IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA ____________________________________
RECORD NO. 140242 ____________________________________
YELP, INC., Non-Party Respondent-Appellant,
v. HADEED CARPET CLEANING,
Plaintiff-Appellee. ______________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT-APPELLANT YELP, INC.
MATTHEW J. ERAUSQUIN,
ANDREW CROCKER
VSB#65434
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C. Electronic Frontier Foundation
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
815 Eddy Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
San Francisco, CA 94109
Tel: 703-273-7770
Tel: 415-463-9333
Fax: 888-892-3512
Fax: 415-436-9993
matt@
andrew@
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation July 30, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................ 2
STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................ 2
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR....................................................................... 2
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 2
I. ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS ARE REGULARLY SUBJECTED TO HARASSING TACTICS INTENDED TO CHILL THEIR SPEECH ................................................................................. 4
II. ONLINE ANONYMOUS SPEECH, INCLUDING REVIEWS AND CRITICISM OF BUSINESSES, IS ENTITLED TO FULL FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION............................................................ 7
A. Anonymous Online Speech Is Protected by the First Amendment ............................................................................... 7
B. Reviews and Criticism of Businesses Are a Highly Valuable Component of Online Discourse and Are Not Commercial Speech .................................................................................... 10
III. IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE COURT MUST REQUIRE HADEED TO MAKE A SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY SHOWING DEMONSTRATING A COMPELLING NEED BEFORE ALLOWING UNMASKING OF ANONYMOUS SPEAKERS ...................................................................................... 14
A. Anonymous Speakers Enjoy a Qualified Privilege under the First Amendment ..................................................................... 14
i
B. The First Amendment Requires That a Defamation Plaintiff Must Make a Prima Facie Showing with Specific Evidence Supporting Its Claim ................................................................ 16
C. Because Virginia Code ? 8.01-407.1 As Construed by the Court of Appeals Fails to Require a Prima Facie Showing with Specific Evidence Supporting the Plaintiff's Claim, It Does Not Satisfy the First Amendment ................................... 20
IV. SUBPOENA JURISDICTION OVER YELP IN VIRGINIA WAS NOT PROPER .................................................................................. 22 A. Historically, State Sovereignty Has Limited Subpoena Power over Foreign Non-parties, Even When a Court May Have Personal Jurisdiction and the Non-party Has Been Correctly Served ..................................................................................... 22 B. The Appropriate Means to Resolve Subpoena Power Over Yelp Is To Go Through the California Courts .......................... 25
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 27
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) ......................................................................... 10
AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ............................................................ 7
Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................................................... 7
Bellis v. Commonwealth, 402 S.E.2d 211 (1991) ..................................................................... 24
Best Western Int'l v Doe, No. CV-06-1537-PHX-DGC, 2006 WL 2091695 (D. Ariz. Jul. 25, 2006) ...................................................................... 17
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983) ........................................................................... 12
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984) ......................................................................... 14
Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) ..................................................................... 8, 14
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ......................................................................... 12
Colorado Mills, LLC v. SunOpta Grains and Foods Inc., 269 P.3d. 731 (Colo. 2012) .............................................................. 23
Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d 1109 (Okla. 1995) ............................................................. 23
Dendrite Int'l v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001)........................................... passim
iii
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- ctso subcommittee on operations 2021 annual meeting
- standard specifications for construction and materials
- creative us and international debt and equity fiancing
- united states court of appeals
- safety station list by county for the web
- successful bidders by firm name
- in the supreme court of virginia
- office of materials and testing qualified products list
- low clearance and bridge information coach net
- general information bridgestone