|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
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.
|
janc
|
|
response 266 of 316:
|
Jul 30 03:14 UTC 1999 |
I've updated our lawsuit page (http://www.cyberspace.org/lawsuit/).
I've added an HTML version of the judge's ruling. It's at
http://www.cyberspace.org/lawsuit/injunction.html
|
janc
|
|
response 267 of 316:
|
Jul 30 04:44 UTC 1999 |
A couple notes on where things stand and where they are going, as I
understand it.
What we have now is a "preliminary injunction". This prevents
enforcement of the law until further rulings. It is *not* a ruling that
the law is unconstitutional. It is just a ruling that says that the
likelihood of the law being found unconstitutional is high enough that
people shouldn't be prosecuted under it until it has been examined
further.
The ruling is quite satisfactory - Judge Tarnow appears to have pretty
much accepted all the ACLU's reasoning, and even added some arguments
against the law that they didn't make.
Things do not end here. Lots of different things could happen next, but
the most likely is that the Attorney General's office will appeal Judge
Tarnow's ruling. This would go to the U.S. Appeals Court in Cincinatti,
where the case would be presented to a panel of three Judges. No
testimony would be presented at this hearing - it is considered a
"question of law" rather then a "question of fact". It would likely be
heard late this year or early next year.
|
janc
|
|
response 268 of 316:
|
Jul 30 05:24 UTC 1999 |
Couple things that I thought were interesting from reading the
injuction:
- I'd known that the A.G. was challenging the "standing" of the
plaintiffs, but I assumed that the challenge was based on
questioning whether we would really be harmed by this Act. Instead
it appears that the A.G. was saying that we haven't been harmed
*yet* because we hadn't been prosecuted yet and thus don't have
standing *yet*. The Judge didn't buy this. All hail Judge Tarnow.
- Pretty much all the stuff joked about during the hearing made it
into the injunction. "You can't burn the house to roast the pig"
is there with citation. "Hobson's choice" is there, with a foot-
note telling who Hobson was. "SPAM" is there, with a footnote
explaining that the name comes from a Monty Python script.
Apparantly Judge Tarnow treasures such marginalia. All hail Judge
Tarnow.
- During the hearing, the Judge commented that Grex appeared to fit
the Jeffersonian model of "The Marketplace of Ideas." In the
injunction he calls this concept "one of the cornerstones of
American Society". It's nice to know Grex is a cornerstone. All
hail Judge Tarnow.
- The new argument that Judge Tarnow adds is in section six -
"Fundamental Right of Child Rearing". He argues it is the right and
duty of parents to teach and mold children's concepts of right and
wrong. Since there are means by which parents can set limits on
what their children can access over the Internet, it is improper for
the state to take on that responsibility. All hail Judge Tarnow.
|
remmers
|
|
response 269 of 316:
|
Jul 30 06:09 UTC 1999 |
The New York Times on the Web has an article on this case, in the
"Cybertimes" section, dated July 30. It's entitled "Judge Halts Michigan
Online Porn Law," and it appears under the byline of Pamela Mendels, the
reporter who called Mary Thursday afternoon. Grex is mentioned in a
couple of paragraphs, which I'll quote:
But plaintiffs said they were happy with the decision. "We're
thrilled," said Mary Remmers, a founder of Cyberspace Communications
Inc., one of the plaintiffs. "It's a great start. There's still a
court case that will possibly happen. But we are feeling lighter
knowing that at least August 1st we don't have to change the service
we offer."
Cyberspace Communications is a nonprofit, Ann Arbor-based group that
hosts a Web site with about 50 different areas for online discussions
on subjects ranging from cooking to politics.
A link to Grex's main web page appears at the end of the article. The
URL of the article is:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/cyber/articles/30michigan.html
|
dpc
|
|
response 270 of 316:
|
Jul 30 13:18 UTC 1999 |
Congrats, all!
|