There’s now only one US state where mug shots aren’t public records

13 03 2017
In a 53-14 vote that took place days ago, South Dakota’s legislative House passed legislation that makes arrest booking photos public records. The measure, which cleared the state’s Senate in January, will be signed by Governor Dennis Daugaard.

With that signature on Senate Bill 25, (PDF) South Dakota becomes the 49th state requiring mug shots to be public records. The only other state in the union where they’re not public records is Louisiana.

The South Dakota measure is certain to provide fresh material for the online mug shot business racket. These questionable sites post mug shots, often in a bid to embarrass people in hopes of getting them to pay hundreds of dollars to have their photos removed. The exposé I did on this for Wired found that some mug shot site operators had a symbiotic relationship with reputation management firms that charge for mug shot removals.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/theres-now-only-one-us-state-where-mugshots-arent-public-records/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Section 230 Protects Grindr From Harrassed User’s Claims–Herrick v. Grindr

6 03 2017

This is a well-constructed and thoughtful Section 230 ruling. If this case keeps going in the same direction, it has the potential to become a major Section 230 precedent.

Herrick claims that ex-boyfriend JC used Grindr to launch a vicious five-month e-personation attack. JC allegedly created fake dating profiles in Herrick’s name, with his contact info, saying Herrick wanted sex; with the predictable result that allegedly hundreds of horny men responded to the profiles and sought out Herrick at his home and workplace. Craigslist has been used for similar attacks for a long time, and California created an “e-personation” crime to combat them. Herrick further claims he’s contacted Grindr over 50 times about this harassment campaign and never received a response other than a form acknowledgement email.

Herrick sued Grindr in state court and got an immediate TRO instructing Grindr to “immediately disable all impersonating profiles created under Plaintiff’s name or with identifying information relating to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s photograph, address, phone number, email account or place of work.” Grindr removed the case to federal court. The court’s opinion is in response to Herrick’s request to extend the TRO. The court denies the request.

Section 230

If you are a Section 230 fan, I encourage you to read the opinion’s entire discussion about Section 230. It’s not that long, and I considered quoting the whole thing. It’s worth the read.

 

 

…..

Because the opinion is so savvy about Section 230, I’m awarding the rare and coveted Technology & Marketing Law Blog Judge-of-the-Day honors to Judge Valerie Caproni. Congratulations, your honor. Opinions like this remind us why the US judicial system is so respected by other countries. May it always be that way.

Case citation: Herrick v. Grindr, LLC, 2017 WL 744605 (SDNY Feb. 24, 2017). Complaint.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/03/section-230-protects-grindr-from-harrassed-users-claims-herrick-v-grindr.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Ninth Circuit Criticizes Attempts to Plead Around Section 230–Kimzey v. Yelp

7 02 2017

[Note: Venkat represented Yelp in this case but was not involved in the preparation of this post.]

For all of the drama associated with Section 230 jurisprudence this year–including in the Ninth Circuit–it’s easy to forget that Section 230 still works well in simple cases when a plaintiff tries to hold a website liable for third party content. So it’s refreshing to get a straightforward Section 230 case that reaches the expected result. And it’s especially gratifying to see a court recognize–and reject–efforts to plead around Section 230.

The Opinion

Kimzey is a locksmith operating as Redmond Locksmith a/k/a Redmond Mobile Locksmith. “Sarah K” left a negative Yelp review of the business. Kimzey sued Yelp pro se. The district court easily tossed the lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit affirms.

Case citation: Kimzey v. Yelp!, Nos. 14-35487 & 14-35494 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2016)

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/09/ninth-circuit-criticizes-attempts-to-plead-around-secton-230-kimzey-v-yelp.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Yelp fighting court order requiring it to remove negative review

7 02 2017
California’s top court is agreeing to hear a case in which a lower court has ordered Yelp to remove a bad review. The California Supreme Court did not say when it would hear the case that tests the Communications Decency Act, which San Francisco-based Yelp maintains protects it from having to remove content on its site posted by third parties.

The case concerns a June decision by a state appeals court that requires Yelp to remove a defamatory review about a law firm written by an unhappy client. A lower court issued a default judgement for over $500,000 against the reviewer, Ava Bird, for a review that the law firm claimed was defamatory. Bird was sued for defamation, but was a no-show in court.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/yelp-fighting-court-order-requiring-it-to-remove-negative-review/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



it is now illegal to punish customers who criticize businesses online

7 02 2017
[Ed’s note: this bill passed and was signed into law in dec. 2016]
Congress has passed a law protecting the right of US consumers to post negative online reviews without fear of retaliation from companies.

The bipartisan Consumer Review Fairness Act was passed by unanimous consent in the US Senate yesterday, a Senate Commerce Committee announcement said. The bill, introduced in 2014, was already approved by the House of Representatives and now awaits President Obama’s signature.

The Commerce Committee held a hearing on gag clauses a year ago and said it heard “testimony from Ms. Jen Palmer, a plaintiff in Palmer v. KlearGear, where a company demanded the removal of a negative online review or payment of $3,500 in fines because the online merchant’s terms of service included a non-disparagement clause. When the review was not taken down, the company reported the unpaid $3,500 to a credit reporting agency as an outstanding debt, which negatively impacted the Palmers’ credit.”

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/congress-passes-law-protecting-right-to-post-negative-online-reviews/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.