Outline of Amicus Brief: Pavlovich v

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 THE BASIS FOR THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION....................................... 3 ARGUMENT........................................................................................................... 6 I. BECAUSE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS A PRIOR RESTRAINT ON PURE SPEECH, AT A MINIMUM, STRICT SCRUTINY APPLIES............................................................................... 6 A. A Prohibition On The Disclosure Of Information Is A Restriction On Pure Speech That Is Subject To Strict Scrutiny. ............................. 7 B. An Injunction Prohibiting the Disclosure of Lawfully Obtained Information Is A Presumptively Invalid Prior Restraint. .................... 12 II. THE INJUNCTION BEFORE THIS COURT IS NOT NARROWLY TAILORED TO FURTHER A STATE INTEREST OF THE HIGHEST ORDER ............................................... 16 A. The Injunction In This Case Cannot Be Squared With The Supreme Court’s Decision In Bartnicki v. Vopper.............................. 16 B. An Injunction Prohibiting the Publication of Information That Has Already Been Made Publicly Available Violates the First Amendment. ........................................................................................ 23 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 27 i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993)............................ 12 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002) ......................................................................... 10, 11 Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) ................................ passim CBS Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315 (1994) .................................. 12, 13 Chicago Lock Co. v. Fanberg, 676 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1982).......... 17 Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)........ 7, 16, 25 Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989) .................... 7, 20, 24, 25 Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, 67 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Mich. 1999).................................................................................... 13, 16 Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974) ....... 5, 15, 17 Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, 360 U.S. 684 (1959)........ 11 Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) .............................................................................. 7, 24 Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) ................................................................................... 14, 15 Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) ............................................................................ 12, 22, 25 New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) .............................................................................. 7, 12, 20 Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308 (1977) .................................................................................. 25 ii
Page 1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O
Page 5 and 6: Wilson v. Superior Ct., 13 Cal. 3d
Page 7 and 8: 1201 et seq. (“DMCA”), by makin
Page 9 and 10: whether CSS had lost its trade secr
Page 11 and 12: In sum, regardless of whether the s
Page 13 and 14: of a publication”); Procter & Gam
Page 15 and 16: motivation) from its expressive com
Page 17 and 18: B. An Injunction Prohibiting the Di
Page 19 and 20: Relying once again on Corley, DVD C
Page 21 and 22: Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 481-82, 493 (1
Page 23 and 24: the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the
Page 25 and 26: Significantly, however, as the Cour
Page 27 and 28: the Internet, 24 Colum-VLA J.L. & A
Page 29 and 30: questionable. 14 But regardless of
Page 31 and 32: justify prior restraint to protect

Outline of Amicus Brief: Pavlovich v

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?