon (Cal 2013): California Supreme Court declined to revive a dentist’s lawsuit against a patient who had posted a negative online review on Yelp. and Rahbar filed a second suit and lost both trial and Jennifer Batoon wrote in 2008: “DON’T GO HERE. the dentist.

2012. 1844: September 27. or otherwise retaliating against employee or applicant for not complying with a request or demand by a violating employer . to access personal social media in the presence of the employer. disciplining. Chapter 618 Prohibits employer from requiring or requesting an employee or applicant for employment to disclose user name or password for the purpose of accessing personal social media. Signed by Governor.Six states have laws already. or to divulge any personal social media. Prohibits employer from discharging. threatening to discharge or discipline. including California A.B.

3. Michigan and New Jersey . 2012. 25: Status: Dec. The bill would state that its provisions address a matter of statewide interest and apply to public employers generally.A. including charter cities and counties. Maryland.B. Illinois. Pending legislation in at least 17 states Other states with laws: Delaware. Introduced This bill would apply the provisions described above to public employers.

book. TechnoBuffalo (2012) Printing company sued because someone from its company leaked images of a soon-to-be released cell phone to a tech blog. no First Amendment implications applied because Cox was not a media professional. Moreover. broadcast station or network. its employees are reporters … and TechnoBuffalo is protected by the Illinois reporter’s privilege” . news service.’ the article at issue presented a report on recent events…It also supplied previously unknown information… *W+ithin the present definitions under the act. periodical. this Court must find TechnoBuffalo is a news medium. or cable television system” defined by the law. the issues were not of public interest. magazine. v. Cox (2012) Crystal Cox criticized Obsidian Financial Group and its founder on her blog. saying the Oregon shield law did not cover bloggers. the blog claimed privilege. news or feature syndicate. Judge found for OFG. LLC v. pamphlet. wire service. Judge agreed: “Under the ordinary meaning of ‘news. and OFG and its founder were not public figures But yes in Illinois: John-Byrnes Co.Not in Oregon: Obsidian Finance Group. as Cox was not “affiliated with any newspaper.

“The ACLU wants to openly audio record police officers performing their duties in public places and speaking at a volume audible to bystanders. Communications of this sort lack any ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ for purposes of the Fourth Amendment” . but not audio recording): Seventh Circuit said. Cunniffe (1CA 2011): First Circuit said Simon Glik was exercising his First Amendment rights to record officers in public: “*A+ citizen’s right to film government officials. including law enforcement officers.Glik v. vital. Alvarez (7CA 2012): ACLU challenged Illinois wiretapping law that would make public recording of an officer a class 1 felony (video recording was OK. and wellestablished liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment” ACLU v. in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic.

” took on South Park’s character Butters’ parody. Comedy Partners (7CA 2012): Yes. LLC v. When the two works in this case are viewed side-by-side. court found for Comedy Partners “When a defendant raises a fair use defense claiming his or her work is a parody. providing commentary on the ridiculousness of the original video and the viral nature of certain YouTube videos” . the South Park episode is clearly a parody of the original WWITB video.Brownmark Films. a court can often decide the merits of the claim without discovery or a trial. if it’s a clear parody! Samwell. creator of the Internet viral video “What What (In The Butt).


“The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012” contained a little-publicized provision that removed a loophole for local governments that balked at spending their own money to comply with the Brown Act if the state government was not paying for it “Any requirement that a local agency comply with Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. with respect to performing its Public Safety Services responsibilities. or any other matter. shall not be a reimbursable mandate under Section 6 of Article XIII B” Any expense incurred by local governments’ compliance with the Brown Act is not a reimbursable expense – governments must simply absorbs those costs .

voluntary and transparent approval process for new ways of getting parental consent.Amendments will: modify the list of “personal information” that cannot be collected without parental notice and consent. close a loophole that allowed kid-directed apps and websites to permit third parties to collect personal information from children through plug-ins without parental notice and consent. offer companies a streamlined. photographs. and videos. . clarifying that this category includes geolocation information.

Amendments will: extend the COPPA Rule to cover persistent identifiers that recognize users over time and across different websites or online services. and strengthen the FTC’s oversight of self-regulatory safe harbor programs . such as IP addresses and mobile device IDs. require that website operators adopt reasonable procedures for data retention and deletion. strengthen data security protections by requiring covered website operators and online service providers to take reasonable steps to release children’s personal information only to companies capable of keeping it secure and confidential.

Reynolds v.R. the government lost on appeal . FDA (2012): No – rather than the government’s stated goal of educating consumers.J. “*t+he Government’s reliance on the graphic images—which were chosen based on their ability to provoke emotion…—coupled with the toll free number. plaintiffs had shown the government could achieve its goals without burdening tobacco companies’ speech rights. further supports the conclusion that the Government’s actual purpose is to convince consumers that they should ‘QUIT NOW’” Moreover. the court said.

Supreme Court dodged First Amendment questions about indecency Instead. the Commission’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague. “The Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent. it relied on Fifth Amendment due process grounds to find the FCC’s policies regarding fleeting expletives to be unconstitutionally vague Kennedy. Therefore. writing for the majority. and the Commission’s orders must be set aside” Ginsburg. urged the reconsideration of Pacifica. concurring in the judgment. agreeing with Thomas in the 2009 Fox case . said.

6-3 Calling Xavier Alvarez’s lies “a pathetic attempt to gain respect that eluded him.Does the First Amendment protect knowingly false speech? Court overturned the Stolen Valor Act.” Kennedy wrote that there is no “general exception to the First Amendment for false statements” Dissenters said the majority ignored “a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest” .

unanimously: grand jury witnesses.Is a witness in a grand jury proceeding entitled to the same absolute immunity from suit under Section 1983 as a witness who testifies at trial? Yes. like trial witnesses. acting under color of state law. are entitled to absolute immunity from any liability under 1983 arising from their testimony Section 1983: a federal cause of action against any person who. deprives another of federal rights – a means of enforcing civil rights .

Can a plaintiff who alleges only mental and emotional injuries establish “actual damages” within the meaning of the civil remedies provision of the Privacy Act? No: Alito said that “actual damages” is limited to pecuniary loss only and does not include claims involving mental and emotional distress Sotomayor dissented. saying that the majority’s approach “cripples the act’s core purpose of redressing and deterring violations of privacy interests” .

Billy Joe Reynolds did not register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). but the case was remanded and the lower courts will have to decide if the original law is acceptable . saying it was an ex post facto law as applied to him. and 3CA upheld SORNA’s retroactive application Court disagreed: SORNA does not require pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provisions apply to them So Reynolds won.

the union must provide fresh notice (7-2). (2) the union cannot require nonmembers to pay the increased amount unless they opt in by affirmatively consenting (5-4).The First Amendment does not permit a public-sector union to impose a special assessment without the affirmative consent of a member upon whom it is imposed Three holdings: (1) When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase. and (3) the case was not rendered moot by the union’s postcertiorari offer of a full refund (unanimous) .

but rather the “right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is otherwise supported by probable cause”—and there is no such right Ginsburg. concurring.Steven Howards and his son were at a Colorado mall where then-VP Cheney was appearing. Secret Service agents arrested Howards after he laid a hand on the VP and after they’d heard him talk smack about the VP Court supported the Secret Service Thomas wrote that the question was not one of First Amendment retaliation. added that the agents “were duty bound to take the content of Howards’ statements into account in determining whether he posed an immediate threat to the Vice President’s physical security” .

S. a Thailand native. textbooks into the U. to sell on eBay The first-sale doctrine does not apply to goods manufactured in a foreign country Question before the Court: How do Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act.2CA said that Supap Kirtsaeng. apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States? .S. violated copyright law by importing foreign-made editions of U. which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the copyright’s owner. which allows the owner of a copy “lawfully made under this title” to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner’s permission. and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act.

C. and Malaria Act of 2003. which requires an organization to have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking in order to receive federal funding to provide HIV and AIDS programs overseas. violates the First Amendment 2CA said the law “does not merely require recipients of Leadership Act funds to refrain from certain conduct. § 7631(f). but goes substantially further and compels recipients to espouse the government’s viewpoint” . Tuberculosis. 22 U.S.Question before the Court: Whether the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS.

§ 2 of the Constitution in this case . and (2) whether petitioners have standing under Article III. and (3) whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case (1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.(1) Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State. (2) whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case.

requires the post-secondary boards to archive and post the video and audio transmissions on the entities’ Internet Web sites for at least 12 months and within 48 hours following initial transmission S. to pay for improvements to a website.B. 1001 (Yee): Requires campaign committees to pay a $50 annual registration fee on and increases by $25 the amount lobbyists must pay when they register with the state. 1723 (Fuentes): Requires live video transmissions of meetings of the Board of Governors of the CA Community Colleges. tracking lobbying and campaign finance activity Expected to generate $600k .B.Chaptered: A. run by the Secretary of State. the Trustees of the CA State University and the CA Postsecondary Education Commission In effect January 1.

B. 744 (Pérez): Establishes the Office of Intellectual Property to identify. would authorize IP records and information to be shared among state agencies and departments but prohibits them from divulging information that is not expressly allowed or public Exempts IP agreements administered by the UC and CSU and agreements governed by the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Bond Act .Chaptered: A. track and provide policy guidance for state agency management of intellectual property (IP) developed by state employees or with state funds.

and to do so using pens. paper. cameras and other recording devices when conducting these interviews Gov. Brown: bill goes too far.B. 1270 (Ammiano): Would restore the ability of journalists to conduct prearranged interviews and exchange confidential correspondence with particular state prison inmates. “giving criminals celebrity status through repeated appearances on television will glorify their crimes and hurt victims and their families” . pencils.Vetoed: A.

Vetoed: S. The role of the State Chief Information Officer is to make sure that state government uses information technology efficiently and effectively – including providing public records electronically when possible. to provide an electronic record in a format in which the text in the electronic record is searchable by commonly used software. Brown: “This bill would require the State Chief Information Officer to provide a report to the Legislature on the feasibility of providing public records in a specific electronic format.” . Another legislative report on electronic public records isn't necessary. when requested by a person. and require the requester to pay for converting the record into a searchable format Gov. 1002 (Yee): Would authorize a state or local agency.B.

Comparing earlier cases in which Facebook posts (with words) had been protected by the First Amendment. Judge Raymond Jackson said that the click of a “Like” was not really speech.” . The Court will not attempt to infer the actual content of *plaintiff’s+ posts from one click of a button on Adams’ Facebook page.D. It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. he drew a distinction – it’s not speech if you just click… “These illustrative cases differ markedly from the case at hand in one crucial way: Both [cases] involved actual statements. For the Court to assume that the Plaintiffs made some specific statement without evidence of such statements is improper.In Bland v. Facebook posts can be considered matters of public concern. No such statements exist in this case. Roberts (E. however. Va. 2012). the Court does not believe [plaintiffs] have alleged sufficient speech to garner First Amendment protection. Simply liking a Facebook page is insufficient.

thanks for your attention! .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful