Big Brother Awards
quintessenz search  /  subscribe  /  upload  /  contact  
/q/depesche *
/kampaigns
/topiqs
/doquments
/contaqt
/about
/handheld
/subscribe
Linuxwochen Österreich Tour
RSS-Feed Depeschen RSS
Hosted by AKIS
<<   ^   >>
Date: 2000-06-23

US-Zensurgesetz weiter blockiert


-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-.

Und wieder hat das gute First Amendment zur US-
Konstitution gehalten und einen breit angelegten Versuch
des Staats, das Netz und seine Vielfalt an
Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten in den Griff zu kriegen.
Einstimmiger gaben die Richter in der Berufung gegen den
Child Online Protection Act [COPA] recht.

Background:
http://service.quintessenz.at/cgi-bin/htsearch?method=and&format=builtin-long&config=quisse&restrict=&exclude=&sort=score&words=COPA
-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-
Relayed by EWhitfield@aclu.org via sobel@epic.org via gilc-
plan@gilc.org
-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-

PHILADELPHIA--In a unanimous decision issued late today,
a federal appeals court here struck down as unconstitutional
Congress's second attempt to criminalize speech on the
Internet. The American Civil Liberties Union, which
challenged the 1998 "Child Online Protection Act" on behalf
of 17 groups and individuals, welcomed the decision and said
the court's strong language should persuade the Justice
Department and lawmakers to end wrongheaded attempts to
regulate the unique medium of the Internet.

"We are deeply gratified that the court recognized the danger
this law represented to our clients, who faced jail time and
heavy fines for speech that is unquestionably protected by
the Constitution," said Ann Beeson, one of the ACLU
attorneys who argued the case before a three-judge panel
last November.

"Clearly, the court is not satisfied with Congress's efforts in
this area,"Beeson added. "We now call on Congress and the
Clinton Administration to close the book on this early chapter
of Internet history and embrace free speech online as we
have embraced it in every other significant communications
medium." The so-called "Child Online Protection Act," also
known as "COPA," made it a federal crime to use the World
Wide Web to communicate
"for commercial purposes" material considered "harmful to minors," with penalties of up to $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison.


The speech at issue today, Beeson noted, included sexual advice columns, discussion boards on gynecology, and websites for a bookstore, an art gallery, and the Philadelphia Gay News, among others. In its legal challenge t
o the Act, the ACLU said constitutional flaws in this law were identical to the flaws that led the Supreme Court to strike down the "Communications Decency Act," Congress's earlier attempt at Internet censorship, in a lan
dmark 1997 ruling. In their 34-page decision, the judges today upheld a lower court finding that the 1998 law "imposes a burden on speech that is protected for adults."

However, while the lower court based its finding on a variety of First Amendment flaws in the law, the ACLU noted, the appeals court today focused chiefly on the fact that it is impossible to establish one ecommunity stan
dard' by which Internet speech could be governed. "Because of the peculiar geography-free nature of cyberspace," the appeals court wrote, "a ecommunity standards' test would essentially require every Web communication to
abide by the most restrictive community's standards." The overbreadth of the 1998 law "so concerns us," the appeals court said, "that we are persuaded that this aspect of COPA, without reference to its other provisions,
must lead inexorably to a holding of a likelihood of unconstitutionality of the entire COPA statute."

Commenting on the particular focus of the appeals court's ruling, ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen, noted, "The district court found the statute unconstitutional because it was impossible to verify age. The court
of appeals finds it unconstitutional because it is impossible to verify geography." The government now has three options, Hansen said: it can admit defeat and let today's ruling stand; it can appeal the decision to the Su
preme Court, which is not obligated to review it; or it can go back to the District Court and ask for a full trial. ACLU challenges to state "harmful-to-minors" laws were successful in New Mexico and New York. Another ca
se from Michigan was successful and is now on appeal. The appeals court's decision today is online at http://pacer.ca3.uscourts.gov:8080/C:/InetPub/ftproot/Opinions/991324 .TXT The case is ACLU v. Reno II, No. 99-1324.


The three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was comprised of Judge Theodore Alexander McKee, Judge Leonard I. Garth, and Judge Richard Lowell Nygaard. The 17 plaintiffs represented in ACLU v. Reno II are:
American Civil Liberties Union (on behalf of all its members including Nadine Strossen, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Patricia Nell Warren, Mitchell Tepper and David Bunnell); A Different Light Bookstore; American Booksellers F
oundation for Free Expression; ArtNet; The Blackstripe; Condomania; Electronic Frontier Foundation (on behalf of all its members including Bill Boushka, Jon Noring, Open Enterprises Cooperative and Rufus Griscom); Electro
nic Privacy Information Center; Free Speech Media, LLC; Internet Content Coalition; OBGYN.NET; Philadelphia Gay News; PlanetOut Corporation; Powell's Bookstore; RIOTGRRL; Salon Magazine; and Weststock.com. (Links to thes
e websites can be found at

http://www.aclu.org/court/acluvrenoII_plaintiffs.html). The ACLU's brief in the case is online at http://www.aclu.org/court/acluvrenoii_motion.html. ACLU attorneys in the case are Ann Beeson and Christopher Hansen of th
e national office and Stefan Presser, Legal Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. Catherine Palmer, Christopher R. Harris, Michele M. Pyle, Douglas A. Griffin and Kate Bolger are volunteer attorneys from the law firm Lath
am & Watkins in New York City; David Sobel of Electronic Privacy Information Center and Shari Steele of Electronic Frontier Foundation are co-counsel.


...................................................................... . David L.
Sobel, General Counsel * +1 202 483 1140 (tel) Electronic
Privacy Information Center * +1 202 483 1248 (fax) 1718
Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 200 * sobel@epic.org
Washington, DC 20009 USA * http://www.epic.org .


------- End of forwarded message -------
-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-

- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-.
edited by Harkank
published on: 2000-06-23
comments to office@quintessenz.at
subscribe Newsletter
- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-.
<<   ^   >>
Druck mich
Linuxwochen Austria

meet q/uintessenz every friday

BigBrotherAwards





25. Oktober 2018
freier Eintritt
#BBA18
Big Brother Awards Austria
 related topiqs
 


 CURRENTLY RUNNING
bits4free 18. Jan. 2012: Ihre Meinung zählt
Liquid Democracy - direkte Demokratie durch Online-Partizipation?
 
 !WATCH OUT!
q/Talk, Di 29. Nov: Es gilt die unSchuldsvermutung!
Bürger unter Generalverdacht und stundenlange Einvernahme von Chattern