Intel v. Hamidi Oral Arguments

www.sorehands.com writes "This morning, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Intel v. Hamidi. This is a case where Ken Hamidi, an ex-employee of Intel build a website that complained of Intel's employment practices and sent emails to all of Intel's employees. Intel tried to block Hamidi's emails, then Intel filed a lawsuit for several claims including tresspass to chattel." ess' to the server and the first ammendment." Read on below for a few more notes from Mr. Hands about the Hamidi case (mentioned on Slashdot a few times before). Update: 04/03 00:56 GMT by T : That should be "Hamidi" throughout, not "Hamibi."

"Intel argued that Hamidi's sending the email disturbed the employees and interfered with their business. causing lost productivity.

Hamidi argued that Intel only complained because the the content. That Intel dropped the nuisance claim because Intel would have had to argue the content and that Intel could not file a libel claim, where did not dispute the truth of the statements in the email or the website.

This case will set the lines of control for one's own servers. From the spammer's claims that if you are on the internet, they have full rights to hijack servers and fill your mailbox with viagra offers, to the ability of an ex-friend filing a lawsuit when you asked for the $20 that they borrowed.

I spoke with Hamidi, and he takes the position that if you have email, then you are agreeing to accept non-commercial email because of the 'public access' to the server and the first ammendment."

Comments

Google Cache

[Anonymous Coward]

No Whoring


http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:T-SJezZJTO8C: www.faceintel.com/+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Re:Freedom of "speach"

[www.sorehands.com]

I'm affraid that If Itel looses it will further open the floodgates on spam.

That is not true. The court will not just say, "Yes" or "No." What the court will do is to draw a lines as to what is permissible. Hamidi's case is based on freedom of speech and first amendment, which provides greater protection for non-commercial speech than comercial speech. The other issue that was mentioned earler in the case (not argued yesterday -- though I suggested arguing it to him) is that his speech is protected by statute under the various anti-discrimination and unionization laws.

Re:I agree with you... but....

[www.sorehands.com]

The issue here is not the permission to use Intel's property, but the reason for requesting him to stop.

Generally, an employer may terminate an employee for any reason, EXCEPT an illegal reason. Similar applies to public accomodations. Here, you have Intel (ex-employer) banning Hamibi from sending email to Intel's employees but not banning others from sending email though servers to Intel's employees. This was done specifically because Hamibi was engaging in a protected act, complaining of discrimination, wage&hour violations. One is not required to file a lawsuit to be protected by the anti-retaliation laws.