Domain Names ARE Protected Speech

I was one of Hank's many supporters and have always been convinced and commited to the fact that domain names are a matter of free speech.

You have now proved it.

Recently I uncovered a case that proves beyond doubt that the US government overreach to deny free speech with Sunrise and UDRP.

Commodity Trend Service, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Defendant-Appellee.

38. However, the government cannot overreach in its attempts to protect the public from fraud. Laws that primarily prohibit fully protected speech along with potentially fraudulent speech often violate the First Amendment, even if the law's stated purpose is to prevent fraud; instead, more precise measures must be used.

Likewise, the government cannot label certain speech as fraudulent so as to deprive it of First Amendment protection.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fox/foxweb.exe/Op3?yr= 99&num=4142&Submit1=Request+Opinion

This means they cannot let trademarks stop people using any words on the excuse of preventing fraud - a more precise measure MUST BE USED e.g. adding a protected TLD to identify that the domain is a trademark - like .reg for example!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Link update by WIPOorgUK Sunday February 09 2003, @12:28AM

Relationship to privacy of whois information
by phoffman@proper.com on Friday February 07 2003, @03:21PM (#11117)
User #2063 Info

So, if ownership of a domain name is protected speech (at least in the US), should the speaker be able to hide their owneship information? That is, would the judge have found the same way if the owner was able to hide their identity?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:Relationship to privacy of whois information by jberryhill Monday February 10 2003, @07:58AM

Not Quite As Broad As That
by jberryhill on Saturday February 08 2003, @09:37AM (#11123)
User #3013 Info

The appeals court was not ruling on a final decision of the trial court, so the characterization of the "precedent setting" nature of this decision is somewhat overblown in the article above.

What this court was doing here was ruling on whether to permit a preliminary injunction against the domain name registrant - i.e. they were deciding whether it was permissible to shut this guy up while the trial was in progress, or whether this guy could go on using the domain names while the trial was in progress. The standards for obtaining a preliminary injunction in any case are higher than for obtaining a final decision on the merits.

Don't get me wrong. I like the decision, but that's no reason to mischaracterize the practical scope of it.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:Not Quite As Broad As That by Mueller Monday February 10 2003, @09:43AM

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com