Wiki Owner Needs Constitution Lesson; Hopefully Will Win

[Vincent Ferrari]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/27' target='_blank'>http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/27</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against Apple Inc. today to defend the First Amendment rights of an operator of a noncommercial, public Internet "wiki" site known as BluWiki. [...] Late last year, after BluWiki users began a discussion about making some Apple iPods and iPhones interoperate with software other than Apple's own iTunes, Apple lawyers demanded removal of the content. In a letter to OdioWorks, the attorneys alleged that the discussions constituted copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA's) prohibition on circumventing copy protection measures. Fearing legal action by Apple, OdioWorks took down the discussions from the BluWiki site."</em></p><p><img height="219" src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1240972534.usr18053.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" width="442" /></p><p>There's a common misconception among people who don't know any better that you have a right to say whatever you want whenever you want and no one can abridge it because it's in the constitution.&nbsp; That's simply not true.&nbsp; The constitution specifically says that <strong>Congress</strong> cannot abridge your free speech, not a private entity (in this case Apple).&nbsp; If that's the basis for this guy's case, he could end up getting his butt handed to him in court.</p><p>That being said, I hope he wins; not on constitutional grounds, but on the grounds that I hate it when companies try to shut up the little guy by sending lawyers after them.&nbsp; Here's to hoping.</p>

[ptyork]

You can't sue the government. It is by suing private companies that laws can get challenged as unconstitutional or their interpretation clarified. It is a challenge against the interpretation of copyright law, fair use, and DMCA, all of which are Congressionally passed laws. If may be deemed that these laws (or their interpretation) is in violation of the first amendment. So, yes, it is certainly a first amendment issue...and of course a David and Goliath issue. :)

[programcsharp]

Maybe it's just me, but last time I checked copyrights, trademarks, and patents were all created by laws passed by... wait for it... Congress! And thus definitely govered by the first amendment.

[doogald]

Maybe it's just me, but last time I checked copyrights, trademarks, and patents were all created by laws passed by... wait for it... Congress! And thus definitely govered by the first amendment.

Article I, Section 8 ("The Powers of Congress") of the US Constitution grants the Congress this particular power (among many others):

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

DMCA, as dopey as it is, is just an extension of copyright laws, which is a power clearly granted to Congress by the Constitution.

Also, it should be note that the courts have interpreted the first amendment to give the ability of Congress to limit some speech; for example any speech that presents "a clear and present danger" to the state is not protected by the first amendment. Of course, defamation is also not protected.

It should also be noted that Supreme Court decisions have extended "Congress" in this context to mean the executive and legislative branches as well, and that the fourteenth amendment extends these restrictions to each of the states and their governments, too. So "Congress" in this sense means "the government". For what it's worth.

[ucfgrad93]

There's a common misconception among people who don't know any better that you have a right to say whatever you want whenever you want and no one can abridge it because it's in the constitution.&nbsp; That's simply not true.&nbsp; The constitution specifically says that <strong>Congress</strong> cannot abridge your free speech, not a private entity (in this case Apple).

I have to say, this is one of my biggest pet peeves. I really hate it when people cry "censorship" whenever Apple decides to not approve an app for the iPhone. Apple or any other company has the right to not allow certain speech on their websites or in their products.

[ptyork]

I have to say, this is one of my biggest pet peeves. I really hate it when people cry "censorship" whenever Apple decides to not approve an app for the iPhone. Apple or any other company has the right to not allow certain speech on their websites or in their products.

Yeah, and...this was Apple "censoring" free speech on SOMEONE ELSE's web site by "bullying" them with their big, bad lawyers. Apple and their lawyers might be "right" (we'll see), but it is a far cry from the scenario you are talking about above.

[ucfgrad93]

Yeah, and...this was Apple "censoring" free speech on SOMEONE ELSE's web site by "bullying" them with their big, bad lawyers. Apple and their lawyers might be "right" (we'll see), but it is a far cry from the scenario you are talking about above.

Apple has a right to defend their products. The courts will decide if Apple was right or wrong.