3 ms·

The initial mention of "sanctioning students for copyright infringing downloads" suggested to me a policy of disallowing specific students from accessing the in

The initial mention of "sanctioning students for copyright infringing downloads" suggested to me a policy of disallowing specific students from accessing the internet (using university equipment) if they have been caught using it to infringe copyright. This is similar to policies that some ISPs have announced or implemented: https://www.pcmag.com/news/364835/at-t-prepares-to-disconnect-over-a-dozen-pirates https://www.pcmag.com/news/364835/at-t-prepares-to-disconnec... Obviously disconnecting someone from the internet will partially prevent them from being able to exercise their First Amendment rights (not that ISP policies are necessarily covered by the First Amendment directly), but this is an example of a precedent where the person infringing copyright is having just their own rights or options limited. I'm contrasting this example with what is being proposed by the court, which is to restrict the First Amendment rights of all Yik-Yak users at the university (using university equipment), because of the actions of a minority of users.

brudgers 8y ago
The court did not propose restricting anyone's First Amendment rights.
- dane-pgp 8y ago
  If the court has interpreted federal law as requiring a university to take an action which disproportionately restricts the protected speech of students, I think that there are First Amendment implications to such a ruling. That's just my non-expert opinion, but it seems that the Supreme Court took a similar view on proportionality in the case Packingham v. North Carolina. "Because the North Carolina law prohibited more speech than necessary to further the government’s significant interest, it violated the First Amendment." https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194
  - brudgers 8y ago
    It did not require the university to do anything.
    - dane-pgp 8y ago
      From the article: '... the [Fourth Circuit] held that because UMW had the "technical capacity to control the means by which the harassing and threatening messages were transmitted" (that is, the ability to block campus network access to Yik Yak altogether) ... UMW had substantial control and thus could be liable for the harassment.' So you're right that the court didn't explicitly require the university to do anything, just as courts don't require that people refrain from committing murder, but if you murder someone, a court will likely lead to you being punished. With the threat of being potentially held liable for harassment, there is at least a strong motivation (if not a "requirement" as such) for the university to "control the means by which the harassing and threatening messages were transmitted", especially if that is the simplest or cheapest way of avoiding liability. I suppose that if that happened, and if my theory about the First Amendment is correct, then affected students could bring their own case and demand a different resolution to the issue in this article.

brudgers 8y ago

The court did not propose restricting anyone's First Amendment rights.

dane-pgp 8y ago
If the court has interpreted federal law as requiring a university to take an action which disproportionately restricts the protected speech of students, I think that there are First Amendment implications to such a ruling. That's just my non-expert opinion, but it seems that the Supreme Court took a similar view on proportionality in the case Packingham v. North Carolina. "Because the North Carolina law prohibited more speech than necessary to further the government’s significant interest, it violated the First Amendment." https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1194
- brudgers 8y ago
  It did not require the university to do anything.
  - dane-pgp 8y ago
    From the article: '... the [Fourth Circuit] held that because UMW had the "technical capacity to control the means by which the harassing and threatening messages were transmitted" (that is, the ability to block campus network access to Yik Yak altogether) ... UMW had substantial control and thus could be liable for the harassment.' So you're right that the court didn't explicitly require the university to do anything, just as courts don't require that people refrain from committing murder, but if you murder someone, a court will likely lead to you being punished. With the threat of being potentially held liable for harassment, there is at least a strong motivation (if not a "requirement" as such) for the university to "control the means by which the harassing and threatening messages were transmitted", especially if that is the simplest or cheapest way of avoiding liability. I suppose that if that happened, and if my theory about the First Amendment is correct, then affected students could bring their own case and demand a different resolution to the issue in this article.