Talk:Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Last sentence[edit]

'In simple terms, a company may silence free speech if the person they are silencing is a cyber-squatter directly using their name to exercise his or her free speech even without commercial gain.' This summary seems extremely inaccurate of the final ruling, which says that they ruled that it did NOT constitute an attack on free speech, since it was merely a question of whether he could criticize the company under the company's own name. They're not 'silencing' the person, they're moving it somewhere else. And doesn't 'cybersquatting' usually refer to someone gaining the web address for the purposes of selling it? There's no indication here that Kremer did that.Questingbeast (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section[edit]

To the second INFO 237 reviewer on this article - I was the first INFO 237 reviewer of this article. I made some changes on wording and typos as well as some content modification, but I left much of the content untouched to avoid trespassing on your assignment. You may have already noticed this, but one thing that especially needs work is the lead section:

There is no indication of the significance of this case
It is filled with legalese
Most importantly, it does not seem like the description of the court's holding is accurate

Just a heads-up, since I know it's easy to neglect the lead section when you're editing the rest of the article. Kgrutter (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Background[edit]

Didn't yet change it because I wasn't sure, but the 1st bullet point says

"Kremer's use of the Bosley name in his website is free speech, therefore Bosley is attempting to chill Kremer's free speech through lawsuits in violation of California's Anti-SLAPP law."

Shouldn't this be "...kill free speach"? DpwnShift (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Intellectual Property law 2011 Berkeley and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]