[IP] more on Followup to story about VW threat of litigation
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul Levy <plevy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: January 19, 2006 3:00:45 PM EST
To: Michael.Kende@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FW: [IP] Followup to story about VW threat of litigation
Your inquiry reflects a common misunderstanding about how the First
Amendment comes into play in situations like this.
VW is a private actor, and if they refused to sell Stewart a car
because they don't like his drawings -- or because the person has
used their trademarks in his drawings -- the First Amendment does not
come into play. But when VW asks a court to do something about Mr.
Stewqart's drawings, it is asking a government entity to exercise
its government power to interfere with his activity, and it is the
court's actions that are governed by the First Amendment.
That is why, for example, the First Amendment limits libel suits in
which only damages are sought (New York Times v Sullvan), and why it
prevents merchants from getting injunctions against leaflets urging
others not to do business with the merchant (for example,
Organization for a Better Austin v Keefe)
Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation
"Michael Kende" <Michael.Kende@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 1/19/2006 2:47 PM >>>
Paul,
Thanks for passing this on - I would have had the same reaction as
Mr.Stewart.
Just as a point of curiosity however, does the First Amendment cover the
rights in this case, where the government is not trying to restrict
speech? In other words, how does the First Amendment apply to cases
between private parties (artist/trademark holder; employee/employer,
etc.).
Thanks,
Michael
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/