|
I read about this case in a "weird news" column. It's amusing, but I
didn't understand the legal reasoning, which seems to hinge on whether
Google is a "state actor."
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/02/third_circuit_s.htm
I know a judge can't say "the plaintiff is a loon," but could someone
please explain what's going on?
Thanks!
--Cliff
|
| |
| |
Cliff,
I read about this case in a "weird news" column. It's amusing, but I
didn't understand the legal reasoning, which seems to hinge on whether
Google is a "state actor."
The URL you supplied des not answer your question. It just supplies a
brief quote. A fuller quote might make clear what the court is trying to
say.
But here's a guess. The complaint perhaps hinges on whether Google is the
government, or is under the control of the government, or works for the
government, et c. I suspect that to be a State actor means something like
the preceding sentence and that the plaintiff's case falls apart if Google
is a private entity not working for the State.
Good luck,
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 28, 7:21 am, hcbowman <hcbow...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read about this case in a "weird news" column. It's amusing, but I
didn't understand the legal reasoning, which seems to hinge on whether
Google is a "state actor."
The US Constitution prohibits the federal government, and the various
States, from doing certain things that infringe on individual rights
guaranteed by it. The Constitution does _not_ prohibit private
persons from doing such things unless they are acting under color of
law, which would make them "state actors" acting on behalf of the
state.
It's more complicated than that to actually reach a decision, of
course, but that's the gist of it.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
|
| |
| |
hcbowman wrote:
I read about this case in a "weird news" column. It's amusing, but I
didn't understand the legal reasoning, which seems to hinge on whether
Google is a "state actor."
A state actor is someone acting on behalf of the State. Constitutional
issues often depend on them. If you read the Bill of Rights, you'll see
it restricts governmental actions and often says nothing about
individual actions. Frex, the first amendment restricts Congress from
making laws restricting speech but does not restrict a company from
demanding you sign an NDA as a condition of employment.
-paul
ianal
|
| |
| |
hcbowman wrote:
I read about this case in a "weird news" column. It's amusing, but I
didn't understand the legal reasoning, which seems to hinge on whether
Google is a "state actor."
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/02/third_circuit_s.htm
I know a judge can't say "the plaintiff is a loon," but could someone
please explain what's going on?
Basically 42 USC 1983 (the part of the US code that the plaintiff
claimed was violated) says that if you violate someone else's rights and
do so as an agent of the state (or making it look like you were an agent
of the state,) then you broke that law.
I.e. if a cop beat you silly while in uniform, he was in violation. If
I, a non-cop, but on a uniform and beat you silly, I'd be in violation
of that law (because I made it look like I was a cop.) But if the cop
got into a bar fight with you while off duty and didn't say he was a
cop, didn't flash a badge, etc. then he didn't violate THAT law (but may
have broken some state assault and battery law.)
Google wasn't acting as an agent for the state in any way, thus the ruling.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 28, 7:21=A0am, hcbowman <hcbow...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read about this case in a "weird news" column. =A0It's amusing, but I
didn't understand the legal reasoning, which seems to hinge on whether
Google is a "state actor."
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/02/third_circuit_s.htm
I know a judge can't say "the plaintiff is a loon," but could someone
please explain what's going on?
Thanks!
--Cliff
A "state actor" means the government of the United States or a state,
or an agency or department thereof. This guy had brought a suit under
a law that says if someone deprives you of your federal constitutional
or statutory rights "under color of state law", you can sue them.
Google is a private corporation, not an agency of any state
government. So this law does not apply to them.
|
| |
| |
hcbowman <hcbowman@gmail.com> wrote in
news:43lpu3hrn3ri5cmgcjjob0l4r6g5jccsvb@4ax.com:
I read about this case in a "weird news" column. It's amusing, but I
didn't understand the legal reasoning, which seems to hinge on whether
Google is a "state actor."
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/02/third_circuit_s.htm
I know a judge can't say "the plaintiff is a loon," but could someone
please explain what's going on?
Thanks!
--Cliff
The plaintiff sued Google under 42USC1983 for deprivation of his civil
rights, claiming that his SSN when suitably viewed spelled "Google."
But under 42USC1983, only the gov can be sued for depriving someone of his
civil rights. Thus the plaintiff could sue only government officials (or
those acting on their behalf, i.e., state actors) for the performance of
their duties. Google is a private entity.
|
| |
| |
In article <43lpu3hrn3ri5cmgcjjob0l4r6g5jccsvb@4ax.com>,
hcbowman <hcbowman@gmail.com> wrote:
I read about this case in a "weird news" column. It's amusing, but I
didn't understand the legal reasoning, which seems to hinge on whether
Google is a "state actor."
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/02/third_circuit_s.htm
I know a judge can't say "the plaintiff is a loon," but could someone
please explain what's going on?
The first hit on a Google search for "state actor" would have answered
your question.
"A state actor is a term used in U.S. civil rights law to describe a
person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore
subject to regulation under the U.S. Bill of Rights including the First,
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state
governments from violating certain rights and freedoms."
--
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"They bury your dreams and dig up the worthless/Goodnight/God bless/And
kiss goodbye to the earth/The other side of summer"
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:21:24 -0400, hcbowman <hcbowman@gmail.com>
wrote:
I read about this case in a "weird news" column. It's amusing, but I
didn't understand the legal reasoning, which seems to hinge on whether
Google is a "state actor."
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/02/third_circuit_s.htm
I know a judge can't say "the plaintiff is a loon," but could someone
please explain what's going on?
As the court explains, one of the requirements for a 1983 action is
that the defendant act under color of state law (a state actor).
Normally, a properly named defendant is an employee of a government.
Google is a private sector company and doesn't act on behalf of any
government.
|
| |
| |
David L. Martel wrote:
Cliff,
The URL you supplied des not answer your question. It just supplies a
brief quote. A fuller quote might make clear what the court is trying to
say.
The actual opinion was linked to in the 2nd paragraph of the blog entry.
Simple enough to find.
|
| |
| |
|
