|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 17 new of 316 responses total. |
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.
|
aruba
|
|
response 307 of 316:
|
May 10 21:53 UTC 2000 |
I heard on the radio today that lawyer Michael L. Steinberg was cited for
contempt of court for not turning off his cell phone in court. I thought
I'd mention, in case anyone else heard the same report, that this is *not*
the Michael Steinberg who is head of the Michigan ACLU. The Michael
Steinberg of the ACLU is Michael J. Steinberg. When he came to a Grex board
meeting last year someone showed him a newspaper ad for Michael L. Steinberg
and asked if it was his. He sighed and said no, and that he had insisted
that the other lawyer always include the "L." in his name when advertising.
|
other
|
|
response 308 of 316:
|
May 11 21:37 UTC 2000 |
Thanks for clarifying that. I saw the article in the AA News today and
wondered, though there was no mention of the ACLU affiliation.
|
remmers
|
|
response 309 of 316:
|
Jun 24 15:20 UTC 2000 |
An appellate court in Philadelphia ruled unanimously a few days ago
in ACLU vs. Reno that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) is
unconstitutional. It was passed by Congress in 1998 but has never
been enforced.
This doesn't bear directly on the Cyberspace vs. Engler suit to which
Grex is a party, but ACLU attorney Mike Steinberg feels that this
decision bolsters our case, about which he already felt quite confident.
He indicated to me that he is expecting a court date on the state's
appeal to be set any day now, early fall at the latest. (This seems
to keep getting put off. Last I heard, it was going to happen mid-
summer at the latest.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 310 of 316:
|
Sep 8 22:09 UTC 2000 |
Well, mid-summer passed and nothing happened with the court date,
but now apparently things are definite. I just received the following
email from Michael Steinberg of the ACLU:
I just learned today that we have received a date for oral argument
from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cyberspace v. Engler,
the Internet censorship case. Appellate argument will be held on
on Friday, October 27 in Cincinatti at the U.S. Courthouse -- 100
E. Fifth Street. Check-in for all oralists for the day is at 8:30
a.m.; we do not know at this point what time the Cyberspace argument
will begin. Andrew Nickelhoff, the lead attorney on the case will
argue. Given the importance of the case, I plan to be there as well.
All Grex/Cyberspace Communications members are more than welcome
attend and it would be great if there was a good turnout to support
Andy. Arguments are open to the public. Feel free to spread
the word.
Michael J. Steinberg, Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union
of Michigan
|
use
|
|
response 311 of 316:
|
Apr 11 15:51 UTC 2001 |
Was wondering why no info was posted about how the lawsuit turned out in
the end.
|
carson
|
|
response 312 of 316:
|
Apr 11 19:17 UTC 2001 |
(because it's not over?)
<carson doesn't know>
|
remmers
|
|
response 313 of 316:
|
Apr 12 02:03 UTC 2001 |
See item 212, where the outcome of the appeals hearing is
reported. In brief, we won.
|
use
|
|
response 314 of 316:
|
Apr 17 13:18 UTC 2001 |
RE:#313
John.
I understand that item as saying that the preliminary injunction was
upheld, but does that mean that the lawsuit is over with completely,
after all it is only a temporary injunction?
|
remmers
|
|
response 315 of 316:
|
Apr 17 18:05 UTC 2001 |
As far as I know, what's posted in the text of item 212 is
the latest news. So no, it's possibly not over. I'm sure
the ACLU will inform us of any new developments.
|
other
|
|
response 316 of 316:
|
Apr 18 02:18 UTC 2001 |
The next move is up to the state. Odds are they'll focus on another
approach since all indications are that this one is doomed.
|