Ashok Chandra | Bloomberg Law Doe v. Jindal, No. 11-CV-00554, 2011 BL 216243 (M.D. La. Aug. 19, 2011) The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied a plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") to enjoin the implementation of La. R.S. § 14:91.5, the Unlawful Use or Access of Social Media Law, a law that plaintiff alleged would curtail his ability to use the Internet. The court found that a successful action aimed at the defendants, the attorney general and the governor of Louisiana, would not provide plaintiff with the relief he sought.
Louisiana Passes Social Media LawLouisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed La. R.S. § 14:91.5 into law on June 14, 2011. Under the law, registered sex offenders, who have been convicted of crimes involving minors, are prevented from "using or accessing . . . social networking websites, chat rooms, and peer to peer networks." La. R.S. § 14:91.5(A)(1). The court noted that the Act fails to define "use" and "access." The law, however, bars sex offenders who have been convicted of crimes from accessing "social networking websites," which are websites with the capability to "[a]llow users to create web pages or profiles about themselves that are available to the general public or to other users" and "[o]ffer a mechanism for communication among users, such as a forum, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messaging." Jindal at 2 (citing La. R.S. § 14:91.5(c)(4)). Plaintiff, a registered sex offender, asserted that the statute "not only bans affected registrants from Facebook and MySpace, but also 'make[s] it a felony for registrants to browse the rest of the Internet.'" Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleged that he would not be able to access numerous popular websites because they "offer a mechanism for communication among users," offer content forwarding, and allow users to place comments. See La. R.S. § 14:91.5(C)(3)(b). Under the Act, plaintiff contended that he would lose his job because he would no longer be able to work as a computer repair technician, he would have to delete his Veterans Association online profile, he would no longer be able to communicate with friends and family through his Gmail account, and he would have to disable his blog. Plaintiff named Governor Jindal and the Louisiana Attorney General James D. Caldwell as defendants and filed a motion for a TRO, asserting that the Unlawful Use or Access of Social Media Law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Attorney General and Governor Do Not Enforce the LawThe court observed that injunctive relief "should only be granted when the movant has clearly carried the burden of persuasion." Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). To demonstrate that a TRO is necessary, a movant must show: (1) a likelihood that he will prevail on the merits; (2) that he will suffer irreparable injury if an injunction is not granted; (3) that the injury to him is greater than the harm the injunction may cause the defendant; and (4) granting the TRO would "not disserve the public interest." Jindal at 4 (citing Holland American Insurance Co. v. Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985)). The Fifth Circuit has noted that to demonstrate a case or controversy sufficient to give a federal court jurisdiction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffered an "injury in fact" connected to the defendant's conduct, and that "the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405, 425 (5th Cir. 2001). The court observed that plaintiff named only the governor and attorney general of Louisiana as defendants. While plaintiff asserted that the governor of Louisiana was responsible for the law, the court noted that "plaintiff has not directed the Court to any provision of Louisiana law that empowers the governor to provide the relief plaintiff seeks through the present motion." Jindal at 5. Plaintiff also argued that the attorney general of Louisiana was responsible for the enforcement of the law in Louisiana. However, the court observed that the attorney general "does not have original jurisdiction to prosecute criminal cases," and "any involvement the Attorney General might have in prosecuting cases under the statute is indirect and remote." Entertainment Software Association v. Foti, 451 F. Supp. 2d 823, 828 (M.D. La. 2006). The court thus concluded that neither the governor nor the attorney general has the power to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights, and consequently, that plaintiff failed to prove that the court could redress his alleged harm through a motion for a TRO.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).