|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 282 of 316:
| 
Aug 13 01:26 UTC 1999 |
It's to buy votes, like "targeted tax cuts". But surely you knew that.
|
brighn
|
|
response 283 of 316:
|
Aug 13 16:07 UTC 1999 |
Yep. Sensationalist. There are laws about predating minors (which is also
pre-dating minors... heh) already. Use the existing ones.
Of course, the same's been said for on-line porn. We have porn laws already.
|
mary
|
|
response 284 of 316:
|
Sep 2 08:45 UTC 1999 |
It looks like there will be an appeal. I received mail this morning,
from Mr. Steinberg, in which he shares the following:
"We recently learned that the state will be appealing the preliminary
injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in
Cincinnati. The Court of Appeals will eventually set a briefing schedule
after the transcripts are prepared. I anticipate that the final reply
brief will be due in about 4 months or so and that oral argument will be
held in about 6 months. Then the Court will issue a written opinion --
usually 2 to 3 months after oral argument."
Bummer.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 285 of 316:
|
Sep 2 12:45 UTC 1999 |
The state is likely to appeal this all the way to the US Supreme Court. It
would be pretty stupid if they _didn't_.
|
steve
|
|
response 286 of 316:
|
Sep 2 16:32 UTC 1999 |
It's only a little bummer, as I see it. There is *clear* precenence for
Tarnow's decision, and the 6th Circuit court isn't known for making foolish
decisions.
If Tarnow's decision was a thwack with the fingers, the circuit court will
be a slap on the face. ...And a supreme court decision will be a smash from
a large hammer.
As I think about it, going to the Supreme Court might be 1) fun, 2) kill
this law like an oak stake in a vampire's heart.
|
other
|
|
response 287 of 316:
|
Sep 2 22:30 UTC 1999 |
Has the 6th Circuit even agreed to hear the appeal? They could refuse...
|
janc
|
|
response 288 of 316:
|
Sep 4 01:05 UTC 1999 |
I'm no expert, but I'd expect that the 6th court will hear it, but the
Supreme Court would not if the state tried to appeal it further. The
Supreme Court already ruled on two similar laws, and they aren't that
big on endlessly repeating themselves. They didn't hear any of these
laws from other states (though I don't know if the others were ever
appealed that far).
The Court of Appeals hearing will be different than the District Court
hearing we had in July. There will be a panel of three judges instead
of just one. There will be no witnesses called (because the debate here
is over a "point of law" rather than a "point of fact"). The attorneys
will have months instead of weeks to prepare their cases.
|
dpc
|
|
response 289 of 316:
|
Sep 4 16:34 UTC 1999 |
The Sixth Circuit must hear this appeal from Judge Tarnow's preliminary
injunction. An appeal from the Sixth Circuit will only be heard if
the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.
Now that we have *plenty* of time, I'd be interested in hearing
about the Board's plans on possible policy changes if the decision
doesn't go our way.
I would hope that the Board would post proposed policies in
this conference for discussion, and then decide what to do at a Board
meeting at which the policies are on the agenda.
|
mary
|
|
response 290 of 316:
|
Sep 4 17:55 UTC 1999 |
Anyone can enter the item, David. I don't understand why
you'd rather talk about it being entered rather than enter
it directly. Shy?
|
other
|
|
response 291 of 316:
|
Sep 4 23:50 UTC 1999 |
given the the appellate consideration will be of law, not fact, and given the
previous rulings by the supreme court and the predominance of precedent in
establishing current interpretation, would it not be reasonable to assume that
the chances of the appeal succeeding would be minimal?
|
scott
|
|
response 292 of 316:
|
Sep 5 01:38 UTC 1999 |
(Scott nominates other for board)
|
other
|
|
response 293 of 316:
|
Sep 5 05:41 UTC 1999 |
why? so i can share in the criminal liability if the appeal succeeds? :)
|
scott
|
|
response 294 of 316:
|
Sep 5 11:53 UTC 1999 |
Exactly. :)
|
janc
|
|
response 295 of 316:
|
Sep 5 19:46 UTC 1999 |
I think Eric's assessment of the likelihood of the appeal succeeding is
right. I think if the appeal did somehow succeed, then the ACLU would
definately appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would
definately hear it - when a lower court ignores their previous rulings,
they are very likely to take an interest. My guess is that this law
would come into force only if (1) the Appeals court does unprecidented
amazing and (2) the Supreme Court agrees.
|
dpc
|
|
response 296 of 316:
|
Sep 8 15:34 UTC 1999 |
Mary, since the BoD governs Grex, I would prefer if the BoD took the
lead here. After all, only 42% of Grexers agreed with me. 8-)
|
mary
|
|
response 297 of 316:
|
Sep 8 16:01 UTC 1999 |
David, since this is a membership organization I'd prefer to see
members as involved as they'd wish to be in all the discussions
and decision making.
Did 58% disagree with you? ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 298 of 316:
|
Sep 8 18:25 UTC 1999 |
As a Board member, I'm perfectly happy to see a mere member "taking the lead"
on this (or any) topic.
|
mary
|
|
response 299 of 316:
|
Sep 8 23:16 UTC 1999 |
Besides, I'm sure any decision on this matter, where we have
time to discuss the matter and bring it to a vote, will be
made by the members, not the Board.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 300 of 316:
|
Sep 11 00:47 UTC 1999 |
This ruling was only for a preliminary injunction. No ruling was made on the
law itself, if I recall correctly. The judge only had to rule that there was
a likelihood our side would win, and that irreparable damage would be done
if the law were enforced even for only a little while. Therefore, the state
does not lose much (if anything) by failing to appeal this ruling (except that
the judge summarized the case against it, and they don't want that to stand).
re resp:281 - It's not that 'Net predators are any different, he was making
the point (I'm sure) that this ruling does not eliminate his only basis for
pursuing such predators, so that parents don't get scared, and perps don't
get cocky (pardon the pun). Other predators were not even potentially
affected by this law, so he didn't need to say anything about this ruling
with regard to them.
|
janc
|
|
response 301 of 316:
|
Apr 17 18:21 UTC 2000 |
Update:
- The state has appealled Judge Tarnow's ruling. This appeal goes to
the U.S. Sixth Appeals Court in (I think) Cincinatti. I believe the
case will be heard their by a panel of three judges. Unlike the
district court hearing, no witnesses will be called, since at this
point the whole thing is considered a question of law, not of fact.
- Written briefs have been filed to the Appeals Court. A copy of the
one filed on our behalf by the ACLU is at
http://www.aclumich.org/briefs/cyberspace-vs-engler.htm
I don't know if we can get a copy of the state's brief anywhere, but
the ACLU brief does summarize their arguments in the course of
answering them.
I've updated our lawsuit web page which is at
http://www.cyberspace.org/lawsuit/
|
janc
|
|
response 302 of 316:
|
Apr 17 18:24 UTC 2000 |
I don't know when the hearing is. It's usually a couple months after
the filing of the briefs (which may have happened a little while back),
and the decision is usually a couple months after that.
|
jp2
|
|
response 303 of 316:
|
Apr 17 21:00 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 304 of 316:
|
Apr 19 05:43 UTC 2000 |
It is possible that the court will not hear the appeal and the last ruling
will stand.
|
dpc
|
|
response 305 of 316:
|
Apr 19 13:43 UTC 2000 |
The Sixth Circuit actually *must* hear this appeal. You get an
"appeal of right" from District Court to the Sixth Circuit.
|
other
|
|
response 306 of 316:
|
Apr 20 05:17 UTC 2000 |
Oh, oops. I'm remembering a case in the Detroit federal court that was
remanded back to the Washtenaw court, and there was an appeal made the 6th
Circuit, but it was not heard by the time of the event in question, so the
standing ruling of the County court had precedence, and the appeal was moot.
I misremembered it, thinking that the appeal was sufficiently timely and that
the apellate court had simply chosen not to hear it. I think I was also
thinking of the US Supreme Court's prerogative to not hear an appeal.
|