Retired Forums > ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case

Oral Argument video for Chan v. Ellis Posted by Georgia Supreme Court

(1/3) > >>

Matthew Chan:
The video for the oral argument of Chan v. Ellis from October 7, 2014 has been posted by the GA Supreme Court.

http://www.gasupreme.us/media/oa/100714-S14A1652.php

This video spotlights our own Oscar Michelen, UCLA Law Professor/First Amendment Legal Scholar Eugene Volokh, Linda Ellis' lawyer Elizabeth W. McBride, and Getty Images outside counsel (and prominent lawyer hack) Timothy B. McCormack.

If you watch the entire 40-minute video (20 minutes for each argument side), I think it is self-evident who did the better job represent their respective sides.

==============

UPDATE (October 16, 2014): Because the Georgia Supreme Court takes down oral argument videos after 30-45 days, I have taken steps to preserve the video and have it hosted elsewhere. You can find the entire, uninterrupted 41-minute oral argument video along with its 5 individual video segments here:

http://defiantly.net/chan-v-ellis-georgia-supreme-court-oral-argument-videos/

Mulligan:
Matt, thanks for posting the video, which made for remarkable watching. I'm pretty cynical about the American judicial system, but I certainly felt that the justices on the court were in tune with our First Amendment rights as I understand them.

If the court doesn't downright reverse or dramatically amend the restrictions of the original decision in your favor, I'll be stunned.

Congratulations to Oscar and Eugene Volokh for their crystal clear presentations of your case and for so competently defending the First Amendment.

Peeved:
What I found particularly interesting was the mentioning of the pending Elonis case and how it relates to Matthew's case regarding what is perceived to be a "punishable true threat".

Eugene was very clear in his response. He stated that it is believed that statements made in Matthew's case are NOT "reasonably perceived as threatening". Also clear was Eugene's statement that even if the Justices disagree and decide that "some" statements could be perceived as reasonably threatening, ALL OTHER STATEMENTS are CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED".

Overbroad PPO? Just a tad IMHO.

Looking forward to a competent decision.

stinger:
Fingers and toes crossed, Peeved.

Matthew Chan:
Mulligan,

We found the comments, remarks, and questions from the Justices quite enlightening. However, I have a healthy amount of caution where the legal is concerned. Whatever the final outcome, I can safely say that I had an excellent and impressive legal and support team.  We are making legal history in the area of Internet free speech in Georgia and beyond. This case will be permanently in the legal record books and will guide the direction of Internet free speech for website owners in Georgia for years to come.

It has been an interesting journey and the scope, coverage, and impact of this case continues to expand outwards in ways we never anticipated. New friends, supporter, and allies have come from very unexpected places. It has been a tremendous team effort to get this far.

We are fighting a battle on behalf of all website owners in Georgia to allow underdogs to speak out against and passionately criticize those that would use misleading legal threats and tactics as part of their arsenal.

Website owners and Internet businesses in the other 49 states will be closely watching the outcome of this case to see if a local court is allowed to entirely and permanently silence and eliminate thousands of messages from any website written by scores of people by way of a stalking order against someone who had never met or contacted the plaintiff.

It has been and will continue to be an interesting journey...


--- Quote from: Mulligan on October 09, 2014, 04:29:53 PM ---Matt, thanks for posting the video, which made for remarkable watching. I'm pretty cynical about the American judicial system, but I certainly felt that the justices on the court were in tune with our First Amendment rights as I understand them.

If the court doesn't downright reverse or dramatically amend the restrictions of the original decision in your favor, I'll be stunned.

Congratulations to Oscar and Eugene Volokh for their crystal clear presentations of your case and for so competently defending the First Amendment.

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page