|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
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?
|
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.
|