Federal Judge Rules That a Ban on Automated Data Collection Could Violate the First Amendment
COLUMBIA, S.C. 鈥� In an important victory, a federal judge in South Carolina ruled that a case to lift the categorical ban on automated data collection of online court records 鈥� known as "scraping" 鈥� can move forward. The case claims the ban violates the First Amendment.
The decision came in NAACP v. Kohn, a lawsuit filed by the 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina, and the NAACP on behalf of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. The lawsuit asserts that the Court Administration's blanket ban on scraping the Public Index 鈥� the state鈥檚 repository of court filings 鈥� violates the First Amendment by restricting access to, and use of, public information, and prohibiting recording public information in ways that enable subsequent speech and advocacy. The South Carolina NAACP seeks to scrape online housing court records so that it can identify tenants who have had eviction actions filed against them, to help them fight those eviction actions, and conduct statewide advocacy.
鈥淭he district court properly recognized that a categorical prohibition on scraping public court records implicates the First Amendment,鈥� Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said. 鈥淪craping is often a necessary method of gathering public data efficiently, and enabling digital-era research and journalism in the public interest.鈥�
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 manually collect. The district court held that the South Carolina NAACP has plausibly alleged a claim that the Court Administration鈥檚 ban violates the First Amendment by prohibiting scraping of its court docket information, which is already publicly available online.
The ban on scraping impairs the South Carolina NAACP鈥檚 ability to prevent evictions and help people achieve meaningful access to the courts. In South Carolina, failure to request a hearing within 10 days of a filing can result in a default judgement of eviction.
鈥淭he eviction crisis is ravaging South Carolina,鈥� warned Allen Chaney, legal director of the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is an important step towards ensuring that the NAACP鈥檚 housing programs have access to the public court records they need to advocate for the thousands of renters facing displacement across our state.鈥�
Responding to the eviction crisis and its consequences for South Carolina鈥檚 tenants, the South Carolina NAACP launched a number of initiatives, including a Housing Navigator Program in February 2021 that provides free eviction-prevention services, investigates and responds to community-wide patterns of eviction filings, and advocates greater access to fair housing and more just eviction policies, including through Fair Housing Act litigation.
鈥淲e brought this case to make sure that the South Carolina NAACP has the information we need to reach out to and help tenants who are on the verge of being evicted,鈥� Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling moves us toward a future in which we鈥檙e able to use court records to inform tenants in our state of their rights and, over time, advocate for fairer and more just eviction-related laws to protect these tenants.鈥�
鈥淐ourt records are fundamental to our understanding of our legal system鈥攁nd to our ability to help people moving through it,鈥� Joe Schottenfeld, assistant general counsel of the NAACP, said. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling makes it clear that the First Amendment protects our ability to access those records through relatively new techniques, like data scraping, that can expand our ability to process, understand, and use the records. Today is a huge step forward toward ensuring that the NAACP can do what it does best: reach and help people.鈥�
This case was filed in March 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia division.
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.