From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
UC threatens lawsuit - wants Stop Cal Vivisection site removed
UC tries to squash first amendment rights in an effort to keep their animal research secretive.
So a message concerning our website (http://www.pixelexdesign.com/stopcalvivisection) was received on May 7th from Dreamhost because they were contacted by officials of UC Berkeley, saying that the page for the new lab and the vivisector pages have to be taken down. Dreamhost actually responded to them asking about what legal issues there were with the site, and the UC used some old court decision to justify it to dreamhost. they also stated they want all of that info taken down by 10 a.m. pacific time monday morning or else they will 'refer to their legal counsel'
Response to Dreamhost:
"Hi, we did just read the May 7th email. i would like to thank you for contacting them, and then contacting me about this issue, because the last site the campaign had up (on freewebs.com) was taken down with no warning whatsoever.
However, I do have some issues with the UC's argument on why the information should be taken down. pixelexdesign.com has put up this information as part of the campaign against the animal research at UC Berkeley so people can express their concerns in a legal manner and exercise their First Amendment right to protest at the workplaces and homes of the individuals conducting the research. We realize that the issue is mainly because of home addresses of the researchers being posted, but demonstrating at the homes of researchers (while staying within all local ordinances) is not meant to harass or intimidate any researcher or their families.
To quote the message from UC Berkeley: "The posting of such personal and work location information in this context clearly endangers these members of our academic community and associated individuals." This is a point on which we disagree, because we do not see how the posting of this information "clearly endangers" the researchers, especially since they have received legal demonstrations at ther homes and workplaces, which are not meant to endanger them in any way. The only thing the campaign against the animal research at UC Berkeley has endangered is the secrecy of these highly questionable experiments, and it is clearly evident that the UC does not like this exposure and is therefore using anything they can to stop the campaign.
It also appears they are attempting to distort current legislation to get the information taken down. in their message they referenced "Government Code section 6254.21" as a reason the information should be taken down and stated that it "protects public officials, such as University employees, and their families from the possibility of intimidation and harassment in their private homes". I have read that Code right off of the http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org website and while I do see it makes a clear reference to public officials such as attorneys and judges, I would be very interested to hear how UC Berkeley stretches the Code to cover University employees. However, in part G of section 6254.24 (section 6254.21 tells the reader to go to this section to see the definition of public safety official), it does define a public safety official as a "Nonsworn employee who supervises inmates in a...local detention facility" though. Perhaps UC Berkeley is using this definition as proof that the Code covers the researchers, as they imprison, supervise and then kill 40,000 animals every year. While it appears I am being sarcastic in stating this, if it was that wording that UC Berkeley is using to cover researchers, I would like to see them publicly announce and defend that.
I also have read the information UC Berkeley sent on "Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists (9th Cir.
2002) 290 F.3d 1058, 1074." and have quoted one section and responded to it below the quote.
"Alleged threats should be considered in light of their entire factual context, including the surrounding events and reaction of the listeners. Id. at 1075. Thus, where posting information about individuals has had the effect of inciting violence or harm, subsequent posting can be an unlawful, unprotected threat. Id. at 1079. Those are exactly the circumstances here. University of California faculty and staff whose names and home addresses have been posted have been subject to attacks, vandalism, home invasions, and even targeted for bombings."
I do not see how those are 'exactly' the circumstances, because according to news reports, while criminal acts have targeted researchers at other UC branches, most notably UCLA with attempted bombings of property and what has been apparently deemed as a home invasion against a UC Santa Cruz researcher (although according to news reports, this was an attempted home invasion and no activists stepped foot inside the home), the type of activity promoted by the campaign against UC Berkeley is legal. While the illegal actions they referred to were related to the University of California, it appears the UC is attempting to use those events to justify the removal of information of researchers at the entirely different branch of the University of California, UC Berkeley. The home addresses and the other information in question on the site is only of UC Berkeley researchers, not researchers at other University of California branches.
If they are still demanding the information is taken down because of these apparent legal issues with it, perhaps a disclaimer could be added to the website specifically stating that the information is provided for legal use only, because it has been for legal use only since day one.
once again, thank you for your time on this issue. I look forward to your response,"
Response to Dreamhost:
"Hi, we did just read the May 7th email. i would like to thank you for contacting them, and then contacting me about this issue, because the last site the campaign had up (on freewebs.com) was taken down with no warning whatsoever.
However, I do have some issues with the UC's argument on why the information should be taken down. pixelexdesign.com has put up this information as part of the campaign against the animal research at UC Berkeley so people can express their concerns in a legal manner and exercise their First Amendment right to protest at the workplaces and homes of the individuals conducting the research. We realize that the issue is mainly because of home addresses of the researchers being posted, but demonstrating at the homes of researchers (while staying within all local ordinances) is not meant to harass or intimidate any researcher or their families.
To quote the message from UC Berkeley: "The posting of such personal and work location information in this context clearly endangers these members of our academic community and associated individuals." This is a point on which we disagree, because we do not see how the posting of this information "clearly endangers" the researchers, especially since they have received legal demonstrations at ther homes and workplaces, which are not meant to endanger them in any way. The only thing the campaign against the animal research at UC Berkeley has endangered is the secrecy of these highly questionable experiments, and it is clearly evident that the UC does not like this exposure and is therefore using anything they can to stop the campaign.
It also appears they are attempting to distort current legislation to get the information taken down. in their message they referenced "Government Code section 6254.21" as a reason the information should be taken down and stated that it "protects public officials, such as University employees, and their families from the possibility of intimidation and harassment in their private homes". I have read that Code right off of the http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org website and while I do see it makes a clear reference to public officials such as attorneys and judges, I would be very interested to hear how UC Berkeley stretches the Code to cover University employees. However, in part G of section 6254.24 (section 6254.21 tells the reader to go to this section to see the definition of public safety official), it does define a public safety official as a "Nonsworn employee who supervises inmates in a...local detention facility" though. Perhaps UC Berkeley is using this definition as proof that the Code covers the researchers, as they imprison, supervise and then kill 40,000 animals every year. While it appears I am being sarcastic in stating this, if it was that wording that UC Berkeley is using to cover researchers, I would like to see them publicly announce and defend that.
I also have read the information UC Berkeley sent on "Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists (9th Cir.
2002) 290 F.3d 1058, 1074." and have quoted one section and responded to it below the quote.
"Alleged threats should be considered in light of their entire factual context, including the surrounding events and reaction of the listeners. Id. at 1075. Thus, where posting information about individuals has had the effect of inciting violence or harm, subsequent posting can be an unlawful, unprotected threat. Id. at 1079. Those are exactly the circumstances here. University of California faculty and staff whose names and home addresses have been posted have been subject to attacks, vandalism, home invasions, and even targeted for bombings."
I do not see how those are 'exactly' the circumstances, because according to news reports, while criminal acts have targeted researchers at other UC branches, most notably UCLA with attempted bombings of property and what has been apparently deemed as a home invasion against a UC Santa Cruz researcher (although according to news reports, this was an attempted home invasion and no activists stepped foot inside the home), the type of activity promoted by the campaign against UC Berkeley is legal. While the illegal actions they referred to were related to the University of California, it appears the UC is attempting to use those events to justify the removal of information of researchers at the entirely different branch of the University of California, UC Berkeley. The home addresses and the other information in question on the site is only of UC Berkeley researchers, not researchers at other University of California branches.
If they are still demanding the information is taken down because of these apparent legal issues with it, perhaps a disclaimer could be added to the website specifically stating that the information is provided for legal use only, because it has been for legal use only since day one.
once again, thank you for your time on this issue. I look forward to your response,"
For more information:
http://www.pixelexdesign.com/stopcalvivise...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I'm not a lawyer and haven't looked at any court decisions around this law but it sounds like you're within your rights. You might even want to find an attorney to slap UCB with an injunction, if possible :)
There are many things that animal rights campaigners do that I can understand and sympathize with. But I think you're crossing a line when you publish private addresses.
We should remember that anti-abortion activists also published private addresses of clinic workers. And these were used to threaten and attack (sometimes fatally) those workers. You claim this is not to endanger vivisection workers, but do you really mean to demonstrate in residential neighborhoods? All you'll do is annoy their neighbors. I also doubt you will gain sympathy from the general public by publishing these addresses or demonstrating in residential neighborhoods.
Since it has gone this far, I don't know if it is too late, but it seems like you could have avoided this simply by eliding the addresses. This is a line which you didn't need to cross and which you have gained nothing by crossing. I am disappointed.
We should remember that anti-abortion activists also published private addresses of clinic workers. And these were used to threaten and attack (sometimes fatally) those workers. You claim this is not to endanger vivisection workers, but do you really mean to demonstrate in residential neighborhoods? All you'll do is annoy their neighbors. I also doubt you will gain sympathy from the general public by publishing these addresses or demonstrating in residential neighborhoods.
Since it has gone this far, I don't know if it is too late, but it seems like you could have avoided this simply by eliding the addresses. This is a line which you didn't need to cross and which you have gained nothing by crossing. I am disappointed.
For more information:
http://benfell.livejournal.com/
Read the replies from DreamHost.
Attempted murder of an antifascist
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839847.shtml
The red watch dot info site is no longer hosted by DH.
2cents: Take down the home addresses and continue the campaign.
Attempted murder of an antifascist
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839847.shtml
The red watch dot info site is no longer hosted by DH.
2cents: Take down the home addresses and continue the campaign.
For more information:
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839847...
I haven't decided whether I agree with you, but I'm certain you can keep you site up.
You have heard of "wikipedia.be",
which used to be "wikipedia.org"
until it was taken down BY A JUDGE IN THE US. ahem.
You really need to know who is monitoring your site
- and block them from accessing it.
UC is a legal bully - but in this case you might only need to move to another state. Dreamhost is in California. That might be your problem.
You quote state and local laws, and they haven't "made a federal case of this", which would be more costly for them to initiate.
- DR
You have heard of "wikipedia.be",
which used to be "wikipedia.org"
until it was taken down BY A JUDGE IN THE US. ahem.
You really need to know who is monitoring your site
- and block them from accessing it.
UC is a legal bully - but in this case you might only need to move to another state. Dreamhost is in California. That might be your problem.
You quote state and local laws, and they haven't "made a federal case of this", which would be more costly for them to initiate.
- DR
For more information:
http://electromagnet.us/mirrors/
"You have heard of "wikipedia.be", which used to be "wikipedia.org" until it was taken down BY A JUDGE IN THE US. ahem."
you mean wikileaks.be and wikileaks.org.
Feb 18: San Francisco Judge Orders Wikileaks.org Offline
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/18/18480052.php
Feb 29: Wikileaks.org Is Back, Judge Dissolves Injunction
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/29/18482701.php
you mean wikileaks.be and wikileaks.org.
Feb 18: San Francisco Judge Orders Wikileaks.org Offline
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/18/18480052.php
Feb 29: Wikileaks.org Is Back, Judge Dissolves Injunction
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/29/18482701.php
"CODEPINK Women for Peace has held an all-day week long vigil in front of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Pacific Heights home in San Francisco. During the vigil, they urged Speaker Pelosi not to give the President another blank check to sustain the war in Iraq."
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/04/18496888.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/04/18496888.php
no info, just hyperbole.
"hey let's try to stir up a bunch of anger, rather than doing analysis!"
"hey let's try to stir up a bunch of anger, rather than doing analysis!"
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network