4 ms·

There is a paper that discusses this issue in more detail, "Principles for Resolving Conflicts Between Trade Secrets and the First Amendment" by P. Samuelson: h

There is a paper that discusses this issue in more detail, "Principles for Resolving Conflicts Between Trade Secrets and the First Amendment" by P. Samuelson: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925056 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925056 Upholding contracts and preventing trespassing (or other "wrongful conduct") are usually fair game for restrictions on 1A. But "Trade secret law is grounded in unfair competition principles, ... [so] First Amendment defenses to trade secret claims are most likely to succeed as to those who did not participate in misappropriating the information, who acquired the information lawfully, and who seek to make public disclosures as to matters of public concern. In exceptional cases, preliminary injunctions may impinge on First Amendment rights even when defendants are in privity or have wrongfully acquired the information." This isn't just "what's your secret method for cheaply polishing ball bearings." It's clearly a "matter of public concern," and that does help enormously. But your first amendment claims would improve even more if the person distributing the information neither trespassed nor broke an employment contract. Also note that the California Supreme Court has made it a jurisdiction least likely to apply first amendment to trump trade secret law, thanks to DVD Copy Control v. Bunner. It would be advisable for any prospective documentarians to pass off any collected information to a local news station (rather than just youtube). Don't tell the network how you got it or develop any long term relationship with them. Make sure they have media liability insurance. Then maybe lay low while they fight the case, which they'll probably have to appeal all the way up. That'd set up the model case and the money to fund it. Even short of that, though, as a "matter of public concern," this may be one of those "exceptional cases" alluded to above. It'd be interesting to see it argued.

pyre 14y ago
Why does the breaking of an employment contract need to turn into criminal charges, and get labelled as 'terrorism?'
- brownbat 14y ago
  Note that it's labeled "terrorism" only in some interest group's "model bill." Random interest groups are allowed to call whatever they like "terrorism," and they're allowed to write poorly thought out bills. Also note that most of the bills are failing. Even Missouri, where the article says one passed, you're just required to notify law enforcement if you witness animal abuse, and offer them copies of your video: http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=92863 http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionTyp... It's a strange type of gag order that only compels speech. I mean, these are definitely still bills worth challenging, but the article seems to be embellishing a bit.
  - spizzo 14y ago
    >Note that it's labeled "terrorism" only in some interest group's "model bill." This reminds me of an old web design trick. You get the customer specs, plan out exactly what you think will work, and then add something stupid-looking. Like a giant duck by the login button. The duck acts as a decoy for customer complaints; a lot of business people want to point at something and say "change it!", so you give them that. And when they bring it up you smile and say "say no more, I'll have it removed sir". Likewise, if complaints about a given bill can be pulled or drawn towards language like "terrorism", then the meat of the bill avoids some scrutiny. Hell, an unscrupulous legislator whose constituency opposes the bill could demand the terrorism language be cut and then end up supporting the bill, pleasing both sides of the aisle as it were. This is just me thinking out loud, though.
- antihero 14y ago
  Because this is ALEC.
- rayiner 14y ago
  That is of course a totally separate issue from whether the law is constitutional or not. There is an infinitude of bad law that is constitutional, especially at the state level where the state police power was historically nearly unlimited.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  If the Green Scare had happened a few years later, the words 'domestic terrorism' would have been thrown around quite a bit more. The FBI has referred to animal rights activism as domestic terrorism for a while now, it's just that 'terrorism' wasn't a public meme until relatively recently.

pyre 14y ago

Why does the breaking of an employment contract need to turn into criminal charges, and get labelled as 'terrorism?'

brownbat 14y ago
Note that it's labeled "terrorism" only in some interest group's "model bill." Random interest groups are allowed to call whatever they like "terrorism," and they're allowed to write poorly thought out bills. Also note that most of the bills are failing. Even Missouri, where the article says one passed, you're just required to notify law enforcement if you witness animal abuse, and offer them copies of your video: http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=92863 http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionTyp... It's a strange type of gag order that only compels speech. I mean, these are definitely still bills worth challenging, but the article seems to be embellishing a bit.
- spizzo 14y ago
  >Note that it's labeled "terrorism" only in some interest group's "model bill." This reminds me of an old web design trick. You get the customer specs, plan out exactly what you think will work, and then add something stupid-looking. Like a giant duck by the login button. The duck acts as a decoy for customer complaints; a lot of business people want to point at something and say "change it!", so you give them that. And when they bring it up you smile and say "say no more, I'll have it removed sir". Likewise, if complaints about a given bill can be pulled or drawn towards language like "terrorism", then the meat of the bill avoids some scrutiny. Hell, an unscrupulous legislator whose constituency opposes the bill could demand the terrorism language be cut and then end up supporting the bill, pleasing both sides of the aisle as it were. This is just me thinking out loud, though.
antihero 14y ago
Because this is ALEC.
rayiner 14y ago
That is of course a totally separate issue from whether the law is constitutional or not. There is an infinitude of bad law that is constitutional, especially at the state level where the state police power was historically nearly unlimited.
steveklabnik 14y ago
If the Green Scare had happened a few years later, the words 'domestic terrorism' would have been thrown around quite a bit more. The FBI has referred to animal rights activism as domestic terrorism for a while now, it's just that 'terrorism' wasn't a public meme until relatively recently.