Email Is Free Speech, Not Trespass
When former Intel employee Ken Hamidi sent email messages to Intel employees complaining about the company's allegedly unfair labor practices, Intel brought suit. The company won an injunction on a "trespass to chattels" theory, arguing that Hamidi's emails had harmed Intel's computers. EFF stepped in to protect Hamidi's First Amendment rights, arguing in a friend-of-the-court brief that there was no evidence to suggest that his email had threatened the integrity of Intel's systems. The California Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the tort of trespass to chattels does not encompass, and should not be extended to encompass, email communications.
Files in this Archive
- California Supreme Court Sides With Email Pamphleteer (June 30, 2003)
- California Supreme Court Hears Email Pamphleteer Case (April 2, 2003)
- Amicus brief filed in support of Hamidi
- California Supreme Court Reviews E-mail Pamphleteer Case (March 27, 2002)
- EFF Urges CA Supreme Court to Review E-mail Pamphleteer Case (February 1, 2002)
- EFF letter of amicus curiae to the California Supreme Court urging close review and reversal of state appellate court decision upholding Intel's bogus "trespass to chattels" theory for silencing critic's email; in Intel v. Hamidi. (February 1, 2002)
- California Court Decides E-mail Pamphleteer Case (December 11, 2001)
- EFF analysis of Trespass to Chattels legal theory as applied to the Internet in Intel v. Hamidi (December 18, 2001)
- Decision of the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal in Intel v. Hamidi. (PDF - December 11, 2001)
- The amicus brief of The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposing Intel's trespass to chattels theory. (January 18, 2000)
- Preliminary injunction against defendant Ken Hamidi, in Intel v. Hamidi, preventing him from sending any unsolicited e-mail to Intel. EFF believes this order is flawed in at least two ways: a) it does not make any distinction between Hamidi-sent junkmail, and legitimate mail that Hamidi might need to send to e-mail (i.e. a tech support question about an Intel product); and b) the order fails to clarify why it is being issued, such that it makes no distinction betwee Intel, which has a special employer relationship with its users (Intel can legally be said to be the end recipient, giving it special rights) on the one hand, and a general public ISP on the other, which could set an overbroad precedent giving ISPs untoward control over their user's incoming e-mail. (November 24, 1998)
