Jewish World Review

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


Court refuses to block a disgruntled ex-worker from bombarding company's computers with thousands of electronic messages

http://www.jewishworldreview.com | (KRT) Putting a crimp in corporate efforts to police internal e-mail systems, a deeply divided California Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow Intel to block a disgruntled ex-worker from bombarding its computers with thousands of electronic messages critical of the chip giant's labor practices.

The Supreme Court broke new ground in Internet law by rejecting Intel's argument that it should have broad powers to exclude unwanted e-mail from its own computer systems, thus siding with ex-Intel employee Ken Hamidi in his long-running feud with one of Silicon Valley's most powerful businesses. The justices voted 4-3 to overturn lower court rulings, concluding that even in the age of relentless spam, there are limits on what a company can do to control what flows into its electronic property.

The ruling is unlikely to hamper efforts to curtail spam that peddles products because state laws address the subject and commercial speech enjoys less First Amendment protection than individual messages. But legal experts say the Intel decision places limits on applying traditional property rights to the digital age, forcing companies to overcome major free-speech hurdles if they want to freeze the mouse-clicking of message-senders like Hamidi.

The Supreme Court, noting Intel's desire to muzzle unwanted individual speech directed at its employees, found that the company simply failed to prove that Hamidi's e-mail messages harmed its property.

Donate to JWR

"He no more invaded Intel's property than does a protester holding a sign or shouting through a bullhorn outside corporate headquarters," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the majority.

In dissent, three justices warned that the ruling ignores the realities of the computer era and a company's right to control its property.

"His action," the dissenting justices wrote, "is more like intruding into a private office mailroom, commandeering the mail cart and dropping off unwanted broadsides on 30,000 desks."

Hamidi, now an employee with the state Franchise Tax Board in Sacramento, was "elated" by the ruling, saying if time permits, Intel employees may arrive to work this morning to a fresh batch of e-mails.

"I'm going to use that freedom to the max," said Hamidi, 56. "My intention was not to harm - my intention was to relay information people could benefit from."

Intel, meanwhile, is reviewing its legal options, weighing what it might do if Hamidi resumes his e-mail campaign and whether it can appeal the decision's huge business and free-speech implications to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We've never contested Hamidi's right to express his views," said Intel spokesman Chuck Molloy. "What we've always said is what this is about is Intel's property."

The legal dispute between Hamidi and Intel spilled into court in 1998, when he tested the limits of e-mail freedom by firing off anti-Intel messages to as many as 30,000 of the company's employees. Hamidi and Intel had already been sparring for years over his 1995 firing and a worker's-compensation conflict.

Intel struck back with a lawsuit, obtaining an injunction barring Hamidi from sending any more e-mail to Intel. A state appeals court upheld the injunction two years ago, but the Supreme Court overturned that ruling Monday. Throughout the court case, Hamidi has remained a thorn in Intel's side, setting up an anti-Intel Web site and at one point arriving on horseback to deliver a bushel of printed e-mails to the company's Santa Clara headquarters.

Intel's lawsuit rested on an age-old legal theory known as "trespass to chattels," which has governed private property rights for centuries. Courts have consistently held that property owners must prove they were harmed in order to establish a "trespass" on their rights, and that is where Intel got tripped up in the Supreme Court.

Intel maintained that Hamidi's e-mail harmed the company by flooding its servers with unwanted and distracting information. But the justices disagreed, noting that Intel could pursue other legal remedies against unwanted speech, such as suing for defamation or injury to its ability to conduct business. The justices also suggested the Legislature could fix the problem.

Free-speech advocates say the court set a crucial First Amendment balancing test. Mark Lemley, a law professor at University of California-Berkeley's Boalt Hall and a cyberlaw expert, said Internet service providers will still be able to stop spam that shuts down computer systems. But he said companies won't be able to use trespass laws "as a competitive weapon or a way to stop speech."

Added American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ann Brick, who supported Hamidi's position in the case, "They tried to use the power of the courts to shut him up. To the extent people try to interfere with the communication of information, it is going to be much harder to do."

The business community, however, expressed alarm at the ruling. Intel was backed in the case by a host of leading business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Intel's supporters have insisted a private company should be able to filter what it wants from its computer system.

"I'm dumbfounded," said Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor who wrote a brief in Intel's defense. "In an age in which spam is understood to be a terrible problem, why this type of message is regarded as less important just baffles the mind."

Appreciate this type of reporting? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.


Comment by clicking here.

Up

© 2003, San Jose Mercury News . Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services