The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked a judge in Illinois to reject a Petition to identify an anonymous MySpace user who allegedly posted fake profiles of an Illinois official because the request would violate both the First Amendment and federal statute.

In May of 2008, Cicero Town President Larry Dominick asked a Cook County Circuit Court judge to order the disclosure of the identities of the author of two MySpace profiles that allegedly included defamatory comments and unnamed privacy violations. In its amicus brief, however, EFF argued that the petition violates the First Amendment right to remain anonymous until a litigant can demonstrate a viable legal claim.

Outcome: Following the filing of EFF's amicus brief, Dominick dismissed his Petition on June 13, 2008, effectively ending the matter.

EFF was assisted in the matter by Charles Mudd, Jr., and Sophie Dye of Mudd Law Offices in Chicago.

On May 1, 2008, EFF and the law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the operator of the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, arguing that federal law immunizes it against suits over statements made by its users.

EFF urged a Pennsylvania court to dismiss defamation claims against the controversial website DontDateHimGirl.com, arguing that federal law shields the website from liability to protect the free flow of information online.

DontDateHimGirl.com was created by Tasha Joseph as a forum for women to share information about men. One of the men discussed on the site, Todd J. Hollis, claims that some participants posted defamatory statements about him on the website. In its amicus brief, EFF argues that DontDateHimGirl.com's owner cannot be held liable for comments written by others under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 specifically protects hosts of interactive computer services from liability to encourage free discourse and robust debate.

Nearly every court that has considered Section 230 has recognized the intent of the law and shielded website operators from liability. EFF has provided amicus support in a number of lawsuits, including one that recently held that Craigslist was not responsible for the content of posts made by the public.

The amicus brief was also signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania.

Outcome: The court dismissed the case on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction over the Florida-based website operator, and so did not reach the Section 230 issue. Hollis has refiled the case in Florida.

In December of 2007, radio talk show host Michael Savage filed suit in federal district court against the Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleging copyright infringement and a violation of federal racketeering laws for using excerpts of Savage's radio program to criticize him and the content of his show. In response, EFF and the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the Court to dismiss the lawsuit because CAIR's conduct was clearly protected by the First Amendment and the fair use doctrine.

On July 25, 2008, the Court granted CAIR's motion, agreeing that CAIR's use of Savage's copyrighted radio excerpts was a protected fair use under copyright law and that Savage's RICO claim (that depended on the copyright infringement allegation) was meritless. The Court gave Savage an additional two weeks to amend the RICO claim if he wanted to proceed, but Savage later informed the Court that he would not file an amended complaint.

On February 6, 2008, Swiss bank Julius Baer filed suit in federal district court against "Wikileaks" -- a website designed to give whistleblowers a forum for posting materials of public concern -- for hosting 14 allegedly leaked documents regarding personal banking transactions of Julius Baer customers. Also sued was Wikileaks' domain name registrar, Dynadot LLC. On February 15, following a stipulation between Julius Baer and Dynadot, the court issued a permanent injunction, disabling the wikileaks.org domain name and preventing that domain name from being transferred to any other registrar.

On February 26, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit in order to dissolve the permanent injunction.

"Dynadot's private agreement to disable access to its customer's domain name -- and the court's endorsement of that agreement -- raise serious First Amendment concerns," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "This unwarranted injunction should remind everyone who hosts critical information on the Web that such information may only remain accessible as long as your service provider or registrar is willing to stand up for you against obviously overreaching legal attacks."

At 9:00 a.m. on Friday, February 29, a federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments regarding EFF's motion as well as a related issue: whether to extend a temporary restraining order aimed at preventing the further distribution of the 14 disputed Julius Baer documents.

Outcome: Following the hearing, Judge White dissolved his previous orders -- citing First Amendment concerns and other arguments raised by the proposed intervenors and amici curiae -- allowing the wikileaks.org domain name to go back up. Julius Baer subsequently moved to dismiss the case.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) announced that the major Hollywood motion picture studios would be filing hundreds of lawsuits against individuals using peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software to access movies online. In so doing, Hollywood follows in the footsteps of the music industry, which has filed more than 6,000 lawsuits against file sharers since September 2003.

In Oct., 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law a new "sequel" to the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act. This new Internet censorship bill, the Child Online Protect Act (COPA, a.k.a. "CDA II") would establish criminal penalties for any "commercial" distribution of material deemed "harmful to minors".

On March 1 1990, the offices of Steve Jackson Games, in Austin, Texas, were raided by the U.S. Secret Service as part of a nationwide investigation of data piracy. The initial news stories simply reported that the Secret Service had raided a suspected ring of hackers. Gradually, the true story emerged.

The man who claims to have created "The Electric Slide" agreed to call off his online takedown campaign and stop threatening anyone using the popular line dance for non-commercial purposes. The agreement settles a lawsuit filed by EFF on behalf of videographer Kyle Machulis, who posted a concert video to YouTube that included a ten-second segment of audience members attempting to do the Electric Slide.

John Doe is an anonymous poster on an internet message board who made some statements critical of Plaintiff First Cash, a Texas-based chain of pawn shops and check cashing services. First Cash sued doe in Texas, claiming breach of contract, on the claim that Doe "may have been" an employee who signed a confidentiality agreement. First Cash then sought a California subpoena in Santa Clara County to require Yahoo to reveal Doe's identity. Doe filed a Special Motion to Strike the subpoena, claiming that the lawsuit was a SLAPP (litigation aimed at silencing critics). Doe also sought the court's approval to file a declaration in support of his claim with his signature hidden, to preserve his anonymity.

At issue: Whether California's Anti-SLAPP statute can be used to stop California subpoenas seeking the identity of anonymous Internet speakers without just cause.

EFF Role: Representing the Doe along with the California Anti-SLAPP project.

Outcome: The Court rejected both the SLAPP motion and the motion to file Doe's declaration under seal. This case demonstrates the need to develop either caselaw or legislation to allow anti-SLAPP motions to protect John Does when the subpoena seeking their identity is issued in California even when the underlying case is in another state.