{"id":505,"date":"2017-10-27T10:50:20","date_gmt":"2017-10-27T15:50:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=505"},"modified":"2018-09-25T12:25:59","modified_gmt":"2018-09-25T17:25:59","slug":"doe-v-harris-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/10\/27\/doe-v-harris-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. Harris (9th Cir. 2014)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><strong><strong>Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2014)<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case:\u00a0<\/strong><\/strong>Federal civil appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of California statute which required that registrants provide state authorities with a list of internet identifiers and service providers used, and to notify of any changes within 24 hours (\u201cCASE Act\u201d).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:\u00a0<\/strong>Court held that the act imposed a substantial burden to engage in legitimate online speech, under intermediate scrutiny, that the act was not narrowly tailored and unnecessarily chills speech in three ways: it does not make clear what the reporting requirements are, there are insufficient safeguards preventing the public release of what is required, and the 24-hour reporting requirement is onerous and overbroad.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/doe-v-harris-opinion.pdf\">9th Circuit Opinion<\/a>\u00a0| view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=18128670494672257916&amp;q=Doe+v.+Harris,+772+F.3d+563+(9th+Cir.+2014).%0A&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000003\">Google Scholar<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/Brief-of-Defendant-Appellant.pdf\">Brief of Defendant-Appellant<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2017\/10\/ex-parte-app-for-TRO.pdf\">Ex Parte Application for TRO<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.prisonlegalnews.org\/news\/2014\/dec\/3\/ninth-circuit-affirms-preliminary-injunction-challenge-californias-case-act\/\">Ninth Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction in Challenge to California\u2019s CASE Act | Prison Legal News<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/cases\/doe-v-harris\/\">Doe v. Harris &#8211; Global Freedom of Expression<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Federal civil rights case declaring unconstitutional provisions of California law that required registrants to disclose internet identifiers used and report any changes to them. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2017\/10\/27\/doe-v-harris-2013\/\" class=\"more-link\">Doe v. Harris (9th Cir. 2014)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":242,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[14,42,18],"class_list":{"0":"post-505","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-1st-amendment","8":"tag-9th-cir","9":"tag-internet-identifiers","10":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/242"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}