raven
|
|
response 2 of 78:
| 
Oct 22 16:48 UTC 1998 |
Here is more info on this law from http://aclu.org/
ACLU v. Reno,
Round 2
Broad Coalition Files
Challenge To New Federal
Net Censorship Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 22, 1998
PHILADELPHIA -- Civil liberties groups today filed
a court
challenge to a federal Internet censorship bill
signed by President
Clinton despite serious constitutional concerns
raised by his own
Justice Department.
At a news conference in downtown Philadelphia, the
American
Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy
Information Center
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the
Justice
Department was correct in warning that the law
unconstitutionally
censors valuable online speech.
In papers filed this morning in federal District
Court in
Philadelphia, the groups are seeking an injunction
against the new
law, which is scheduled to go into effect 30 days
from the date it
was signed.
Demonstrating the range of speech affected, the
list of plaintiffs
includes the Internet Content Coalition, a member
group including
Time Inc., Warner Bros., C/NET and The New York
Times
Online; OBGYN.Net, a women's health website;
Philadelphia Gay
News; Salon Magazine; and the ACLU on behalf of its
members
including poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti and ACLU
President Nadine
Strossen. (The complete plaintiff list can be found
below).
In February 1996, during "round one" of this
litigation, the ACLU,
EFF and EPIC filed a challenge to the ill-fated
Communications
Decency Act. A three-judge panel in the same
federal district
court struck down the law in June, a ruling that
was upheld by a
unanimous Supreme Court one year later in Reno v.
ACLU.
This second round challenges the new so-called
"Child Online
Protection Act" makes it a federal crime to
"knowingly"
communicate "for commercial purposes" material
considered
"harmful to minors." Penalties include fines of up
to $50,000 for
each day of violation, and up to six months in
prison if convicted of
a crime. The government also has the option to
bring a civil suit
against individuals under a lower standard of
proof, with the same
financial penalty of up to $50,000 per violation.
Despite lawmakers' claims that the new bill is
"narrowly tailored"
to apply only to minors, ACLU Staff Attorney Ann
Beeson said
that the constitutional flaws in this law are
identical to the flaws that
led the Supreme Court to strike down the CDA.
"Whether you call it the 'Communications Decency
Act' or the
'Congress Doesn't Understand the Internet Act,' it
is still
unconstitutional and it still reduces the Internet
to what is fit for a
six-year-old," said Beeson, a member of the
original ACLU v.
Reno legal team.
Although proponents claim that the law applies only
to commercial
websites, nonetheless, the groups said in legal
papers, the law
"bans a wide range of protected expression that is
provided for
free on the Web by organizations and entities who
also happen to
be communicating on the Web 'for commercial
purposes.'"
The 17 plaintiffs represented in ACLU v. Reno II
are:
The American Civil Liberties Union (on behalf
of all its
members including Nadine Strossen, Lawrence
Ferlinghetti,
Patricia Nell Warren and David Bunnell)
A Different Light Bookstore
The American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression
ArtNet
The Blackstripe
Condomania
Electronic Frontier Foundation (on behalf of
all its members
including Bill Boushka, Jon Noring, Open
Enterprises
Cooperative and Rufus Griscom)
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Speech Media, LLC
Internet Content Coalition (whose members
include CBS
New Media, Time Inc., The New York Times
Electronic
Media Company, C/Net, Warner Bros. Online,
MSNBC,
Playboy Enterprises, Sony Online and ZDNet)
OBGYN.NET
Philadelphia Gay News
PlanetOut Corporation
Powell's Bookstore
RIOTGRRL
Salon Magazine
Weststock.com
In a seven-page analysis of the bill sent to
Congress on October 5,
the Justice Department said that the bill had
"serious constitutional
problems" and would likely draw resources away from
more
important law enforcement efforts such as tracking
down
hard-core child pornographers and child predators.
Also, the Justice Department noted, the new law is
ineffective
because minors would still be able to access news
groups or
Internet relay chat channels, as well as any
website generated from
outside of the United States.
"It is our fervent hope," said Barry Steinhardt,
President of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, "that Attorney
General Reno will
concede that the new law is unconstitutional so we
can avoid
prolonged litigation."
"The First Amendment still stands," he added. "A
law that the
Justice Department found unconstitutional last week
did not
suddenly become constitutional this week."
David Sobel, EPIC's Legal Counsel, said that making
children the
excuse for ill-conceived censorship schemes is poor
public policy.
"Congress has demonstrated that, when it comes to
the Internet,
it's prepared to score easy political points at the
expense of
constitutional rights."
"I'm confident that the courts will again
faithfully apply the
Constitution to this new medium," he added. "Let's
find ways to
protect both kids and the First Amendment."
The three groups continue to jointly sponsor the
Blue Ribbon
Campaign for Online Freedom of Expression -- first
launched in
1996 to mobilize the Internet community against the
CDA -- to
provide Netizens a platform for voicing their
concerns over
continuing governmental attempts to censor the
Internet. Visitors
to the Campaign site can fax Attorney General Janet
Reno a "don't
enforce the new law" message and join the campaign
by exhibiting
the Blue Ribbon logo on their own Web sites. More
information is
available at http://www.eff.org/br.
Attorneys in the case are Ann Beeson, Chris Hansen
and J.C.
Salyer of the ACLU, Shari Steele of EFF and David
Sobel of
EPIC. The law firm of Latham and Watkins is
assisting the ACLU
in the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union is a nationwide,
non-partisan organization headquartered in New York
City,
dedicated to defending and preserving the Bill of
Rights for all
individuals through litigation, legislation and
public
education.
Founded in 1990 as a nonprofit, public interest
organization,
Electronic Frontier Foundation is based in San
Francisco,
California and maintains an extensive archive of
information
on free speech, privacy, and encryption policy on
its website.
Electronic Privacy Information Center is a
non-profit
research group that works to defend free speech and
privacy
rights on the Internet.
|
