In Supreme Court Argument this Wednesday, ACLU to Once Again Battle Internet Censorship Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In oral arguments this week, the American Civil Liberties Union will return to the United States Supreme Court to urge the Justices to once again reject a law criminalizing constitutionally protected speech on the Internet.
"The constitutional flaws in this law are identical to the flaws that led the Supreme Court to strike down similar legislation four years ago," said ACLU attorney Ann Beeson, who will be arguing before the Justices. "Once again, the law suppresses a wide range of socially valuable speech that adults have a right to communicate."
In 1997, the Justices unanimously ruled in Reno v. ACLU that the Communications Decency Act was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Congress responded to that ruling by adopting the "Child Online Protection Act" in 1998.
In Ashcroft v. ACLU, (No. 00-1293) the case to be heard this Wednesday, November 28, the ACLU argues that the online protection act targets a wide range of speech on the Internet that is valuable for adults but may be considered "harmful to minors" by some communities, with penalties of up to $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison. The ACLU noted that Congress passed the law despite serious constitutional concerns raised by the Justice Department and by a special Congressional commission.
Dr. Mitch Tepper, an ACLU client who plans to attend Wednesday's argument, said he fears that some communities will be offended by material on his website, which provides sex information for the disabled including articles such as "Sex Toys and Where to Purchase Them," and "Hands-Free Whoopie."
"While a government attorney in Washington might say my website is not 'harmful to minors,' a prosecutor in some other community may think differently, and as a result I could wind up in jail and bankrupt from huge fines," Dr. Tepper said.
The ACLU's 17 clients include writers of sexual advice columns; Planetout.com; OB/GYN.net; Artnet.com; and websites for bookstores, art galleries, and the Philadelphia Gay News.
A complete history of Ashcroft v. ACLU, including court papers and a list of ACLU clients and the material they fear will be censored, is available here.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.