|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
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!
|
jep
|
|
response 271 of 316:
|
Jul 30 14:25 UTC 1999 |
It's the news item of the day for Michigan on USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/mimain.htm:
Friday, July 30
Lansing - A state law aimed at keeping
sexually explicit material out of the hands
of minors using the Internet won't take
effect Saturday. A federal judge issued a
preliminary injunction, saying the law violates
free speech guarantees in the
First Amendment.
The Detroit News at
http://www.detnews.com/1999/metro/9907/30/07300062.htm
features quotes from Michael Steinberg and also from Bev Hammerstrom.
The Detroit Free Press covers it only in a brief from the Associated
Press, under: http://www.freep.com/news/mich/qdate30.htm
|
janc
|
|
response 272 of 316:
|
Jul 30 15:26 UTC 1999 |
Hmm. The USA Today and Free Press blurbs are pretty content free.
The Detroit News and New York Times articles read much more favorably
than most of the earlier publicity did. They really do a rather nice
job of summarizing the case against the law, using a few well-selected
quotes from Judge Tarnow's opinion.
|
gull
|
|
response 273 of 316:
|
Jul 30 17:45 UTC 1999 |
I liked the comment in the opinion about every computer having an on/off
switch. ;>
|
other
|
|
response 274 of 316:
|
Jul 31 00:23 UTC 1999 |
interesting though, that the on/off switch reference is exemplary of hobson's
choice...
|
lilmo
|
|
response 275 of 316:
|
Jul 31 15:11 UTC 1999 |
No, no, the hobson's choice is whether to continue with a site, or to take
it down. The ref to an on/off switch refers to parents being able to turn
off their computer to prevent children from viewing "bad" sites.
|
other
|
|
response 276 of 316:
|
Aug 1 02:49 UTC 1999 |
you've supported my point.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 277 of 316:
|
Aug 4 22:27 UTC 1999 |
The judge's ruling etc. appeared in an article in Sunday's (August 1) edition
of the Plymouth Observer (perhaps other Observer flavors too, dunno). Some
law enforcement agencies, including the Wayne County Sherrif via Ficano,
expressed disappointment with the ruling, and hope that the state will
appeal. Ficano also mentioned that this ruling does not affect and so will
not slow up law enforcement from seeking out and twarting internet predators.
|
dpc
|
|
response 278 of 316:
|
Aug 5 14:29 UTC 1999 |
"Twarting" predators, eh? Sounds painful--even obscene! 8-)
|
jshafer
|
|
response 279 of 316:
|
Aug 5 23:20 UTC 1999 |
I had the same response...
|
albaugh
|
|
response 280 of 316:
|
Aug 6 02:15 UTC 1999 |
Tw... + wart, maybe? Make that *thwart*, *don't* get the h out! :-)
|
brighn
|
|
response 281 of 316:
|
Aug 12 22:55 UTC 1999 |
um, why is or should a net predator be treated any differently than any other
predator? =P
|
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?
|