Florida City Ignores All Legal Precedent As It Attempts To Silence & Identify Mild Critic

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

Florida. It's always Florida. Last time it was the city of Tamarac, Florida making bogus trademark claims to try to silence a blogger. And this time, it's the city of Coral Gables (basically a part of Miami). Apparently the powers that be in Coral Gables are not fans of free speech if it involves people disagreeing with their decisions. And thus, they're willing to send completely bogus threat letters to Facebook to silence anonymous critics, followed up by filing a lawsuit against Facebook to identify them.

I first came across this story thanks to Alfred Spellman, who pointed me to an article by Jessica Lipscomb about the city suing Facebook, and there have been similar stories in the Miami Herald as well. Reading those stories still left me scratching my head a bit, and part of the issue (again!) is Florida. So I've tracked down the full complaint and also emailed the city attorney filing the lawsuit with questions, as I discuss below.

But first, let's back up and explain what's happening. Recently, the city decided to hire private unarmed security guards, which has created some controversy, especially with the local police who aren't happy about these interlopers. So it shouldn't have been that surprising that someone started posting on Instagram and Facebook criticizing the city. From the Miami Herald:

In May, groups called Protect Coral Gables and "Coral Gables residents who care" posted a video on Facebook and Instagram that shows one girl attacking another, knocking her to the ground, then kicking her and stomping on her head. Three men in vests marked “security” watch but don’t intervene.

The posts said "$610,000 tax dollars wasted on security guards in Coral Gables" and described the video saying that the "security guards can only watch as a girl is beaten."

"Don’t let this happen in Coral Gables. Call your elected officials and tell them to step up to the plate and protect our families. Demand that they hire certified police officers."

The video, for what it's worth, was apparently from a few years ago in Seattle -- which is mentioned seven seconds into the video in question -- though the city of Coral Gables insists that the video is misleading and people are implying it's happening in Coral Gables. From the legal complaint, we can see what the city was mad about (though I don't understand why they're so mad about it, as it appears they're a bunch of thin skinned bullies who can't take even the slightest criticism).

On Instagram, they were upset about this ad along with the text above:

That seems like pretty normal "citizen speaking up on a matter of public interest" social media content. And, yes, it does seem noteworthy that the post appeared to have merely 59 views at the time the Coral Gables government decided to take action.

The Facebook complaint is even more ridiculous. They're upset about two Facebook groups. The first was called "Protect Coral Gables" and the second "Coral Gables Residents Who Care." And the main complaint is that the Facebook group uses the (trademarked) logo of Coral Gables. From the complaint:

I'm at a loss as to how Coral Gables attorneys could possibly think this is infringing. These people are commenting on Coral Gables policies and have created a group about Coral Gables, which is pretty obviously done by concerned citizens rather than the government. There's no likelihood of confusion here. And, importantly, they're not using the logo in commerce, so there's no trademark issue at all. Oh, and we should also point out that the Lanham Act forbids cities from trademarking their logos.

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it... [c]onsists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof

So, yes, the USPTO may have registered Coral Gables' logo trademark, but it is obviously invalid under the law.

The whole thing appears to be that Coral Gables officials are upset that their own constituents are criticizing their decision and they decided to "do something about it."

I mean, it's fine to be unhappy about it, but it's another thing entirely to try to silence and then identify those critics. But, hey, Florida. And here's where things start getting stupid. It appears that the city started searching for any excuse to try to silence and/or identify the critics. In one report, they claimed it was "defamation" or "deception":

"It upset me when I saw it that someone … is trying to defame the city," said Commissioner Frank Quesada. "It’s meant to deceive, it’s meant to scare."

But, that's silly. There's no defamation. There's no deception. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court clearly states in the famous First Amendment case New York Times v. Sullivan, the government cannot sue for defamation:

What a State may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal statute is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law of libel. The fear of damage awards under a rule such as that invoked by the Alabama courts here may be markedly more inhibiting than the fear of prosecution under a criminal statute.

Now, that's coming from a Commissioner, not the city attorney, so you'd think that the city attorneys would educate Quesada. They did the opposite.

In one of the articles, Coral Gables' city attorney Craig Leen makes this ludicrous statement:

"They’re free to put any statement they want to make but what they can’t do is put a video of a terrible incident that did not happen in Coral Gables and make it seem like it happened in Coral Gables," Leen said.

Except... they didn't. First, the video identifies itself as happening in Seattle in the first seven seconds. Second, the exhibit in Leen's own lawsuit clearly says "Don't let this happen in Coral Gables" which pretty clearly states that the events in the video happened elsewhere. Here's yet another exhibit showing "don't let this happen in Coral Gables" appearing directly above the video:

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Before the city filed the lawsuit, deputy city attorney Miriam Ramos sent a cease and desist letter to both Instagram and Facebook (and, yes, Instagram is owned by Facebook), claiming that the social media posts violated the city's trademarks, even though they clearly do not as explained above. Not only did she send a cease and desist, she claimed that if they failed to comply, she would magically fine them $500 per day.

Instagram General Counsel,

It has come to the attention of the City of Coral Gables that an Instagram page/ad exists under the name "Protect Coral Gables." The page/ad contains an emblem that is a trademark owned by the City of Coral Gables (see attached as Exhibit A). The trademark is registered in the United States (Registration No. 4,307,912). Further, the page/ad contains content that is erroneous and misleading, including a video of an attack on a woman.

We, therefore, order that your company immediately cease and desist from allowing the use of our trademarked logo on the "Protect Coral Gables" Instagram page/ad and remove the erroneous and misleading content contained in the page/ad. Pursuant to Coral Gables Ordinance 2016-059, failure to comply with this letter will subject Instagram to a code enforcement citation carrying a fine of $500 per day of violation.

Sincerely,
Miriam S. Ramos
Deputy City Attorney and City Prosecutor

So... there are a whole boatload of problems with this cease and desist. First, as already explained, what was done by the people protesting the decision was clearly not use in commerce and similarly unlikely to confuse. And, the city can't trademark its logo. In short, it's not trademark infringement in any way, shape or form. Second, the last sentence of the first paragraph is painfully misleading, playing up the fact that the video shows "an attack on a woman" but leaving out all context and almost certainly implying that the video violates the company's terms of service (which it does not).

Finally, the whole $500/day fine thing. As we know, CDA 230 has made it quite clear that Instagram and Facebook can't be fined over a user's speech (which is likely why they try to pretend it's a trademark violation, which is exempted from CDA 230). But, what the hell is Ordinance 2016-59? Well, I'll tell you that the city doesn't make it easy to figure that out, but I finally tracked down the ordinance, which became Section 2-203 of the code of the city of Coral Gables, and it says:

(a) The city attorney is authorized to issue cease and desist letters for violation of the City Code, Zoning Code and any other applicable law where such violation causes harm to the city, its residents or its businesses.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to disobey the demand made by the city attorney or his/her designee, on behalf of the City of Coral Gables, in a cease and desist letter.
(c) Failure to obey the demand made in a cease and desist letter shall result in the issuance of a code enforcement citation, punishable by a fine of $500.00 per day.

But, uh, what Facebook and Instagram did is not a violation of City Code or (especially) Zoning Code. It's not a violation of any "applicable law." This is just a city attorney trying to talk big, and even then can only threaten a $500 fine normally used for those with zoning violations -- targeting one of the largest companies in the world. Good luck with that.

Instagram replied to Ramos, noting that the user appeared to have removed the content already themselves, so there was no problem. Ramos responded, somewhat hilariously, saying that if the ad reappeared, she'd start fining them $500 per day. Can you say "prior restraint"? Perhaps they don't teach that where Ramos went to law school.

On behalf of the City of Coral Gables, the cease and desist letter remains in effect and if another ad is published using our trademark, Instagram will be fined $500 per day.

Please provide this email to your general counsel and ask them to respond to us.

Instagram then responded, finally pointing out that there was no trademark infringement.

Hi,

Thanks for your report. Based on the information you've provided, it is not clear that the content you've reported infringes your trademark rights. The reported party appears to be using your trademark to refer to or comment on your goods and services.

For this reason, it does not appear that the reported content is likely to confuse people as to source, sponsorship or affiliation, and we are unable to act on your report at this time.

Thanks,

Liam
Intellectual Property Operations
Instagram

Hats off to you, "Liam." Unfortunately, the enforcement folks at Instagram's parent company, Facebook, didn't bother to look at what was happening, and caved in immediately:

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention. We removed or disabled access to the content you reported for violating the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. We understand this action to resolve your intellectual property issue.

Facebook: you got this one wrong. There's no violation there.

And, either way, what benefit did Facebook get for complying with Coral Gables' censorial bullying? It got dragged into court. Because after all this, the city filed a complaint for a "pure bill of discovery." You may recall the concept of Florida's "pure bill of discovery" as it played a prominent early role in the Prenda saga. It's a generally antiquated law to obtain discovery (which is legalese for "force you to hand over info"). Indeed, there's some argument that John Steele of Prenda moved from Illinois to Florida early on in Prenda's history in order to use Florida's pure bill of discovery to uncover the names of people he wanted to shake down. Courts eventually put a stop to it, but here the City of Coral Gables is trying to use it to identify anonymous critics.

The complaint repeats the misleading claim that the use of the logo is trademark infringement, as well as the false claim that the Instagram ad is "erroneous and misleading." It is neither. Hell, the city's cease-and-desist and complaint are both a hell of a lot more erroneous and misleading than anything in the Instagram ad. And, again, the language here hints at a possible defamation claim which is not allowed under the First Amendment, as made clear by NYT v. Sullivan. Do the city attorneys of Coral Gables not know this... or do they not care?

Then the complaint demands "any and all records identifying the name, address, telephone number of the entity and/or individual(s) responsible" for posting that content.

Let's be clear: this is complete unconstitutional bullshit. I've emailed city attorney Craig Leen as well as the outside lawyer who filed the complaint, Anna Marie Gamez, asking them to explain how any of this could possibly pass constitutional muster. The Supreme Court seriously frowns on this kind of thing. Beyond the NYT v. Sullivan mentioned above, in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (which involves a government body going after someone for handing out anonymous pamphlets concerning an issue of public concern), Justice Stevens wrote in the opinion:

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

I emailed city attorney Craig Leen (as well as the city's outside attorney, Anna Marie Gomez of the law firm Holland & Knight). Just as I was finalizing this post, Leen responded to my emails insisting that the complaint has no First Amendment problems and that their trademark claims are legit:

I want to assure you that the City views the bill it filed as meritorious, and certainly not frivolous. The City also views its bill as consistent with the First Amendment and trademark law.

When asked how, Leen gave some boilerplate language about trademark:

The City’s trademark was used in the profile pictures as if Coral Gables was sponsoring the site. This does not fall under fair use. It is an attempt to appropriate Coral Gables’ mark to induce people to view the post and causes confusion as to whether this highly misleading post is being sponsored or endorsed by the City of Coral Gables. For example, if you look at Exhibit E to the Complaint, at the attachment to the cease and desist letter, it shows the word “Sponsored” right next to the City of Coral Gables mark. The City is seeking to protect its mark and has a right to do so.

Again, this is wrong. Even setting aside the fact that the Lanham Act forbids cities from trademarking their logos, the exhibit he mentions (Exhibit E) does not at all show the word "sponsored" next to the City of Coral Gables mark, and certainly not in a manner that has a likelihood to confuse. Remember, this is the Instagram post (shown above) that clearly shows that it's from a group called "Protect Coral Gables" and the text of the image and the text beneath the image make it blatantly obvious that this is someone protesting the City's actions, not coming from the city itself. The fact that it is a "sponsored" post is meaningless here. This is clearly people of Coral Gables using their right to petition the government.

And the city of Coral Gables is trying to stomp that out. This is very clear abuse of the First Amendment and Leen should be ashamed of trying to pretend otherwise.

It appears that the city of Coral Gables is quickly shooting to the top of the list of thuggish, censorial cities, whose officials can't handle even the slightest criticism of their decisions. You would hope that, at some point, someone explains to them the nature of the First Amendment as well as two of the most famous cases from the Supreme Court that clearly bar this action. And it doesn't matter at all how you feel about the initial action (the hiring of security guards). Indeed, as many would guess from how we cover police issues here, I tend to think hiring unarmed security guards is a much better solution than hiring more armed police officers. But how can a city and its leaders have such thin skins that they'd be willing to trample all over the First Amendment over a tiny bit of criticism seen by fewer than 60 people (including the city's own lawyers)?

Oh, and let us not forget that Florida's got a nice (relatively new) anti-SLAPP law that seems tailor made for this kind of thing, which might mean that Coral Gables taxpayers will be footing Facebook and Instagram's attorneys' fees, should they seek to use the law. If there was already concern about Coral Gables wasting money on security guards, I can't imagine that it will go over all that well that it's also wasting it on frivolous witch hunts for anonymous critics online.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2017 @ 9:54am

    Something something kill all the lawyers.

    Well I'm guessing that the city should be fined $610,000 for this thuggish attempt to twist the law.

    a code enforcement citation - how about I give you a what fucking box of cracker jack did you get YOUR degree in citation?

    We violated the law getting our trademark.
    We are ignoring SCOTUS rulings.
    We are using a craptastic law to find out who we can bully.
    We silenced critics of our city.
    We are in active denial of reality.

    I honestly wish that bar complaints actually scared lawyers. If they thought they could harm themselves as they screw their clients to get moar billable hours, they might think twice.

    I do hope the people behind the group file an anti-slap suit & get lots of money, so they can run more ads asking why the cities leadership cares more about what maybe 70 people saw, than addressing the concerns that their security guard program was a stupid idea.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:08am

    Lanham Act

    we should also point out that the Lanham Act forbids cities from trademarking their logos

    That's not what the text you quoted says. It says they may be refused registration, not that they shall.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:36am

      Re: Lanham Act

      I doubt the courts interpret it your way, though. After all, trademarks do get challenged from time to time, and courts sometimes invalidate them, which they couldn't if "may be refused" was strictly the standard.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2017 @ 1:06pm

      Re: Lanham Act

      It says they may be refused registration, not that they shall.

      Renna v County of Union (D.N.J. 2014)

      Section 2(b) of the Lanham Act provides . . .

      The syntax is negative, but the sense is clear: such insignia "shall be refused registration."

      (Emphasis added.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:24am

    Mike, please tell

    me that you sent a link re: this article to the Coral Gables attorneys!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:40am

      Re: Mike, please tell

      me that you sent a link re: this article to the Coral Gables attorneys!

      Indeed, I did. Right after it posted. They are free to respond with more info. I specifically asked them what I was missing in my analysis, because I can't see how their actions are at all Constitutional.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:29am

    Yes, 15 USC 1052 does declare governmental "graphics" as being ineligible for federal protection under the Lanham Act, the source of federal trademark law. Importantly, not all "graphics" are ineligible, and the author of this article appears to have acted prematurely given that the registered mark he talks about in the article is not the official seal of the municipality in Florida.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:41am

      Re:

      Yes, 15 USC 1052 does declare governmental "graphics" as being ineligible for federal protection under the Lanham Act, the source of federal trademark law. Importantly, not all "graphics" are ineligible, and the author of this article appears to have acted prematurely given that the registered mark he talks about in the article is not the official seal of the municipality in Florida.

      Even if the graphic is legally covered by trademark, that still doesn't make anything else the city did constitutional.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:46am

      Re:

      If it is not the official seal of the municipality, then they have no right to make the claim they did, unless they own that trademark privately, then they misrepresented themselves. Either way, the claim by the Deputy City Attorney is still ridiculous.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Daniel (profile), 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:50am

      Re:

      you're not from around these parts, are you?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2017 @ 3:41pm

      Other Insignia ... Or Any Simulation [was Re: ]

      …not the official seal of the municipality …

      15 USC § 1052

      (b) Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof.

      (Emphasis added.)

      Wex: Ejusdem Generis

      In ¶ 7 on p.2 of the complaint, Coral Gables alleges that the graphic at issue is “the ‘City Emblem’ ”.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 8:17am

        Re: Other Insignia ... Or Any Simulation [was Re: ]

        Your's is a misreading of the term. It was used merely as shorthand for the registered trademark, and in no way to suggest, as you state, that the graphic is the town's official emblem.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 10:37am

          Re: Re: Other Insignia ... Or Any Simulation [was Re: ]

          … official emblem…

          Congress, in writing subsec (b), could have narrowed “insignia“ by qualifying it with the adjective “official”. They didn't. Rather, Congress chose to use also the more expansive phrase “any simulation”.

          As the TTAB said in District of Columbia (2012), “[W]e must presume Congress to know how to write legislation to effect its own intent.”

          The City of Coral Gables, as masters of their own complaint, could have characterized the graphic as other than “the ‘City Emblem’  ”. They didn't. Rather —in short— Coral Gables states that the graphic is an emblem of the city's authority.

          We must presume Coral Gables to know how to write a complaint to effect its own intent.

          “The ‘City Emblem’ ”.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 12:05pm

            Re: Re: Re: Other Insignia ... Or Any Simulation [was Re: ]

            Your view is far too narrow. For one explanation why this is so see TMEP Section 1204.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:49am

    Apparently the powers that be in Coral Gables are not fans of free speech if it involves people disagreeing with their decisions... as it appears they're a bunch of thin skinned bullies who can't take even the slightest criticism...

    Call the CDC. The criticism immunodeficiency virus is spreading south from Mar-a-Lago.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Daniel (profile), 14 Aug 2017 @ 10:52am

      Re:

      So they'd come and help right after they get done quarantining the Democratic Party for the rampant outbreak they've been dealing with for over three years now?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2017 @ 11:17am

    Guaranteed that the Police Union was behind the posts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2017 @ 3:29pm

    Coral Gables like Palm Beach is South Florida version of Hollywood without the movie stars. Mostly foreign big old money particularly Latin America, night life entertainment in expensive clubs with pompous jack ass driving very expensive cars, multitude of languages - almost everyone speaks Spanish to some degree with a variety of Creole, French, and Arabic and believe it or not some even speak excellent English. Anyone on a pauper income of $250,000 a year is out of place in their elites social circles and definitely not welcome in the elite night clubs. Trips to Europe for lunch on private jets is so common that it is not even gossip worthy; that is just part of daily life.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 3:55am

    Miss Leading

    "The video, for what it's worth, was apparently from a few years ago in Seattle..."

    Quit reading right there. No day should be THAT slow news-wise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2017 @ 8:20am

      Re: Miss Leading

      I think the point trying to be made is when you hire private Security guards like this, these are the results you could end up with as they can't do anything other then watch. AS they say, "the police are minutes away when seconds count". As in the video, the girl got the crap beat out of her, for what?!?! Not that it matters, but it didn't take very long and there no no police, just completely worthless security.

      So it is a big waste of money that should instead be used to hire more police that can actually do something. Maybe that costs more money, but this seems to be a rich area. 1 Police officer would be worth far more then those 3 worthless security guards.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Thanks To Our Sponsors

The Techdirt Free Speech Edition
is a partnership with

with sponsorship from:

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.