From: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 18:56:53 +0800
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <QQahye24948.199603210408@relay3.UU.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Read on for more information on the details of the court challenge.

I'm very happy to know that Donna Hoffman and Howard Rheingold will be
testifying. They and other ACLU/CIEC witnesses and plaintiffs have been
deposed by the DoJ over the last two weeks in Washington, DC. During the
weeks separating the two sets of hearing dates, we will be deposing
witnesses that the DoJ plans to call. I would expect those witnesses to
dispute, among other things, the effectiveness of filtering software and
other forms of indecency-blocking. 

-Declan



// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //



March 20, 1996

_________________________________________________________________
News from the ACLU National Headquarters


                 ACLU V. RENO:  Background Briefing
                                  
              Three-Judge Panel to Hear ACLU Testimony in 
           Landmark Challenge to Internet Censorship Law
                                                                    
PHILADELPHIA, PA--Beginning tomorrow, a three-judge panel in
federal district court in Philadelphia will hear testimony in the
consolidated cases of ACLU et al v. Reno and American Library
Association et al v. Reno, the landmark challenge to censorship
provisions of the Telecommunications Law of 1996. 

Free speech in cyberspace is at stake as the first major legal
challenge to censorship on the Internet gets underway.  The case began
when the ACLU filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against
indecency provisions of the Telecommunications Bill immediately after
it was signed into law by President Clinton on February 8.  The suit
challenges provisions of the law that criminalize making available to
minors "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech.  

Acting on behalf of 20 individuals and organizations that provide
information via the Internet -- including itself -- the ACLU said it
was moving quickly because it feared that the telecommunications
legislation would have an immediate impact on the Internet.  

Following this action, a second legal challenge was filed on
February 26 by a coalition of more than 20 corporate and trade
organizations known as the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition
(CIEC).  The CIEC suit, organized by the American Library Association,
America Online and the Center for Democracy and Technology, was
formally consolidated  with ACLU v. Reno.  

The CIEC lawsuit, which addresses essentially the same issues as
the ACLU challenge, further illustrates the broad spectrum  of
individuals and organizations that would be affected by the censorship
provisions, and strengthens the case for a finding that the law is
unconstitutional.  


The Court Case 

According to procedures laid out by the judges, direct testimony
in ACLU v. Reno is to be submitted via affidavit.  During the three
days of testimony allowed, which will take place over March 21 and 22
and April 1, lawyers for the Department of Justice will cross-examine
coalition witnesses, after which lawyers for the ACLU and ALA
coalitions will have an opportunity to redirect, i.e., question their
witnesses in response to the government's cross-examination.

In preparation for the case, lawyers for the Department of Justice
have been deposing all the ACLU and CIEC witnesses it may choose to
cross-examine.  So far, government lawyers have declined to cross-
examine only two witnesses: Christine Soto and Hunter Allen, teenagers
whose affidavits attest to the importance of uncensored access to the
Internet by minors.  

The government is scheduled to present its witnesses for cross-
examination on April 11 and 12, 1996.  A fourth day of testimony has
been scheduled for April 26, to allow the ACLU and ALA coalitions to
present witnesses rebutting the government's testimony.   Following
these six days of trial,  the judges will issue a ruling.  Depending
on the outcome, either side may seek an appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court.   


The Witnesses

Thursday, March 21:
--Scott  O. Bradner, senior technical consultant, Information Technology
Services, Harvard University (ALA)
--Ann W. Duvall, president, SurfWatch Inc.  (ALA)
--Patricia Nell Warren, author and publisher, WildCat Press (ACLU)

Friday, March 22
--Donna Hoffman, associate professor of management, Owen Graduate School
of Management, Vanderbilt University (ACLU)
--William Stayton, psychologist and Baptist minister (ACLU)
--Robert B. Cronenberger, director, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Professor (ALA)
--Kiyoshi Kuromiya, director, Critical Path AIDS Project (ACLU)

Monday, April 1
--Howard Rheingold, author and cyberspace expert
--Barry Steinhardt, associate director, ACLU 
--Stephen Donaldson, Stop Prisoner Rape

(*Note: schedule is subject to change)


Chronology

February 7
-- At a news conference in Washington, D.C., the ACLU announces plans
to seek a temporary restraining order against indecency provisions of
the Telecommunications Bill immediately after it is signed into law
by President Clinton on February 8.  
--The ACLU announces the launch of its new "Freedom Network" World
Wide Web site, <http://www.aclu.org>, with a home page declaring,
"Keep Cyberspace Free."  Over 200,000 hits are recorded in the first
48 hours of the launch. 

February 8
--The ACLU files its legal challenge in federal district court in
Philadelphia before Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter.  
-- In the first court action over the constitutionality of the
Communications Decency Act , Judge   Buckwalter directs the government
to refrain from prosecuting for so-called indecent or patently
offensive material online until the motion for a TRO is decided.
-- The judge instructs the government to file a reply brief to the
ACLU's request for a TRO within one week.  
--Government lawyers conceded that the abortion speech restrictions
of the CDA are unconstitutional.  

February 15
-- Judge Buckwalter grants a temporary restraining order on the
indecency provisions of  the Communications Decency Act, and denies
the TRO motions on prosecution for "patently offensive material" and
on the "Comstock Law" abortion speech provisions of the CDA.  
--A three-judge panel is convened to hear the case: Chief Judge
Dolores K. Sloviter, Judge Stuart Dalzell, and Judge Ronald L.
Buckwalter.

February 21
--More than 5,000 visitors to the ACLU website use the "instant action"
feature to e-mail or fax Attorney General Janet Reno, urging her not
to prosecute under the new law.   

February 23
 -- ACLU announces that government lawyers have agreed not to initiate
investigations or prosecute Internet "indecency" until three-judge
court rules on the case.
--Hearing dates set for the case; the ACLU will present its evidence
on March 21 and 22, with April 1 reserved.  The government's dates 
are April 11 and 12, 1996.  The total trial is scheduled to last five days. 

February 26
--More than 20 corporate and trade organizations, known as the Citizens
Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC),  initiate a second legal
challenge to the Communications Decency Act.  

February 27
--The CIEC suit, organized by the American Library Association, America
Online and the Center for Democracy and Technology, is formally
consolidated  with ACLU v. Reno.  

March 21  
--Trial opens at 9:30 a.m. in the ceremonial courtroom in federal
district court in Philadelphia.  
 
                                 ###

Contact: Emily Whitfield, (212) 944-9800 ext.426

_________________________________________________________________
Media Relations Office 132 W 43rd Street, NYC 10036 (212) 944-9800 ext. 414