The issue here is not the difference between "free speech" and incessant libelous
speech.
Rather, the issue here is how in the world Intel is allowed to invoke an
archaic law in the 21th century cyber world.
Under the common law, you don't have to possess an intent ("mens rea") to
commit the crime of trespassing. Thus,
after Intel was able to win an injunction against Hamidi for "trespassing on the
chattels", the poor Hamidi will be
held in contempt of the court order (and, at least theoretically speaking, can
be sent to jail), if he ever,
for whatever reason, sends anything to, or stumbles into, anything Intel
defines as its cyber territory.
Imagining this: If you send me an e-mail without my permission, you may have
committed a crime
("trespassing on my chattel". Or, I operate a web site, and you stumble into my
web site without
my permission, you may have also committed the same crime. How do we like that?
Of course, there is another perhaps equally important issue, i.e, whether we
should allow those with
infinite financial resources to dictate our judicial system. But discussion of
this issue tends to
muddy the underlying legal picture.
