LAW425D.001 Cyberspace Law
SYLLABUSLAW 425D.001CYBERSPACE LAW: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE CYBERSPACE2021-22FALL TERMTHURSDAY 14:00-17:00RM 114
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTUBC’s Point Grey Campus is located on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam) people. The land it is situated on has always been a place of learning for the Musqueam people, who for millennia have passed on in their culture, history, and traditions from one generation to the next on this site.
COURSE INFORMATIONCourse Title Course Code Number Credit ValueCyberspace Law LAW425D.001 3 PREREQUISITESNone. But it would be better if the students have a basic knowledge of constitutional protection of freedom of expression. And the students are better prepared to discuss the uniqueness of the cyberspace and apply their knowledge on constitutional law, especially freedom of expression, to the cyberspace. COREQUISITESNoneIf you are interested in detailed analysis of freedom of expression issues, take LAW343C.001(Term 2) Topics in Public Law: Freedom of Expression, and if you are interested in legal issues arising from e-commerce, take LAW447C.001 (Term 2) Topics in Commercial Law: e-Commerce. They are not co-requisites but may be of interest to you.
CONTACTSCourse Instructor(s) Contact Details Office Location Office HoursProf. Shigenori Matsui (SM)
COURSE STRUCTURESeminar: Monday 9:00 to 12:30 Rm 114This is a seminar to learn about various legal issues raising from the development of the cyberspace, especially focusing on freedom of expression issues. The students are supposed to read the first two powerpoint files distributed in advance and familiarize with the basics of information technology, computer technology, and network. The seminar combines two topics in a day separated by fifteen minutes break in the middle. The seminar starts with the examination of the basic of cyberspace law: how the cyberspace functions, what kinds of function the cyberspace can perform, the challenges raised by the rise of cyberspace and then examine how law should operate to respond to this rise of cyberspace. The seminar next examines the jurisdiction of the courts, choice of law, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment, and potential reach of government power together with the issues on the liability of intermediaries. Then it will examine how constitutional protection of freedom of expression should reach to cyberspace, especially focusing on the difference between cyberspace and broadcasting. Then the seminar moves to discuss some of the most controversial expression restriction in the cyberspace, including the protection of national secret and public safety, fake news and false information, defamation and invasion of privacy, hate speech and cyber porn as well as child porn, and other harmful expression and the need for protection of minors. It will also consider revenge porn and cyberbullying. Then the seminar turns its attention to freedom of expression and intellectual property rights in the cyberspace, including trademark and copyright protection. It also consider the necessity of protecting freedom of expression against service providers. Then, the seminar will consider the constitutional issues rising from the necessity of protecting privacy and personal information in the cyberspace, including to what extent the government can intervene to protect privacy and personal information of users, to what extent the government should restrict the privacy and personal information of users to secure the safety and security, and to what extent the government should be allowed to monitor and perform surveillance on the users. The final chapter is left for further discussion, for those students who are interested in the future of democracy through the cyberspace and the possible challenges.
SCHEDULE OF TOPICSTentative (subject to change)
00 introduction01 development of computer technology (pre-reading)02 development of the Internet (pre-reading)
September 9 (on-line)03 expression in the cyberspace – what are the characteristics of the cyberspace?03-1-1 ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-44 (E.D.Pa. 1996), aff’d, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
04 Internet Governance and Law04-1 Internet and governance04-1-1John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspacehttp://www.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html04-1-2 David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Border--The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367, 1367-68, 1370-72, 1378-80, 1387-91, 1400-02 (1996)(available online from the LEXIS)04-1-3 Jack L. Goldsmith, Against Cyberanarchy, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1199, 1199-1201, 1212-24, 1230-45 (1998)(available online from LEXIS)04-2 code04-2-1 Lawrence Lessig, Constitution and Code, 27 Cumberland L. Rev. 1, 1-15 (1996)(available online from LEXIS)
September 1605 jurisdiction05-1 personal jurisdiction: Limits of personal jurisdiction05-1-1 Bensusan Restaurant Corporation v. King, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997)05-1-2 Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)05-1-3 Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (10 December 2002)05-2 personal jurisdiction: Canada 05-2-1 Braintech, Inc. v. Kostiuk, 171 D.L.R. (4th) 46 (1999)05-2-2 Bangoura v. Washington Post, 258 D.L.R. (4th) 341 (2005)05-2-3 Crookes v. Holloway, [2008] B.C.J. No. 834, 2008 BCCA 16505-2-4 Breedem v. Black, 2012 SCC 1905-2-5 Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28
06 choice of Law, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment and reach of the government regulatory power06-1 choice of Law06-1-1 Restatement (2d) of Conflict of Laws, § 14506-1-2 Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999)06-2 recognition and enforcement of foreign Judgment06-2-1 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D.Cal. 2001)06-2-2 SPEECH Act06-3 extraterritorial regulation06-3-1 YAHOO! CASE UEJF and Licra v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo France (TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE PARIS May 22, 2000)http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/yauctions20000522.htm(Translated into English by Richard Salis)06-3-2 Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427 (2004)06-4 world-wide injunction06-4-1 Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34
September 2307 liability of Internet service providers: defamation07-1 the United States07-1-1 Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y.)07-1-2 Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Company, 1995 N.Y. Misc. (S.Ct. N.Y. 1995)07-1-3 Lunney v. Prodigy Services Company, 250 A.D.2d 230; 683 N.Y.S.2d 557 (Sup.Ct. N.Y., App. Div. 1998)07-1-4 Communication Decency Act07-1-5 Zeran v. America Online, Incorporated, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998)07-1-6 Grace v. eBay, 120 Cal. App. 4th 984; 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192 (Ct. App. Cal. 2004)07-2 other countries07-2-1 Goodfrey v. Demon Internet, [1999] 4 All Eng 342, [2000] 3 WLR 102007-2-2 U.K. Defamation Act07-2-3 Australian Broadcasting Services Amendment Act of 199907-2-4 DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce)07-2-5 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protection de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez, CJEU May 13, 2014, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf 07-3 Canada07-3-1 Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc, supra
08 liability of Internet service providers: other liabilities08-1 copyright infringement: the United States08-1-1 Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)08-1-2 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 51208-2 copyright infringement: Canada08-2-1 SOCAN v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, supra08-2-2 The Copyright Modernization Act, 201208-3 other intermediaries: Google, You Tube and limits of take-down request08-3-1 Parker v. Google, Inc., 242 Fed. Appx. 833 (3rd Cir. 2007)08-3-2 Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, 676 F.3d 19 (2d. Cir. 2012)08-3-3 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D.Cal. 2008)08-4 criminal liability08-5 administrative liability 08-5-1 German Act to Improve Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks
September 30 national day for truth and reconciliation university closed
October 709 access to cyberspace09-1 access to cyberspace09-1-1 access to the cyberspace: Telecon Decision CRTC 99-1109-1-2 Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 409-1-3 Criminal Code, s.16109-1-4 R. v. K.R.J.,[2016] 1 SCR 90609-2 network neutrality09-2-1 H.R. 5417: Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 200609-2-2 FCC, Preserving the Open Internet, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-23/pdf/2011-24259.pdf09-2-3 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F. 3d 623 (D.C.Cir. 2014)09-2-4 47 CFR Protecting and Promoting Open Internet09-2-5 Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-65709-2-6 EU Open Internet Regulation 09-3 ISP censorship
10 freedom of expression in the cyberspace10-1 freedom of expression in the cyberspace: CDA10-1-1 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)10-2 freedom of expression in the cyberspace: COPA10-2-1 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004)10-3 broadcasting or newspaper?10-3-1 Canada Broadcast Act10-3-2 Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 1999-8410-3-3 Exemption Order 1999-19710-3-4 Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Canada’s Communications Future: Time to Act (Jan. 2020), https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/110.nsf/eng/00012.html October 1411 protection of the national security in the cyberspace11-1 protection of national security information11-1-1 Security of Information Act11-1-2 U.S. Espionage Act11-1-3 Executive Order 11-1-4 Pentagon Papers Case11-2 WikiLeaks11-2-1 WikiLeaks and the First Amendment, https://www.amacad.org/news/wikileaks-and-first-amendment11-2-2 Stone, Geoffrey R. (2012) WikiLeaks and the First Amendment," 64 Federal Communications Law Journal 477 (2012), https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol64/iss3/2
12 protection of public safety in the cyberspace12-1 protection of public safety: sedition12-1-1 Canada Criminal Code12-1-2 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)12-2 facilitation and promotion of terrorist acts12-2-1 Canada Criminal Code12-2-2 U.K. Terrorism Act of 200612-3 disclosure of dangerous information12-3-1 Washington v. Department of Commerce, 315 F. Supp.3d 1202 (W.D. Wash. 2018)12-4 application to the cyberspace12-4-1 U.K. Terrorism Act of 200612-4-2 U.K. Terrorism Act of 200012-5 breach of the peace12-5-1 Canada Criminal Code12-5-2 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
October 2113 political speech in the cyberspace13-1 false speech during election13-1-1 Canada Elections Act: false election speech13-1-2 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 14-4008 (6th Cir. 2016)13-1-3 Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONSC 122413-2 election campaign regulation 13-2-1 Canada Elections Act: election communications 13-3 protecting election from foreign intervention13-3-2 Canada Elections Act: ban on the use of foreign fund 13-4 platform regulation13-4-1 Canada Elections Act: platform regulation
14 false information in the cyberspace 14-1 fake news14-1-1 R v Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 73114-1-2 Canada Criminal Code14-1-3 Television Broadcasting Regulation14-2 false information14-2-1 EU Code of Practice on Disinformation
October 2815 defamation in the cyberspace15-1 defamation and freedom of expression15-1-1 R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R 43915-1-2 Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 113015-1-3 Grant v. Torstar Corp., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 64015-2 defamation in the cyberspace15-2-1 Wiebe v. Bouchard, [2008] B.C.J. No. 435, 2008 BCSC 24915-2-2 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board v. Scharf, [2007] O.J. No. 3030 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)15-2-3 Griffin v. Sullivan, [2008] B.C.J. No. 1333, 2008 BCSC 827 (BCSC)15-2-4 Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 26915-2-5 Baglow v. Smith, 2015 ONSC 1175
16 invasion of privacy in the cyberspace16-1 invasion of privacy16-1-1 Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa Inc, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 59116-1-2 Campbell v. MGM, [2004] 2 AC 45716-2 invasion of privacy in the cyberspace16-2-1 A.T. v. L.T.H., [2006] B.C.J. No. 2975; 2006 BCSC 1689 (B.C.S.C.)16-2-2 Nesbitt v. Neufeld, [2010] B.C.J. No. 2232, 2010 BCSC 160516-2-3 Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, S.C. 2014, c. 31
November 417 pornography in the cyberspace17-1 obscenity ban17-1-1 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)17-1-2 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)17-1-3 R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 45217-2 pornography in the cyberspace17-2-1 United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996)17-2-2 R. v. Smith, 76 O.R. (3d) 435, [2005] O.J. No. 2811 (Ontario CA)17-2-3 Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
18 child pornography in the cyberspace18-1 child pornography 18-1-1 R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 4518-1-2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)18-1-3 United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008)18-2 child pornography in the cyberspace18-2-1 R. v. Morelli, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253
November 11 remembrance day university closed
November 18 19 hate speech in the cyberspace19-1 hate speech ban19-1-1 R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 69719-1-2 Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 89219-1-3 Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] 1 SCR 46719-2 hate speech in the cyberspace19-2-1 Sabrina Citron, Toronto Mayor’s Committee and Race Relations, and Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Zundel, T.D. 1/02 2002/01/1819-2-2 R. v. Noble, [2008] B.C.J. No. 294, 2008 BCSC 21519-3 blasphemy19-3-1 blasphemy in Canada19-4 trashing?
20 other harmful information and protection of minors20-1 sexually explicit expressions and minors20-1-1 Ginsberg v. New York, supra20-2 offensive and indecent speech20-2-1 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)20-2-2 Cohen v. California, supra20-2-3 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), supra20-2-4 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), supra20-2-5 ACLU v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181 (3rd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1032 (2009) 20-3 violent expression20-3-1 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) 20-4 access to harmful expression in the library20-4-1 United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003)
This year, we will not cover these two subjects 21 copyright protection in the cyberspace21-1 uploading copyrighted materials21-1-1 Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (Fla. 1993)21-2 copying webpage21-2-1 British Columbia Automobile Assn. v. Office and Professional Employees' International Union Local 378 (2001), 85 B.C.L.R. (3d) 302 (S.C.), 10 C.P.R. (4th) 423 (BCSC)21-2-2 Guillot v. Arvic Search Services Inc., 2001 FCT 799 (T.D.)21-3 browsing copyright infringing site21-3-1 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F.Supp. 2d 1290 (C.D. Utah 1999)21-4 linking21-4-1 Shetland Times Limited v. Dr. Jonathan Wills, [1997] FSR 604 (Ct. Sess.)21-5 search engine21-5-1 Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002)21-6 transmission on the Internet21-6-1 American Broadcasting Cos, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2498 (June 25, 2014)21-7 limitations21-7-1 CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 1 S.C.R. 339 [2004]21-7-2 Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 3719-8 copyright protection and freedom of expression in the cyberspace21-7-3 Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)21-8 copyright protection and freedom of expression21-8-1 Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)21-8-2 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)21-8-3 Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. – (2012) 21-9 frontiers of copyright protection in the cyberspace
22 domain name and trademark protection in the cyberspace22-1 trademark restriction on domain name22-1-1 Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998)22-1-2 Cybersquatting 22-2 limitations on domain name22-2-1 similarity: Pinet Inc. v. O’Brien, [1995] P.E.I.J. No. 6822-2-2 similarity: Itravel2000.com Inc. v. Fagan, [2001] O.J.No. 943 (Ontario Superior Ct.) 22-2-3 similarity: Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. v. Noton, 12 C.P.R. (4th) 4 [2001] 22-2-4 government’s name: Canada v. David Bedford a.k.a. DomainBaron.com, 27 C.P.R. (4th) 522; 2003 C.P.R. LEXIS 145 (BC International Commercial Arbitration Centre)22-2-5 city’s name: Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona v. Barcelona.com Inc.WIPO Administrative Panel Decision Case No. D2000-0505http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0505.html22-2-6 city’s name: Toronto.com v. Sinclair, (2000) 6 C.P.R. (4th) 487 (F.C.T.D.)22-2-7 celebrity’s name: Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell BoydWIPO Administrative Panel DecisionCase No. D2000-0210 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0210.html22-2-8 common words: Black v. Molson Canada, (2002) 21 C.P.R. (4th) 52 (Ont.Sup.Ct.)22-2-9 no legitimate interest: Coca-Cola Company v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004)22-3 trademark protection and freedom of expression22-3-1 Bally Total Fitness v. Faber, 29 F.Supp.2d 1161 (C.D.Cal. 1998)22-3-2 Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com, 95 F.Supp.2d 528 (E.D.Va. 2000)22-3-3 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. walmartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J. Harvey,WIPO administrative panel decisionCase No. D2000-1104 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1104.html22-3-4 offensive words
November 2523 private regulation and self-censorship23-1 private regulation and self-censorship: platform23-1-1 platform’s terms or use23-1-2 hate speech and glorification of violence23-1-3 fake news23-1-4 Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship (May 28, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/23-2 public institution23-2-1 public university as ISP23-2-2 Blaber v. University of Victoria, 123 D.L.R. (4th) 255 (BCSC)
24 filtering24-1 filtering and rating24-1-1 Microsystems Software, Inc v. Scandinavia Online AB, 226 F.3d 35 (1st. Cir 2000)24-1-2 Media3 Technologies, LLC v. Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1310 (D. Mass. 2001)24-2 use of filtering by the public library24-2-1 Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998)24-3 court-ordered filtering24-3-1 Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2013)24-3-2 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs compositeurs et éditeurs (SABAM), EUCJ, Case C-70/10 (Nov. 24, 2011)24-4 government-ordered filtering
December 2 25 protection of personal information in the cyberspace: 25-1 anonymity in the cyberspace25-1-1 Phillip Services Corp. v. John Doe Court File No. 4592 / 98 Ontario Court (General Division) http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/Philip.v.JohnDoe.24jun98.html25-1-2 BMG Canada, Inc. v. John Doe, [2005] F.C.J. No. 858; 2005 FCA 193; 2005 Fed.C.C. LEXIS 731 (Fed. Ct. App. Ontario 2005)25-1-3 John Doe No. 1 v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005)25-1-4 Melvin v. Doe, 575 Pa. 264 (Pa. 2003)25-2 encryption25-2-1 Bernstein v. United States DOJ, 176 F.3d 1132, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8595 (9th Cir. Cal., 1999), withdrawn by 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1999)25-3 the ban on anonymous speech25-3-1 ACLU v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997)25-4 search and seizure25-4-1 United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572 (D.N.J. 2001)25-4-2 United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008)25-4-3 In the matter of the search of an Apple iphone seized during the execution of a search warrant on black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203 (D.C. Central Dist. Cal. 2016), https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/file/825001/download 26 government surveillance over the cyberspace26-1 government electronic surveillance26-1-1 electronic surveillance system26-1-2 FISA Court26-2 government surveillance and the Constitution26-2-1 ACLU v. Nat'l Sec. Agency / Central Sec. Serv., 438 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 2006), vacated by, remanded by ACLU v. NSA, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16149 (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich., 2007)26-2-2 Warshak v. United States, 490 F.3d 455 (6th. Cir. 2007), vacated by, on rehearing at, en banc, stay granted by Warshak v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 23741 (6th Cir., Oct. 9, 2007)26-2-3 Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. ___ (2013)26-2-4 Obama v. Klayman, No. 14-5004 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 28, 2015) 26-3 big data
For those who are interested… 27 cyberdemocracy27-1 The possibility of cyberdemocracy27-2 hurdles ahead27-3 peril of cyberspace27-3-1 Cass Sunstein, republic.com 3-16, 23-50 (Princeton University Press 2001)27-4 possible solutions?27-4-1 Noah D. Zatz, Note: Sidewalks in Cyberspace; Making Space for Public Forum in the Electronic Environment, 12 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 149, 151-53, 172-225 (1998)
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Course objective: To Learn the legal issues implicated by the rise of the cyberspace, especially focusing on freedom of expression issues.The development of the cyberspace raised new constitutional issues with respect to freedom of expression without clear precedents and without clear guidelines. The seminar will prompt the students to consider all these legal questions in light of the necessity of constitutional protection of freedom of expression and the necessity of securing the safety and security of the public. The students should be ready to face any new questions, not examined in the class, and offer their own perspectives in addressing them.
COURSE ACTIVITIES
seminar structure: This seminar meets once a week on Monday, from 9:30 to 12:30, with a mid-time fifteen minutes break. The seminar will examine various specific cases and issues implicated by the rise of the cyberspace. The students are supposed to discuss and share their opinions on each issue and explore further implications on related issues. The students will obtain the basic knowledge and skills to face new issues and possible future cases throughout these discussions. IT IS EXPECTED THAT ALL OF THE STUDENTS WILL READ THE ASSIGNMENT FOR EACH CLASS AND PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION.Active student’s participation is strongly recommended. But it is not mandatory to participate in time because some of the students might be somewhat reluctant to share views in the classroom. Then, students can send the comments and feedbacks later by e-mail. I will regard this form of participation also as a class participation.
LEARNING MATERIALSThere is no mandatory textbook.Course materials will be sent to the participating students on-line. Some of the listed materials are available on-line in the library.
Other useful casebooks and textbooks include (not all these books are collected by the law library):Michael Geist, Internet Law in Canada (3rd edition Captus Press 2002)Raymond S.R. Ku & Jacqueline Lipton, Cyberspace Law: Cases and Materials (4th ed. Aspen 2016)Patricia l Bellia, Paul Schiff Berman, and David G. Post, Cyberlaw: Problems of Policy and Jurisprudence in the Information Age (4th ed. Thomson West 2010)James Grimmellmann, Internet Law: Cases and Problems (7th ed. Semaphore Press 2017).
ASSESSMENTS OF LEARNINGClass participation 30% and final assignment 70%. Students will be evaluated based upon the class participation and final essay paper. The essay paper will be assigned 70% of total evaluation and the class performance will be assigned 30% of total evaluation.
Class participation: Class participation mark is evaluated based upon the class attendance and the degree of active participation in the class discussion. Each student is required to attend the class after reading assigned materials and is encouraged to participate in the class discussions. Regular attendance and active participation are especially important to provide you with deeper knowledge and understanding. During the classroom discussions, we will pick up many specific issues, including new issues and new judgments, and discuss how we should resolve the cases. With respect to major issue for discussion, we might pick up the student moderator to moderate the discussion. If you miss too many classes, you will not be eligible to submit your final paper.Sometimes, I will ask one short question at the end of seminar and ask the students to provide me with the brief answer to the question I ask within a week. Just a one paragraph or half-page answer would suffice. I will evaluate to what extent you understand our materials and questions and to what extent you are ready to face the specific questions.
Final paper: With respect to final paper, each student should choose a particular topic from the areas covered by this course and submit the outline of the paper by the end of October (you can just send an e-mail outlining your paper) and then write a substantial paper (roughly 15 pages—this is merely a suggestion and is not the minimum or maximum limit) by the end of submission deadline (4:00 p.m. of the final day of the examination, December 22, 2021. Please send your paper with your email to me. But please make sure to keep your original copy with you just in case and make sure to receive my reception e-mail.You do not have to pick up the topic discussed in the class. You can pick up any subject that might be relevant to our course. I will be happy to advise you on your choice of topic and you should talk with me before finalizing your outline. The paper will be evaluated based on the choice of topic, the extent of the research, the organization and structure of analysis, the analytical skill, the writing skill and the overall persuasiveness. I don’t care what format you would choose, what citation method or citation style you would prefer to use or how long you would choose to write. All I will care is the substance of your research, writing and analysis.
After separately evaluating class participation mark and paper mark, I will add these marks to produce tentative final mark. Then, in order to comply with the law school’s grading policy, sometimes I will have to add final adjustment to reach the final marks to be submitted.
For the law school’s grading rules, see https://allard.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-06/grading_rules_2018w_beginning_spring_term_2019.pdf . For the law school policy on late paper submission, see https://allard.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-06/penalties_for_late_assignments.pdf .For the law school’s academic concession policy and procedure (including deferral of exam or extension of deadline of submission of paper), see https://allard.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-06/academic_concession_procedures_-_updated_june_2_2020_-_covid_version_-_final.pdf . For the law school’s policy on appealing a mark, see https://allard.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-06/review_of_assigned_standing.pdf .
UNIVERSITY POLICIESUBC provides resources to support student learning and to maintain healthy lifestyles but recognizes that sometimes crises arise and so there are additional resources to access including those for survivors of sexual violence. UBC values respect for the person and ideas of all members of the academic community. Harassment and discrimination are not tolerated nor is suppression of academic freedom. UBC provides appropriate accommodation for students with disabilities and for religious observances. UBC values academic honesty and students are expected to acknowledge the ideas generated by others and to uphold the highest academic standards in all of their actions.Details of the policies and how to access support are available on the UBC Senate website.
COPYRIGHTMost of the reading materials are edited copies of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada and there is no copyright issue for using them. All other materials are available through online. All the class instructions and distributed materials can be shared among other participants of the class but cannot be published or distributed without permission. No recording is permitted without permission.Updated September 2, 2021
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTUBC’s Point Grey Campus is located on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam) people. The land it is situated on has always been a place of learning for the Musqueam people, who for millennia have passed on in their culture, history, and traditions from one generation to the next on this site.
COURSE INFORMATIONCourse Title Course Code Number Credit ValueCyberspace Law LAW425D.001 3 PREREQUISITESNone. But it would be better if the students have a basic knowledge of constitutional protection of freedom of expression. And the students are better prepared to discuss the uniqueness of the cyberspace and apply their knowledge on constitutional law, especially freedom of expression, to the cyberspace. COREQUISITESNoneIf you are interested in detailed analysis of freedom of expression issues, take LAW343C.001(Term 2) Topics in Public Law: Freedom of Expression, and if you are interested in legal issues arising from e-commerce, take LAW447C.001 (Term 2) Topics in Commercial Law: e-Commerce. They are not co-requisites but may be of interest to you.
CONTACTSCourse Instructor(s) Contact Details Office Location Office HoursProf. Shigenori Matsui (SM)
COURSE STRUCTURESeminar: Monday 9:00 to 12:30 Rm 114This is a seminar to learn about various legal issues raising from the development of the cyberspace, especially focusing on freedom of expression issues. The students are supposed to read the first two powerpoint files distributed in advance and familiarize with the basics of information technology, computer technology, and network. The seminar combines two topics in a day separated by fifteen minutes break in the middle. The seminar starts with the examination of the basic of cyberspace law: how the cyberspace functions, what kinds of function the cyberspace can perform, the challenges raised by the rise of cyberspace and then examine how law should operate to respond to this rise of cyberspace. The seminar next examines the jurisdiction of the courts, choice of law, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment, and potential reach of government power together with the issues on the liability of intermediaries. Then it will examine how constitutional protection of freedom of expression should reach to cyberspace, especially focusing on the difference between cyberspace and broadcasting. Then the seminar moves to discuss some of the most controversial expression restriction in the cyberspace, including the protection of national secret and public safety, fake news and false information, defamation and invasion of privacy, hate speech and cyber porn as well as child porn, and other harmful expression and the need for protection of minors. It will also consider revenge porn and cyberbullying. Then the seminar turns its attention to freedom of expression and intellectual property rights in the cyberspace, including trademark and copyright protection. It also consider the necessity of protecting freedom of expression against service providers. Then, the seminar will consider the constitutional issues rising from the necessity of protecting privacy and personal information in the cyberspace, including to what extent the government can intervene to protect privacy and personal information of users, to what extent the government should restrict the privacy and personal information of users to secure the safety and security, and to what extent the government should be allowed to monitor and perform surveillance on the users. The final chapter is left for further discussion, for those students who are interested in the future of democracy through the cyberspace and the possible challenges.
SCHEDULE OF TOPICSTentative (subject to change)
00 introduction01 development of computer technology (pre-reading)02 development of the Internet (pre-reading)
September 9 (on-line)03 expression in the cyberspace – what are the characteristics of the cyberspace?03-1-1 ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-44 (E.D.Pa. 1996), aff’d, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
04 Internet Governance and Law04-1 Internet and governance04-1-1John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspacehttp://www.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html04-1-2 David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Border--The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367, 1367-68, 1370-72, 1378-80, 1387-91, 1400-02 (1996)(available online from the LEXIS)04-1-3 Jack L. Goldsmith, Against Cyberanarchy, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1199, 1199-1201, 1212-24, 1230-45 (1998)(available online from LEXIS)04-2 code04-2-1 Lawrence Lessig, Constitution and Code, 27 Cumberland L. Rev. 1, 1-15 (1996)(available online from LEXIS)
September 1605 jurisdiction05-1 personal jurisdiction: Limits of personal jurisdiction05-1-1 Bensusan Restaurant Corporation v. King, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997)05-1-2 Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)05-1-3 Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (10 December 2002)05-2 personal jurisdiction: Canada 05-2-1 Braintech, Inc. v. Kostiuk, 171 D.L.R. (4th) 46 (1999)05-2-2 Bangoura v. Washington Post, 258 D.L.R. (4th) 341 (2005)05-2-3 Crookes v. Holloway, [2008] B.C.J. No. 834, 2008 BCCA 16505-2-4 Breedem v. Black, 2012 SCC 1905-2-5 Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28
06 choice of Law, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment and reach of the government regulatory power06-1 choice of Law06-1-1 Restatement (2d) of Conflict of Laws, § 14506-1-2 Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999)06-2 recognition and enforcement of foreign Judgment06-2-1 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D.Cal. 2001)06-2-2 SPEECH Act06-3 extraterritorial regulation06-3-1 YAHOO! CASE UEJF and Licra v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo France (TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE PARIS May 22, 2000)http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/yauctions20000522.htm(Translated into English by Richard Salis)06-3-2 Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427 (2004)06-4 world-wide injunction06-4-1 Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34
September 2307 liability of Internet service providers: defamation07-1 the United States07-1-1 Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y.)07-1-2 Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Company, 1995 N.Y. Misc. (S.Ct. N.Y. 1995)07-1-3 Lunney v. Prodigy Services Company, 250 A.D.2d 230; 683 N.Y.S.2d 557 (Sup.Ct. N.Y., App. Div. 1998)07-1-4 Communication Decency Act07-1-5 Zeran v. America Online, Incorporated, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998)07-1-6 Grace v. eBay, 120 Cal. App. 4th 984; 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192 (Ct. App. Cal. 2004)07-2 other countries07-2-1 Goodfrey v. Demon Internet, [1999] 4 All Eng 342, [2000] 3 WLR 102007-2-2 U.K. Defamation Act07-2-3 Australian Broadcasting Services Amendment Act of 199907-2-4 DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce)07-2-5 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protection de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez, CJEU May 13, 2014, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf 07-3 Canada07-3-1 Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc, supra
08 liability of Internet service providers: other liabilities08-1 copyright infringement: the United States08-1-1 Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)08-1-2 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 51208-2 copyright infringement: Canada08-2-1 SOCAN v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, supra08-2-2 The Copyright Modernization Act, 201208-3 other intermediaries: Google, You Tube and limits of take-down request08-3-1 Parker v. Google, Inc., 242 Fed. Appx. 833 (3rd Cir. 2007)08-3-2 Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, 676 F.3d 19 (2d. Cir. 2012)08-3-3 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D.Cal. 2008)08-4 criminal liability08-5 administrative liability 08-5-1 German Act to Improve Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks
September 30 national day for truth and reconciliation university closed
October 709 access to cyberspace09-1 access to cyberspace09-1-1 access to the cyberspace: Telecon Decision CRTC 99-1109-1-2 Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 409-1-3 Criminal Code, s.16109-1-4 R. v. K.R.J.,[2016] 1 SCR 90609-2 network neutrality09-2-1 H.R. 5417: Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 200609-2-2 FCC, Preserving the Open Internet, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-23/pdf/2011-24259.pdf09-2-3 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F. 3d 623 (D.C.Cir. 2014)09-2-4 47 CFR Protecting and Promoting Open Internet09-2-5 Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-65709-2-6 EU Open Internet Regulation 09-3 ISP censorship
10 freedom of expression in the cyberspace10-1 freedom of expression in the cyberspace: CDA10-1-1 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)10-2 freedom of expression in the cyberspace: COPA10-2-1 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004)10-3 broadcasting or newspaper?10-3-1 Canada Broadcast Act10-3-2 Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 1999-8410-3-3 Exemption Order 1999-19710-3-4 Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Canada’s Communications Future: Time to Act (Jan. 2020), https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/110.nsf/eng/00012.html October 1411 protection of the national security in the cyberspace11-1 protection of national security information11-1-1 Security of Information Act11-1-2 U.S. Espionage Act11-1-3 Executive Order 11-1-4 Pentagon Papers Case11-2 WikiLeaks11-2-1 WikiLeaks and the First Amendment, https://www.amacad.org/news/wikileaks-and-first-amendment11-2-2 Stone, Geoffrey R. (2012) WikiLeaks and the First Amendment," 64 Federal Communications Law Journal 477 (2012), https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol64/iss3/2
12 protection of public safety in the cyberspace12-1 protection of public safety: sedition12-1-1 Canada Criminal Code12-1-2 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)12-2 facilitation and promotion of terrorist acts12-2-1 Canada Criminal Code12-2-2 U.K. Terrorism Act of 200612-3 disclosure of dangerous information12-3-1 Washington v. Department of Commerce, 315 F. Supp.3d 1202 (W.D. Wash. 2018)12-4 application to the cyberspace12-4-1 U.K. Terrorism Act of 200612-4-2 U.K. Terrorism Act of 200012-5 breach of the peace12-5-1 Canada Criminal Code12-5-2 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
October 2113 political speech in the cyberspace13-1 false speech during election13-1-1 Canada Elections Act: false election speech13-1-2 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 14-4008 (6th Cir. 2016)13-1-3 Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONSC 122413-2 election campaign regulation 13-2-1 Canada Elections Act: election communications 13-3 protecting election from foreign intervention13-3-2 Canada Elections Act: ban on the use of foreign fund 13-4 platform regulation13-4-1 Canada Elections Act: platform regulation
14 false information in the cyberspace 14-1 fake news14-1-1 R v Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 73114-1-2 Canada Criminal Code14-1-3 Television Broadcasting Regulation14-2 false information14-2-1 EU Code of Practice on Disinformation
October 2815 defamation in the cyberspace15-1 defamation and freedom of expression15-1-1 R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R 43915-1-2 Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 113015-1-3 Grant v. Torstar Corp., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 64015-2 defamation in the cyberspace15-2-1 Wiebe v. Bouchard, [2008] B.C.J. No. 435, 2008 BCSC 24915-2-2 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board v. Scharf, [2007] O.J. No. 3030 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)15-2-3 Griffin v. Sullivan, [2008] B.C.J. No. 1333, 2008 BCSC 827 (BCSC)15-2-4 Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 26915-2-5 Baglow v. Smith, 2015 ONSC 1175
16 invasion of privacy in the cyberspace16-1 invasion of privacy16-1-1 Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa Inc, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 59116-1-2 Campbell v. MGM, [2004] 2 AC 45716-2 invasion of privacy in the cyberspace16-2-1 A.T. v. L.T.H., [2006] B.C.J. No. 2975; 2006 BCSC 1689 (B.C.S.C.)16-2-2 Nesbitt v. Neufeld, [2010] B.C.J. No. 2232, 2010 BCSC 160516-2-3 Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, S.C. 2014, c. 31
November 417 pornography in the cyberspace17-1 obscenity ban17-1-1 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)17-1-2 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)17-1-3 R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 45217-2 pornography in the cyberspace17-2-1 United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996)17-2-2 R. v. Smith, 76 O.R. (3d) 435, [2005] O.J. No. 2811 (Ontario CA)17-2-3 Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
18 child pornography in the cyberspace18-1 child pornography 18-1-1 R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 4518-1-2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)18-1-3 United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008)18-2 child pornography in the cyberspace18-2-1 R. v. Morelli, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253
November 11 remembrance day university closed
November 18 19 hate speech in the cyberspace19-1 hate speech ban19-1-1 R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 69719-1-2 Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 89219-1-3 Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] 1 SCR 46719-2 hate speech in the cyberspace19-2-1 Sabrina Citron, Toronto Mayor’s Committee and Race Relations, and Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Zundel, T.D. 1/02 2002/01/1819-2-2 R. v. Noble, [2008] B.C.J. No. 294, 2008 BCSC 21519-3 blasphemy19-3-1 blasphemy in Canada19-4 trashing?
20 other harmful information and protection of minors20-1 sexually explicit expressions and minors20-1-1 Ginsberg v. New York, supra20-2 offensive and indecent speech20-2-1 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)20-2-2 Cohen v. California, supra20-2-3 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), supra20-2-4 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), supra20-2-5 ACLU v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181 (3rd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1032 (2009) 20-3 violent expression20-3-1 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) 20-4 access to harmful expression in the library20-4-1 United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003)
This year, we will not cover these two subjects 21 copyright protection in the cyberspace21-1 uploading copyrighted materials21-1-1 Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (Fla. 1993)21-2 copying webpage21-2-1 British Columbia Automobile Assn. v. Office and Professional Employees' International Union Local 378 (2001), 85 B.C.L.R. (3d) 302 (S.C.), 10 C.P.R. (4th) 423 (BCSC)21-2-2 Guillot v. Arvic Search Services Inc., 2001 FCT 799 (T.D.)21-3 browsing copyright infringing site21-3-1 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F.Supp. 2d 1290 (C.D. Utah 1999)21-4 linking21-4-1 Shetland Times Limited v. Dr. Jonathan Wills, [1997] FSR 604 (Ct. Sess.)21-5 search engine21-5-1 Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002)21-6 transmission on the Internet21-6-1 American Broadcasting Cos, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2498 (June 25, 2014)21-7 limitations21-7-1 CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 1 S.C.R. 339 [2004]21-7-2 Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 3719-8 copyright protection and freedom of expression in the cyberspace21-7-3 Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)21-8 copyright protection and freedom of expression21-8-1 Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)21-8-2 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)21-8-3 Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. – (2012) 21-9 frontiers of copyright protection in the cyberspace
22 domain name and trademark protection in the cyberspace22-1 trademark restriction on domain name22-1-1 Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998)22-1-2 Cybersquatting 22-2 limitations on domain name22-2-1 similarity: Pinet Inc. v. O’Brien, [1995] P.E.I.J. No. 6822-2-2 similarity: Itravel2000.com Inc. v. Fagan, [2001] O.J.No. 943 (Ontario Superior Ct.) 22-2-3 similarity: Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. v. Noton, 12 C.P.R. (4th) 4 [2001] 22-2-4 government’s name: Canada v. David Bedford a.k.a. DomainBaron.com, 27 C.P.R. (4th) 522; 2003 C.P.R. LEXIS 145 (BC International Commercial Arbitration Centre)22-2-5 city’s name: Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona v. Barcelona.com Inc.WIPO Administrative Panel Decision Case No. D2000-0505http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0505.html22-2-6 city’s name: Toronto.com v. Sinclair, (2000) 6 C.P.R. (4th) 487 (F.C.T.D.)22-2-7 celebrity’s name: Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell BoydWIPO Administrative Panel DecisionCase No. D2000-0210 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0210.html22-2-8 common words: Black v. Molson Canada, (2002) 21 C.P.R. (4th) 52 (Ont.Sup.Ct.)22-2-9 no legitimate interest: Coca-Cola Company v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004)22-3 trademark protection and freedom of expression22-3-1 Bally Total Fitness v. Faber, 29 F.Supp.2d 1161 (C.D.Cal. 1998)22-3-2 Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com, 95 F.Supp.2d 528 (E.D.Va. 2000)22-3-3 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. walmartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J. Harvey,WIPO administrative panel decisionCase No. D2000-1104 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1104.html22-3-4 offensive words
November 2523 private regulation and self-censorship23-1 private regulation and self-censorship: platform23-1-1 platform’s terms or use23-1-2 hate speech and glorification of violence23-1-3 fake news23-1-4 Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship (May 28, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/23-2 public institution23-2-1 public university as ISP23-2-2 Blaber v. University of Victoria, 123 D.L.R. (4th) 255 (BCSC)
24 filtering24-1 filtering and rating24-1-1 Microsystems Software, Inc v. Scandinavia Online AB, 226 F.3d 35 (1st. Cir 2000)24-1-2 Media3 Technologies, LLC v. Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1310 (D. Mass. 2001)24-2 use of filtering by the public library24-2-1 Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998)24-3 court-ordered filtering24-3-1 Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2013)24-3-2 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs compositeurs et éditeurs (SABAM), EUCJ, Case C-70/10 (Nov. 24, 2011)24-4 government-ordered filtering
December 2 25 protection of personal information in the cyberspace: 25-1 anonymity in the cyberspace25-1-1 Phillip Services Corp. v. John Doe Court File No. 4592 / 98 Ontario Court (General Division) http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/Philip.v.JohnDoe.24jun98.html25-1-2 BMG Canada, Inc. v. John Doe, [2005] F.C.J. No. 858; 2005 FCA 193; 2005 Fed.C.C. LEXIS 731 (Fed. Ct. App. Ontario 2005)25-1-3 John Doe No. 1 v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005)25-1-4 Melvin v. Doe, 575 Pa. 264 (Pa. 2003)25-2 encryption25-2-1 Bernstein v. United States DOJ, 176 F.3d 1132, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8595 (9th Cir. Cal., 1999), withdrawn by 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1999)25-3 the ban on anonymous speech25-3-1 ACLU v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997)25-4 search and seizure25-4-1 United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572 (D.N.J. 2001)25-4-2 United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008)25-4-3 In the matter of the search of an Apple iphone seized during the execution of a search warrant on black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203 (D.C. Central Dist. Cal. 2016), https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/file/825001/download 26 government surveillance over the cyberspace26-1 government electronic surveillance26-1-1 electronic surveillance system26-1-2 FISA Court26-2 government surveillance and the Constitution26-2-1 ACLU v. Nat'l Sec. Agency / Central Sec. Serv., 438 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 2006), vacated by, remanded by ACLU v. NSA, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16149 (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich., 2007)26-2-2 Warshak v. United States, 490 F.3d 455 (6th. Cir. 2007), vacated by, on rehearing at, en banc, stay granted by Warshak v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 23741 (6th Cir., Oct. 9, 2007)26-2-3 Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. ___ (2013)26-2-4 Obama v. Klayman, No. 14-5004 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 28, 2015) 26-3 big data
For those who are interested… 27 cyberdemocracy27-1 The possibility of cyberdemocracy27-2 hurdles ahead27-3 peril of cyberspace27-3-1 Cass Sunstein, republic.com 3-16, 23-50 (Princeton University Press 2001)27-4 possible solutions?27-4-1 Noah D. Zatz, Note: Sidewalks in Cyberspace; Making Space for Public Forum in the Electronic Environment, 12 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 149, 151-53, 172-225 (1998)
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Course objective: To Learn the legal issues implicated by the rise of the cyberspace, especially focusing on freedom of expression issues.The development of the cyberspace raised new constitutional issues with respect to freedom of expression without clear precedents and without clear guidelines. The seminar will prompt the students to consider all these legal questions in light of the necessity of constitutional protection of freedom of expression and the necessity of securing the safety and security of the public. The students should be ready to face any new questions, not examined in the class, and offer their own perspectives in addressing them.
COURSE ACTIVITIES
seminar structure: This seminar meets once a week on Monday, from 9:30 to 12:30, with a mid-time fifteen minutes break. The seminar will examine various specific cases and issues implicated by the rise of the cyberspace. The students are supposed to discuss and share their opinions on each issue and explore further implications on related issues. The students will obtain the basic knowledge and skills to face new issues and possible future cases throughout these discussions. IT IS EXPECTED THAT ALL OF THE STUDENTS WILL READ THE ASSIGNMENT FOR EACH CLASS AND PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION.Active student’s participation is strongly recommended. But it is not mandatory to participate in time because some of the students might be somewhat reluctant to share views in the classroom. Then, students can send the comments and feedbacks later by e-mail. I will regard this form of participation also as a class participation.
LEARNING MATERIALSThere is no mandatory textbook.Course materials will be sent to the participating students on-line. Some of the listed materials are available on-line in the library.
Other useful casebooks and textbooks include (not all these books are collected by the law library):Michael Geist, Internet Law in Canada (3rd edition Captus Press 2002)Raymond S.R. Ku & Jacqueline Lipton, Cyberspace Law: Cases and Materials (4th ed. Aspen 2016)Patricia l Bellia, Paul Schiff Berman, and David G. Post, Cyberlaw: Problems of Policy and Jurisprudence in the Information Age (4th ed. Thomson West 2010)James Grimmellmann, Internet Law: Cases and Problems (7th ed. Semaphore Press 2017).
ASSESSMENTS OF LEARNINGClass participation 30% and final assignment 70%. Students will be evaluated based upon the class participation and final essay paper. The essay paper will be assigned 70% of total evaluation and the class performance will be assigned 30% of total evaluation.
Class participation: Class participation mark is evaluated based upon the class attendance and the degree of active participation in the class discussion. Each student is required to attend the class after reading assigned materials and is encouraged to participate in the class discussions. Regular attendance and active participation are especially important to provide you with deeper knowledge and understanding. During the classroom discussions, we will pick up many specific issues, including new issues and new judgments, and discuss how we should resolve the cases. With respect to major issue for discussion, we might pick up the student moderator to moderate the discussion. If you miss too many classes, you will not be eligible to submit your final paper.Sometimes, I will ask one short question at the end of seminar and ask the students to provide me with the brief answer to the question I ask within a week. Just a one paragraph or half-page answer would suffice. I will evaluate to what extent you understand our materials and questions and to what extent you are ready to face the specific questions.
Final paper: With respect to final paper, each student should choose a particular topic from the areas covered by this course and submit the outline of the paper by the end of October (you can just send an e-mail outlining your paper) and then write a substantial paper (roughly 15 pages—this is merely a suggestion and is not the minimum or maximum limit) by the end of submission deadline (4:00 p.m. of the final day of the examination, December 22, 2021. Please send your paper with your email to me. But please make sure to keep your original copy with you just in case and make sure to receive my reception e-mail.You do not have to pick up the topic discussed in the class. You can pick up any subject that might be relevant to our course. I will be happy to advise you on your choice of topic and you should talk with me before finalizing your outline. The paper will be evaluated based on the choice of topic, the extent of the research, the organization and structure of analysis, the analytical skill, the writing skill and the overall persuasiveness. I don’t care what format you would choose, what citation method or citation style you would prefer to use or how long you would choose to write. All I will care is the substance of your research, writing and analysis.
After separately evaluating class participation mark and paper mark, I will add these marks to produce tentative final mark. Then, in order to comply with the law school’s grading policy, sometimes I will have to add final adjustment to reach the final marks to be submitted.
For the law school’s grading rules, see https://allard.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-06/grading_rules_2018w_beginning_spring_term_2019.pdf . For the law school policy on late paper submission, see https://allard.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-06/penalties_for_late_assignments.pdf .For the law school’s academic concession policy and procedure (including deferral of exam or extension of deadline of submission of paper), see https://allard.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-06/academic_concession_procedures_-_updated_june_2_2020_-_covid_version_-_final.pdf . For the law school’s policy on appealing a mark, see https://allard.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-06/review_of_assigned_standing.pdf .
UNIVERSITY POLICIESUBC provides resources to support student learning and to maintain healthy lifestyles but recognizes that sometimes crises arise and so there are additional resources to access including those for survivors of sexual violence. UBC values respect for the person and ideas of all members of the academic community. Harassment and discrimination are not tolerated nor is suppression of academic freedom. UBC provides appropriate accommodation for students with disabilities and for religious observances. UBC values academic honesty and students are expected to acknowledge the ideas generated by others and to uphold the highest academic standards in all of their actions.Details of the policies and how to access support are available on the UBC Senate website.
COPYRIGHTMost of the reading materials are edited copies of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada and there is no copyright issue for using them. All other materials are available through online. All the class instructions and distributed materials can be shared among other participants of the class but cannot be published or distributed without permission. No recording is permitted without permission.Updated September 2, 2021