老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina, 老澳门开奖结果, and NAACP Represent SC NAACP in Lawsuit Challenging South Carolina Court System Ban on Automated Collection of Public Court Records
COLUMBIA, S.C. 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina, and the NAACP filed a lawsuit today on behalf of the South Carolina NAACP. The case challenges South Carolina Court Administration鈥檚 categorical ban on automated data collection 鈥� known as 鈥渟craping鈥� 鈥� on the Public Index, arguing that the ban is an unreasonable restriction on SC NAACP鈥檚 right to access and record public court records under the First Amendment.
South Carolina is in the midst of an eviction crisis, and the South Carolina NAACP seeks to timely identify tenants in need of services before they are removed from their homes. The challenged ban has impaired South Carolina NAACP鈥檚 ability to access and record publicly available housing court records that would, if available, enable it to assist tenants at risk of eviction.
Scraping is a legitimate method of collecting information online that is often necessary to efficiently and systematically gather records that might not otherwise be possible to record. The lawsuit asserts that the South Carolina Court Administration is violating the First Amendment by prohibiting scraping of its court docket information, which is already publicly available online.
鈥淚n the midst of South Carolina鈥檚 housing crisis, the SC NAACP is working diligently to ensure the people of South Carolina are safe from displacement,鈥� said Brenda Murphy, president of the NAACP South Carolina State Conference of Branches. 鈥淥ur ability to automatically gather eviction filings across the state can help mitigate a housing crisis that falls most heavily on Black tenants. The refusal to allow the State Conference to gather this information, even though it is already public, directly harms the people of South Carolina.鈥�
The South Carolina NAACP seeks to scrape information from the Public Index, the county-by-county repository of legal filings in the state of South Carolina, in order to identify tenants in need of support to fight eviction cases and conduct systematic research into patterns of eviction filings, including potential Fair Housing Act violations. However, South Carolina鈥檚 Public Index employs terms of service and technical limitations that categorically prohibit scraping. Attorneys practicing in South Carolina can be subject to disciplinary action for violating the Public Index鈥檚 terms of service.
鈥淢odern American courts churn out case filings at a rate unimaginable to our Founders,鈥� notes Allen Chaney, legal director for the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina. 鈥淔or the public to have a meaningful discussion about the role our courts play in matters of public concern, the right to use noninvasive technical means to capture public court information must be protected. This case is about ensuring core First Amendment principles, like the right to access public court filings, are applied in a way that meets our rapidly expanding digital reality.鈥�
This challenge to South Carolina鈥檚 court system ban aims to support scraping and other legitimate research and journalism techniques that can further housing justice by empowering advocacy groups like the South Carolina NAACP to assist tenants and investigate discriminatory housing practices.
鈥淭he First Amendment protects the NAACP鈥檚 right to use digital-era methods of recording public docket information that is available to any internet user,鈥� said Esha Bhandari, deputy project director of the 老澳门开奖结果 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淪craping is often a necessary method of gathering public data efficiently, permitting systemic research to hold powerful actors accountable.鈥�
The data that the South Carolina NAACP wants to gather is already made available online to the public via South Carolina courts, and is limited, consisting of the name and address of a tenant facing eviction. This information would allow the South Carolina NAACP to contact tenants to provide free eviction prevention services and is also necessary to continue the research and advocacy efforts of the South Carolina NAACP鈥檚 new Housing Navigator program and its branches around the state.
The lawsuit argues that the prohibition on scraping the Public Index violates the First Amendment, including because it restricts the right to record public information and the right of access to judicial records. The lawsuit builds on the arguments made in a previous 老澳门开奖结果 case, Sandvig v. Barr, that successfully challenged an application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that would have prohibited online research techniques such as scraping. It also builds on the 老澳门开奖结果's work supporting the use of eviction records to expose the racial and gendered impact of evictions across the country and challenge discriminatory housing practices.
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NAACP v. Kohn
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NAACP v. Kohn
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.