Group Seeks Legal Shelter in Battle Over Web Address

In a case that raises new questions about free speech on the Internet, a Los Angeles-based animal-rights group is seeking legal protection for a Web site whose target contends that the site’s very address--https://www.coulstonkillschimps.com--is defamatory.

The address refers to the Coulston Foundation, a nonprofit research center in New Mexico that uses chimpanzees for pharmaceutical, aging and reproductive research.

The Web site’s owner, animal-rights group Last Chance for Animals, said it will file a suit today alleging that Coulston used the threat of litigation to force a Web hosting service to shut its site down, even though the group contends the allegation is supported by complaints filed against Coulston by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is, in any event, literally true.

The USDA has accused Coulston of violating animal-welfare laws and fined the foundation $40,000 in 1996 in connection with the deaths of seven chimps. Earlier this year, the USDA charged the foundation with improperly sedating three chimps, one of which died as a result. The foundation has denied the charge.

In its suit, the animal-rights group will ask a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to declare that a Web site name is a form of speech protected by the 1st Amendment. Lawyers for Last Chance for Animals and cyberlaw experts believe this is the first such case testing whether such Web domain names fall under the constitutional protection of speech.

“What used to be addresses are now becoming expressive acts, and a whole new body of law will start to apply,” said David Johnson, co-director of the Cyberspace Law Institute in Washington.

The dispute began in August, when Last Chance for Animals launched a Web site detailing animal-welfare violations found by USDA inspectors. The site also protests the transfer of chimpanzees from U.S. Air Force custody to the Alamogordo, N.M., research facility.

Last Chance for Animals contends that Coulston pressured the services that provided Internet space for the Web site to take it down. About two days after the site was posted, one such service complied and made the Web site inaccessible to the public.

The group later contracted with another Web hosting company and reposted the site, which receives several hundred hits per day, said Eric Mindel, executive director of Last Chance for Animals.

The group contends that Coulston similarly pressured a billboard rental company into painting over a reference to the Web site on a billboard outside Coulston’s headquarters.

“Last Chance for Animals used the domain name ‘CoulstonKillsChimps.com’ to express its message,” said the group’s lawyer, Gerard Fox of Fox Siegler & Spillane. “They should be able to express their message. That’s what free speech is all about.”

He added that if a judge agrees that the domain name is protected by the 1st Amendment, it will be easier for companies to withstand pressure from Coulston. A hearing on the matter will probably be scheduled by the end of the year.

Don McKinney, Coulston’s communications director, declined to comment on the group’s allegations.

“We do business legitimately, and we take care of our animals,” he said. “We believe in the 1st Amendment; and if they want to file a suit, they can go ahead.”

Mindel of Last Chance for Animals said Coulston has never threatened the group directly with a defamation suit. “It’s not libel because the truth is a complete defense to libel, and this is why, in my opinion, Coulston hasn’t sued any of the people they have threatened to sue,” he said.

One expert in cyberspace law argued Wednesday that Coulston would have a hard time winning a defamation suit based on the statement “Coulston kills chimps” because of the evidence amassed by the USDA.

“Does it make any difference that it’s in cyberspace versus outside of cyberspace?” said UCLA law professor Jerry Kang. “It shouldn’t matter.”

But he said it is understandable that companies providing services to the animal-rights group would rather accede to Coulston’s demands than become embroiled in expensive litigation.

“It’s a question of business strategy,” Kang said. “Even if it has a valid defense, a company will want to drop something like this because it’s a hot potato.”