Marvin Ammori

I have been invited to write an article for Harvard Law Review‘s 2014 symposium on freedom of the press. I’m honored for the opportunity to contribute.

The symposium will coincide with the 50th anniversary of the pivotal Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan.

What interests me, fifty years after Sullivan, is how much the life of a free-speech lawyer has changed. The archetypical First Amendment lawyers of that era represented newspapers like the New York Times against libel suits like Sullivan’s in the US. The archetypical First Amendment lawyers of today, it seems, represent speech platforms like YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr, Wikipedia, and Automattic/Wordpress.com on a range of matters, from usage policies and privacy to copyright, and regularly address global issues.

Much of the leading thinking on freedom of press in the Internet age comes from academics like Jack Balkin, Yochai Benkler, Edwin Baker, Larry Tribe, Larry Lessig, Susan Crawford, Eugene Volokh, Greg Magarian, Danielle Citron, and many others. At the same time, alumni and current lawyers at the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Media Access Project, Free Press, ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, CDT, PK, and many others, have helped to steer the future of free speech.

But corporate lawyers spearheaded the free speech triumph of New York Times v. Sullivan and I’ve been thinking how today’s lawyers at Google/YouTube, Twitter, etc. are their heirs in many ways. In this article, I’m hoping I can shed some light on if, how, and why that is. Or, as I often do while writing, I may change my mind.

Tech companies like Google and Twitter aren’t perfect, just as The New York Times and Wall Street Journal aren’t perfect. Yet, just as large corporate newspapers often have economic incentives to support freedom of press principles, so do today’s speech platforms. The unofficial tagline of Twitter is “The tweets must flow.” Journalists have profiled several of its speech lawyers as speech “defenders.” Google often hires lawyers with a background in free speech to design usage policies and address speech-threats abroad. Some of the most important free-speech controversies over the past few years have included hate speech on Facebook, the Innocence of Muslims on YouTube, the “blocking” of pro-choice text messages on Verizon, controversies over network neutrality and discrimination against speech technologies, proposed copyright legislation like SOPA/PIPA affecting Internet users and search engines, and the private/public blockading of Wikileaks. One difference between newspapers and speech platforms, of course, is that companies like WordPress.com and Google generally carry the speech of others, not the speech journalists who work there. Other differences include varying areas of law, the myriad judicial bodies at home and abroad that are more likely to affect global tech companies than city-based newspapers, and today’s potentially different norms and concepts that shape the field.

At this point, I plan to contrast and compare the role of tech lawyers in the development of free-expression doctrine with that of newspapers a half-century ago. I will probably focus on companies for whom I do legal work (or that employ friends who will speak with me). I also plan to interview lawyers at traditional publications like The New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Atlantic–partly because these traditional publications have a new set of challenges in the Internet age.

This is a topic I’ve discussed in my book (here) and something that Jeff Rosen has written admirably about, most recently in a New Republic article called the Delete Squad. Rosen once interviewed me for an article and called a legal case I handled “a model for the free-speech battles of the future,” so I’m guessing this article will give me the chance to interview him back.

Oh, and I should note, the companies I do some work for include Google and Dropbox, among others. And my work for them tends to focus on public policy and freedom of speech.

Google announced that it will release Glass devices in waves to its program for Explorers–notably developers.

I’ve been reading quite a bit about Glass, first with an eye towards public policy (privacy, data, etc.) and then with an eye to user experience.

User experience because two weekends ago I took part in a Startup Weekend competition. Our team included two designers plus two Google Pioneers. Pioneers, a smaller group than Explorers, are developers who were invited to one of two Google Glass hackathons. One of our Pioneers had even won a prize at the New York Glass hackathon.

After everyone on the team watched Timothy Jordan’s SXSW speech about developing for Glass, our team spent a lot of time thinking about how people will use Glass and how it may change our lives. We have continued thinking about this question since the competition.

We organized the Google Glass DC Meetup group to bring together the folks in DC who are excited about Glass. Several Pioneers and Explorers will be there. Those in DC should join.

(Oh, and with so much talent on our team, our project ended up winning the Startup Weekend competition with an instant-help app. It was my second Startup Weekend and I am a big fan of that organization and recommend others try it.)

Luke and I published this piece in Politico today, arguing that our current surveillance laws, and the global perception of the USA PATRIOT Act, ECPA, and FISA, hurt our nation’s global competitiveness. It’s not just a civil liberties issues, but also an economic one.

Supreme Court rules for the public–not textbook publishers and foreign manufacturers–in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley. The publishers had argued that anything made abroad (from an iPod to a Toyota to a shampoo bottle) that has a copyright logo on it can never be resold or lent to anyone without the copyright-holder’s permission. It would have been modern “stuff-feudalism.” We wouldn’t own the physical stuff we bought. We’d be renters.

The Court rejected that argument, resoundingly in the opinion’s language, and by a 6-3 vote. 

Here is the opinion. 

On Friday, Marvin was a guest on This Week in Law, a weekly webcast focused on the latest technology-related legal news. Among the topics discussed was the legal trouble facing transportation apps like Uber, SideCar and Lyft, a topic Marvin covered in this piece on Slate. You can watch the full show below:

Over the weekend, Marvin had a guest post on Techdirt, discussing his favorite posts of the week. Check it out here.

While attending SXSW, Marvin dropped by the Fast Company Grill. Some of the attendees were asked for six-second definitions of innovation. There are some great offerings from Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Microsoft’s danah boyd, SoundCloud’s Ben Fawkes, and Girls In Tech’s President Kate Brodock.

Check out Marvin’s video below:

In the last chapter of “On Internet Freedom,” I note that at least four nations have declared access to the Internet to be a fundamental right. Add Germany to the list.

 A top German court has ruled that people can sue their Internet providers for damages if connection is lost. The court has ruled that access to the Internet represents a basic need in modern society.

The complaint that brought about the ruling came from a man who lost his Internet connection for two months due to an administrative error caused by a takeover of his Internet provider by another company. He is now entitled to monetary compensation – and while the amount may not be very high, the ruling reflects an important shift. With it, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice has stated that Internet connection is a modern necessity, on par with the right to mobility.

The court compared the situation to a car owner claiming damages after someone else has caused an accident that renders the car unusable for some time.

Friends volunteered to draft and release a statement to the press about my e-book released today, as part of the Internet Freedom Day actions, and which is free today.

I think the press release is wonderful, and it incorporates some of Alexis Ohanian’s and Craig Newmark’s comments on the book. So I’m posting it here.  Thankful for having talented friends…

Internet Scholar Ammori Releases eBook “On Internet Freedom” to Mark One-Year Anniversary of Historic Internet Blackout

“Internet freedom is the defining issue for our generation. We need a world where all links are created equal, not just to preserve all that we’ve built so far, but for all of the innovation that has yet to come. Read this book and make sure we get the future we deserve.”

Alexis Ohanian, Co-Founder, Reddit

Washington, D.C. – In celebration of the one-year anniversary of the “Internet Blackout,” First Amendment scholar and Internet policy expert Marvin Ammori today released, “On Internet Freedom,” an eBook that explores the challenges of maintaining Internet freedom and why that continuing struggle is central to democracy.

One year ago, the Internet found itself under attack by Congress, which threatened the Internet’s role as a driver of free speech, economic development, and job creation. On January 18, 2012, an unprecedented grassroots movement of millions of Internet users rose up to make their voices heard with phone calls, letters, emails and website blackouts, ultimately defeating the two controversial bills known as SOPA and PIPA – however, as Ammori notes, the fight is far from over.  In fact, it is just beginning.

“The freedom enabled by the Internet helps realize the values of human rights and also provides a lot of commercial opportunity for everyone,” said Craigslist.org Founder, Craig Newmark. “Marvin Ammori reminds us how important that is, and that we can’t take Internet freedom for granted, that we all need to stand up for each other.”

In “On Internet Freedom,” Ammori analyzes three case studies focusing on the freedom of users to connect with one another—the fight against copyright legislation (SOPA); the reactions to government officials pressuring private companies like PayPal and YouTube to silence speech by means of private “terms of service”; and the long pursuit of network neutrality and its importance to the connected future we will soon live in. Ammori walks the reader through the most important aspects of these struggles from the key arguments and the stakes at hand to the roles of critical players.

As Ammori argues, the Internet has and will continue to evolve, taking on a larger role in our democracy and economy and with that evolution comes the realization that our freedoms are under greater threat. SOPA and PIPA were misguided efforts by lawmakers and corporations to increase their control over the Internet by bending and shaping the laws, but these bills will not be the only ones of its kind. In light of this constant threat, everyday users must be willing to work together and jump into the political process at key moments to protect their own rights and ensure the Internet remains open and free.