|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
dpc
|
|
response 241 of 316:
| 
Jul 19 14:17 UTC 1999 |
A court reporter will be recording all of the testimony. Anyone who
wants a transcript of a particular part of it can order it from
the court reporter. Typically it costs about $2 per page.
|
richard
|
|
response 242 of 316:
|
Jul 19 23:21 UTC 1999 |
Janc, be prepared for a brutal cross-examination where the state
attorneys try to force you to admit to the possibilities of minors
reading pornographic material on grex. They will do everything in their
power to make you say what they want you to say-- even ifyou make
your point, they will strongly attempt in all likelihood to get you
to concede to their points as well.
|
other
|
|
response 243 of 316:
|
Jul 20 04:13 UTC 1999 |
Screw 'em blue, Jan!
|
janc
|
|
response 244 of 316:
|
Jul 20 05:40 UTC 1999 |
Actually richard, they will probably try roughly the opposite - to prove
that Grex has no standing and that systems like ours are not going to be
harmed in any significant way by this legislation.
I'll be meeting with (some of) the attornies in Detroit on Wednesday
afternoon.
|
janc
|
|
response 245 of 316:
|
Jul 21 21:46 UTC 1999 |
This is from Michael Stienberg:
As you know, there will be an evidentiary hearing or mini-trial in the
Internet Censorship case on Thursday and Friday. The hearing is set to
start at 8:30 Thursday morning. After opening statements, our expert,
Lorrie Cranor from AT&T labs in NJ will testify, followed by Jan Wolter
from Cyberspace. It appears as if the State will not be putting on any
witnesses and therefore I suspect that it will be over by lunch or early
afternoon. First thing Friday morning Michael Neff from Web Del Sol
will testify. Then there should be closing arguments about the
constitutionality of the law. My guess is that there is a 50% chance
that the judge will rule from the bench. If he doesn't, he will issue
an opinion next week.
We encourage members of Cyberspace and Arbornet to come to the hearing
or any part of the hearing (and to sit on our side). The U.S.
Courthouse for the Eastern District of Michigan is in Detroit at 231 W.
Lafayette Blvd. (at the intersection with Washington Blvd.). Directions
from AA: M-14 to I-96 to I-94 East to Rte. 10 South (a/k/a the Lodge
Freeway). Take the Larned Street Exit (it is a Left Exit) from Rte.
10. Take first left after going through a short tunnel onto Washington
Blvd. Go two or three blocks to Lafayette and park in one of the lots
near the courthouse. The hearing is in Judge Tarnow's Courtroom on the
first floor of the courthouse. It should be very interesting. You can
enter and exit the courtroom as you please.
Thanks for spreading the word. Hope to see you there.
|
janc
|
|
response 246 of 316:
|
Jul 22 18:33 UTC 1999 |
The hearing today seems to have gone well. The judge will make a ruling
before August 1.
Mark took extensive notes during the hearing, and will probably post
more information.
I was very happy with Judge Tarnow - he seemed very clearly to
understand the issues. It sounded like he was likely to be quite
favorable.
Andy Nicholhof was the ACLU lawyer who presented the case. He had
originally planned to call three witnesses - an AT&T researcher who was
an Internet expert, myself representing Grex, and someone representing
Web Del Sol. The third witness was to come in tommorrow. But the Judge
wanted to get things over quickly, so the last witness was cancelled and
the whole hearing was done this morning.
I think the testimony went well. The attorney representing the State
Attorney General's office did not cross-examine any witnesses, did not
present any witnesses, and only did a short summing up (their case being
mainly stated in a 35-page brief they submitted a few days ago). It
seemed more like a stubborn and dutiful defense than a vigorous one.
|
janc
|
|
response 247 of 316:
|
Jul 22 18:38 UTC 1999 |
I was also pleased that we had a good number of Grexer's at the hearing.
Besides myself, we had aruba, steve, scg and remmers sitting on our side
of the room. The judge even commented that the people sitting on the
plaintiff's side seemed to vastly outnumber the people sitting on the
defendent's side. I think kind of turn-out on a weekday afternoon tends
to support our claim that we are very concerned about this act.
|
dpc
|
|
response 248 of 316:
|
Jul 22 19:56 UTC 1999 |
Nice--very nice, indeed! Sounds like the AG's people really fell
on their swords. Imagine not cross-examining the witnesses...
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 249 of 316:
|
Jul 22 20:01 UTC 1999 |
Did you expect any less from Jennifer Granholm?
|
mdw
|
|
response 250 of 316:
|
Jul 22 21:00 UTC 1999 |
It sounds rather as if the state has decided this is a battle it can't
win and doesn't want to invest much effort in it. They're sort of duty
bound to try, after all, the state legislature did pass this. On the
other hand, it sounds like the legislature passed this knowing full well
it probably wouldn't pass the court challenge process, and it's not like
anyone's career in the executive branch depends on them successfully
defending this law.
|
richard
|
|
response 251 of 316:
|
Jul 22 21:19 UTC 1999 |
gee, and I thought Engler himself might show up and bring a whole horde
of media with him.
|
steve
|
|
response 252 of 316:
|
Jul 22 21:26 UTC 1999 |
It was a truly interesting thing to watch, the hearing. Mark made an
incredible amount of notes; I hope he puts it them online. We have enough
disk I think.
Afterwards we went to this cheap cafeteria which had *good* sandwiches.
For me the only part that reeked was the drive to Lansing--that was a
mess. But the hearing went well so I'm glad.
|
scg
|
|
response 253 of 316:
|
Jul 22 22:12 UTC 1999 |
The lawyer from the State did cross examine the expert from ATT a little bit,
but not much. He didn't cross examine Jan.
In addition to the Grexers in the audience, there were some ACLU people,
including a bunch of law students who are ACLU interns. It was a fairly good
sized crowd. There were two or three people sitting on the other side of the
aisle (the defendant's side?). I don't know who they were, although it looked
like at least one of them might have been a reporter.
I missed the first hour or so of the hearing. I got there just as the direct
examination of the expert was finishing. Jan's testimony, which I did hear
all of, was quite impressive, and I was impressed with the judge and the ACLU
lawyers as well. Of course, I'll hold off on being really impressed with the
judge until after he makes his ruling. ;)
|
aruba
|
|
response 254 of 316:
|
Jul 23 00:33 UTC 1999 |
I think both Jan and the expert witness did a great job. I'll post notes
soon.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 255 of 316:
|
Jul 23 15:51 UTC 1999 |
Yea, Jan! :-)
|
dpc
|
|
response 256 of 316:
|
Jul 23 17:46 UTC 1999 |
Gee, STeve--since you drove to Lansing I hope the rest of the folks
went to Detroit. 8-)
|
remmers
|
|
response 257 of 316:
|
Jul 23 18:59 UTC 1999 |
Jan was a wonderful witness for our side. One thing that came through
very clearly in his testimony was the community nature of Grex. I was
impressed also with Nicholhoff's skill as an examiner. His questions
enabled the central points of our case to be made clearly and
forcefully.
|
richard
|
|
response 258 of 316:
|
Jul 23 21:26 UTC 1999 |
are there transcripts of jan's testimony online somewhere?
|
aruba
|
|
response 259 of 316:
|
Jul 23 22:18 UTC 1999 |
No, but I will try to type in my notes as soon as I get a chance.
|
janc
|
|
response 260 of 316:
|
Jul 24 21:41 UTC 1999 |
Some of the people who talked to some attorneys after the hearing say
that they think that Judge Tarnow is going to deliver not just a
temporary restraining order, but his final ruling to overturn the law.
The Attorney General's Office may then appeal it.
|
janc
|
|
response 261 of 316:
|
Jul 26 18:28 UTC 1999 |
Clarification from Michael Steinberg:
> I wanted to clarify something that you posted on the Grex conference
> on the progress of the suit. Since the judge has before him a motion
> for a preliminary injunction, he will issue an order either granting
> or denying a preliminary injunction. It is not likely that he would
> strike down the law at this point. However, as part of the
> preliminary injunction analysis, he must determine the likelihood of
> plaintiffs succeeding on the merits. It is in this part of the
> opinion that he will address our chances of ultimately prevailing
> after either trial or a motion for summary judgment.
|
remmers
|
|
response 262 of 316:
|
Jul 29 18:50 UTC 1999 |
NEWS FLASH!!! WE WON!!!
Just got a call from Mike Steinberg of the ACLU. The judge has issued a
ruling and the injunction has been granted. The law will not go into
effect August 1.
Mike is emailing me the judge's 30-page opinion; I'll post it online as
soon as possible.
|
robh
|
|
response 263 of 316:
|
Jul 29 19:40 UTC 1999 |
<sigh of relief>
|
keesan
|
|
response 264 of 316:
|
Jul 29 19:45 UTC 1999 |
Great! We nearly signed up a new grex member, I told her to wait until August
1 and then give me a call before sending in her first $6 check. What happens
next?
|
mary
|
|
response 265 of 316:
|
Jul 30 00:28 UTC 1999 |
I had two telephone calls from the press today. One was from The Detroit
Free Press where a Mr. Campbell wanted to know if the law we are fighting
is part of the same law that is behind the story they ran on their front
page today, concerning a small Michigan town where elected officials are
refusing to permit any of their public library's computers uncensored
access to the web. The State has evidently passed a law, to take effect
August 1, mandating that at least one computer at each public library must
be available, without filtered content, for use by adults and children
accompanied by adults. Yep, you read that right. I referred him to Mr.
Steinberg.
The second call was from a C. Mendes, at the New York Times. She asked
quite a few questions about Cyberspace Communications and wanted to know
our reaction to the judge's decision. She visited our Web site during the
discussion. She expected an article to be published on the NYT web site
within a few hours.
|