The Washington Post offers more details on the ACLU of Indiana case in which two teenage girls were punished by their school for placing sexually suggestive photos of themselves on a limited-access MySpace page.  The girls were forbidden from participating in extracurricular activities for a year.  The suit contends that school cannot punish the girls because the photographs had no connection with, or impact on, the school environment. The Indiana Law Blog has made the Complaint available.

The Spokesman-Review runs a feature on the Spokane Free Speech Fight of 1909.  One hundred years ago today, the city, alarmed by the protests organized by the labor group Industrial Workers of the World, banned speeches in the downtown area.  IWW supporters defied the ban as violative of their rights, thereby flooding the jails.  The city ultimately repealed the ordinance, but not until 500 people had been arrested and the dispute continued for months.

In his National Journal column, Stuart Taylor Jr. writes that it was “nice” to hear Secretary of State Hillary Clinton oppose a proposed U.N. resolution that would condemn “defamation of religion,” but criticizes the U.S. for going along with a different resolution that he suggests may obligate the U.S. to criminalize hate speech or racial or religious stereotyping.

The AP reports on a Fourth Circuit argument last week that addressed the validity of a Virginia law that banned advertising alcohol in college newspapers. A lower court had struck down the law.

At the Free Expression Policy Project, Marjorie Heins discusses the Referendum 71 case.  Washington State Referendum 71 would overturn a law that gives marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples. Individuals filed a public records act request for the signatures on the petition that placed referendum 71 on the ballot.  A district court judge enjoined the state from releasing the signatures, and the Ninth Circuit reversed.  Then, the Supreme Court reinstated the injunction to give itself time to consider whether it wants to hear the merits of the case.  In her article, Heins discusses the courts’ case law on the right to engage in political associations in private, but also the Court’s case law on when campaign contributions must be disclosed.  She reaches the same conclusion as most other commentators: this is a difficult and close question. Over the weekend, the New York Times also ran a background piece on the Referendum 71 petition signatures issue. And in commentary, George Will comes out against dislosing the petition signatories’ names.

The New York Times reports that President Obama has signed the hate crimes bill.

The First Amendment Center discusses a case in which the Seventh Circuit rejected a nonprofit group’s argument that it was entitled to have its pamphlet included in a rack of pamphlets in a public park.  The case is Illinois Dunesland and Preservation Society v. Illinois Department of Natural Resources.  The opinion was written by Judge Posner. The plaintiff, a nonprofit, had helped create the park.  The park included a beach.  The pamphlet warned of the risks of asbestos at the beach.  The display racks included pamphlets created both by private individuals and by the government.  Some of the government pamphlets included warnings about health issues.  The circuit concluded that the government could exclude the pamphlet because “the materials chosen for the display racks in the Illinois beach State Park are designed to attract people to the park, and more broadly to Illinois tourist facilities and service.  The choice of materials conveys a message that is contradicted by the plaintiff’s pamphlet.”  According to Judge Posner, anyone who read the plaintiff’s pamphlet wouldn’t dare set foot on the park’s beach.

The problem of conflicting messages is the doctrinal reason Judge Posner gives for his opinion.  However, he continues on to write that there are “compelling practical objections” to a contrary holding. Specifically, “if plaintiff’s conception of freedom of speech prevailed, every clerk responsible for stocking such a display rack would face a potential First Amendment suit by an interest group that wanted to influence government action or public opinion.”

Judge Posner also devotes several paragraphs to setting out the Supreme Court’s baroque public forum doctrine, and then states that “it is rather difficult to see what work ‘forum analysis’ in general does.”

AP reports that the AutoAdmit case has settled.  Two Yale law students sued after pseudonymous individuals posted crude and offensive comments about them on the AutoAdmit site.  The AP reports that the lawsuit is settled and the case is now over.  No details about the terms of the settlement were disclosed.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports on another lawsuit prompted by schools punishing students for photographs of their out-of-school conduct placed on the Internet.  According to the article, the girls photographed themselves “pretending to kiss or lick a large multi-colored novelty phallus shaped lollipop” and also in lingere.  The school punished them by forbidding them from participating in extra-curricular activities for a year.  The article does not indicate the precise legal claims brought by the students.

At Info/Law, Prof. Derek Bambauer explores some of the complexities of imposing net neutrality regulation by listing some current, common network management practices that could, in theory, violate net neutrality principles.

The Wall Street Journal covers California’s new anti-paparazzi law. Existing law already imposed fines on photographers who take photographs illegally.  The new amendment extends liability to those who publish the resulting photos under certain circumstances.  The article explores arguments for and against the new law.

TPM reports that the Clinton Administration has voiced its opposition to a proposed U.N. resolution that would condemn “defamation of religion.” The administration said that the resolution violates free speech principles.  According to TPM, the resolution is being proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference for adoption by the U.S. Human Rights Council.

The AP reports on a lawsuit filed by pro-life demonstrators against the City of Wilwaukee and numerous individual officers. The demonstrators allege they have been harassed by the police in a manner that violates their First Amendment right to free speech.   The Complaint is available online.

At Freedom to Tinker, Ed Felten blogs  on the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding net neutrality.  He points out that the notice is unclear on what will be considered reasonable network management, and discusses the difficulties inherent in defining this term.

The Ninth Circuit has issued a written opinion in the Referendum 71 petition case.  Referendum 71 would repeal a state law that grants marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples.  Individuals filed a public records act request to obtain the names of those who supported placing Referendum 71 on the ballot.  Proponents of the referendum sought and obtained an injunction forbidding the names from being released. The Ninth Circuit issued an order reversing the district court some time ago, but did not issue a written decision.  The Supreme Court has since reinstated the injunction to give itself time to consider whether it wants to hear the merits of the case.  The Ninth Circuit publicly issued a decision containing its reasoning on October 22.  The circuit assumed that signatures are protected speech under the First Amendment, but concluded that the district court applied the wrong legal standard. It rejected the notion that the signatures were anonymous, pointing out, among other things, that they were collected in public.  The circuit concluded that the appropriate legal standard was intermediate scrutiny, and that under this standard the names should be released.

The AP reports that the FCC voted to begin drafting formal network neutrality regulations.  The Wall Street Journal offers a detailed look at how companies on both sides of the debate are maneuvering to advocate their respective positions.

The New York Times editorializes on a federal judge’s dismissal of a case that attempted to hold Craigslist liable for the speech of its users. The Times wrote that such liability would stifle much online speech.

The New York Times also runs a follow-up piece on the Texas cheerleader story. High school cheerleaders at a school in Texas were prohibited from continuing their long-standing practice of creating biblically-themed banners to hold up during football games.  Fans have now taken matters into their own hands by holding up religious signs from the bleachers.

The Washington Post reports on the positions various corporations and politicians are taking as the FCC prepares to vote on whether to propose net neutrality rules.  At the EFF Deeplinks blog,  Corynne McSherry expresses support for the idea of net neutrality while simultaneously cautioning that the FCC may be overreaching its authority.

The Diamondback Online reports that some University of Maryland faculty members also oppose the new requirement that the school develop a policy for the showing of sexually explicit films.  The article points out that the requirement to develop a policy came from Maryland legislators, not anyone in the university community.

The Idaho Press reports on a mother’s request that the book “How to Get Suspended and Influence People” be removed from the local public library.  According to the article, the library appears to be resisting the request–at least so far.

Over at the EFF Deeplinks blog,  Matt Zimmerman reports that a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit that attempted to hold Craigslist liable for illegal ads posted on its site.

The Washington Post reports on yesterday’s argument before the Ohio Supreme Court concerning how to interpret an Ohio law that was designed to protect kids from harmful materials but that free speech advocates say impermissibly restricts adults’ free speech.  The article suggests that the Ohio Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about the free speech advocates’ claims.

cnet reports that AT&T’s top lobbyist sent employees a memo urging them to contact the FCC to express opposition to net neutrality.  According to the article, the memo encouraged employees to use their personal email addresses to contact the FCC.  Pro-net neutrality activists complain that this amounts to a  misleading, astroturf campaign, because it will conceal the fact that the emails come from people who receive compensation from AT&T.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that the Supreme Court has voted to block the release of the names of those who signed a petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot.  It did so in order to give itself time to consider whether to hear the merits of the  issue of whether the names should be released.  Referendum 71 would repeal a state law that provided same sex couples with marriage-like benefits. Groups supportive of the same-sex benefits law wanted to obtain the names.  According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the practical impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that the names will not be released prior to the upcoming election, when the Refernendum is to be voted upon.  The Seattle Times also reports on the case.

The First Amendment Center has an article on Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School District, a challenge to a student dress code.  The student lost in the Fifth Circuit and has now filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case.  The question is whether the dress code should be analyzed under the Supreme Court’s four extant student speech cases (Tinker, Fraser, Hazelwood and Frederick) or whether it should be analyzed under the O’Brien test, which normally applies to content-neutral government regulations outside of the school context.

Publishers Weekly reports that the Federal Trade Commission has clarified that its controversial new guidelines for product endorsements are not meant to apply to individual bloggers, but instead are aimed at advertisers. As the FTC representative quoted in the article worked through hypothetical examples of what might be covered, however, it became less clear what the term “advertiser” might mean.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that Justice Kennedy has entered a temporary stay blocking the release of the names of those who signed a petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot.   If passed, the referendum would repeal a state law that granted marriage-like benefits to same sex couples.  The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that the names should be released.  According to the Seattle Post Ingelligencer, Justice Kennedy has stayed that ruling to give the Supreme Court time to consider the arguments presented to it by those opposing release. Scotusblog provides links to Justice Kennedy’s Order and at least some of the pleadings.  The same Scotusblog entry also offers a backgrounder on the case.  And at Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh explains why he thinks the Ninth Circuit made the right decision.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a group of Internet companies has written the Federal Communications Commission to express their support for the Commission’s net neutrality efforts. The Benton Foundation has published an interesting list of 10 questions people ought to be asking about the wisdom of net neutrality legislation.

Reflector.com has an editorial on a new anti-cyberbullying law in North Carolina that is scheduled to go into effect on December 1. The opinion piece does not take a firm position on the constitutionality of the legislation, and notes the ACLU of North Carolina’s opposition to it.

The Washington Post reports that the Ohio Supreme Court is hearing arguments today in a case addressing an Ohio law designed to protect kids using the internet but that is being challenged in court by free speech advocates who contend it impermissibly restricts adults’ speech online.

The Student Press Law Center has more details on a proposed new policy from the University of Maryland, which will govern the display of pornographic films.

A Bucknell University alum has a column in which he describes what he sees as various abridgments of students’ free speech rights by his alma mater.

The Washington Post reports that the Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on whether to begin crafting net neutrality regulations.  The article explores arguments against net neutrality proffered by Internet service providers and some Republican members of Congress.  It also discusses some of the hurdles the FCC may face if it decides to move forward, such as separating out legitimate network management from impermissible favoring of some content over others, and challenges to its jurisdiction.

The Washington Post also reports on the investigation of a nurse who logged into internet chat rooms about suicide and encouraged people to commit suicide, giving them specific instructions on how to do so. In the article, law professor Jonathan Turley expresses skepticism that the nurse could be prosecuted, suggesting the prosecution would run afoul of the First Amendment.  Blogger David Disalvo shares some interesting thoughts on whether the fact that the nurse was a medical professional means that his encouragement was closer to unlawfully assisting with suicide than it would have been had he not touted his professional credentials.

Inside Higher Ed discusses a lawsuit filed by Butler University against one of its students, who ran an anonymous blog on which he criticized the school’s dismissal of the chair of Butler’s School of Music.

At The Atlantic, Wendy Kaminer discusses a case in which Michael Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is suing Elmer Ammerman of the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, arguing that a prayer for his (Weinstein’s) death was a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment.  Kaminer discusses the difficulties courts have had defining what constitutes a true threat.

Judy Platt blogs about reader privacy at Huffington Post.  She discusses the history of government seeking to review what books individuals have read by gaining access to library and bookstore records.  Platt uses this historical record as evidence that Congress, when reauthorizing the Patriot Act, should strengthen protections for reader privacy by requiring the FBI to establish “a connection to someone suspecited of terrorism or espionage” before accessing these types of records.

The Seattle Times reports that the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Wasington State can release the names of those individuals who signed a petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot.  Referendum 71 would repeal a state law granting same-sex couples marriage-like benefits.  According to the Seattle Times, the names haven’t yet been released because a state court judge put in place a temporary injunction until the Ninth Circuit could rule, and that injunction has not yet been lifted.  The Seattle Post Intelligencer also offers coverage.

Almost certainly because of the time-sensitive nature of the situation, the Ninth Circuit has issued an Order but not a written opinion.  The Order states that a written opinion will follow.  This means that we don’t have an understanding of the court’s reasoning yet, other than that it believes the district court relied on an “incorrect legal standard.”

Law.com reports that the Third Circuit has upheld the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, both on its face and as applied in the case at hand.

cnet has an article on the Internet Advertising Bureau’s objection to the FCC’s new guidelines for bloggers and other online speakers.  IAB criticizes the guidelines in part because they place more restrictions on online speakers than on users of traditional media.

At Huffington Post, Pam Samuelson has published a response to Sergey Brin’s defense of Google Books.

LifeSiteNews reports that the Chicago mayor intends to sign the new abortion clinic buffer zone law passed by the council.  The article explains the mayor’s reasoning and also reports that the ACLU (presumably the ACLU of Illinois) opposes that part of the bill that requires that protesters stay 8 feet away from those going to a clinic, unless they have express permission to approach.

EFF’s Fred von Lohmann blogs on a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York that when a ringtone plays a tune, that does not violate copyright.