] The complaint is constructed, as the lawyers say,
] "artfully". They vilify one of the defendants, without
] saying much about the other defendant; but they ask for
] an injunction against both. They gleefully quote one
] defendant calling himself a "hacker", apparently unaware
] that "hacker" is still a legitimate term of respect in
] some circles. They quote a law against distributing
] "access codes" and then trumpet a defendant's
] distribution of "code". And so on.
]
] There is no mention in these documents of the enormous
] free speech issue here. The injunction is a prior
] restraint on speech, which prevented the defendants from
] speaking to an specific audience that had gathered to
] hear them. Yet somehow neither Blackboard nor the court
] indicates that any consideration of the First Amendment
] was even necessary.

Felten takes notice..

Freedom to Tinker: Security Research Muzzled in Georgia