
	Where results make sense

Topic: ACLU v Ashcroft

Related Topics

ACLU v Ashcroft

Allegheny County v Greater Pittsburgh ACLU

Peggy Ashcroft

Richard Ashcroft

John D Ashcroft

The Lord Ashcroft

Dolores Ashcroft Nowicki

Johnny Ashcroft

Chloe Ashcroft

Christina Ashcroft

Ashcroft, British Columbia

ACLU v Ashcroft

In the News (Wed 7 Jan 09)

Rod Blagojevich

Phil Schiller

Gaza City

Jermain Defoe

Lindsay Lohan

Bill Richardson

Kelly Preston

Leon Panetta

Mitchell Johnson

Darren Sproles

	American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The ACLU is one of the most influential NGOs in the United States today; often controversial, its stances have engendered criticism from both sides of the political spectrum (see Critics of the ACLU).
		The ACLU has been a vocal opponent of the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the proposed (as of 2003) PATRIOT 2 Act, and associated legislation made in response to the threat of domestic terrorism, that it believes violates either the letter or the spirit of the U.S. Bill of Rights.
		The Ohio chapter of the ACLU was criticized for presenting the Council on American-Islamic Relations with an award in October, 2003.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/ACLU (3264 words)

	Ashcroft v. ACLU
		V), a statutory provision prohibiting the use of telephones to make obscene or indecent communications for commercial purposes.
		Although our holding in ACLU I did not turn on that factor alone, we did not adopt the position relied on by Justice Thomas–that applying community standards to the Internet is constitutional based on Hamling and Sable.
		Whatever disparity exists between various communities' assessment of the content that appeals to the prurient interest of minors will surely be matched by their differing opinions as to whether descriptions of sexual acts or depictions of nudity are patently offensive with respect to minors.
	www.tomwbell.com /NetLaw/Ch04/Ashcroft.html (6459 words)

	No. 03-218: Ashcroft v. ACLU - Petition
		ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), the Court held that the CDA's regulation of "indecent" and "patently offensive" speech violated the First Amendment.
		ACLU, 535 U.S. In a judgment supported by several opinions, the Court held that "COPA's reliance on community standards to identify 'material that is harmful to minors' does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for purposes of the First Amendment." Id. at 585.
		And it is analogous to the definition of obscenity that this Court upheld in Miller v.
	www.usdoj.gov /osg/briefs/2003/2pet/7pet/2003-0218.pet.aa.html (6887 words)

	NYCLU: In the courts (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01)
		In June of 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was abandoning a prior policy that local law-enforcement agencies were not authorized to engage in the enforcement of civil immigration laws.
		In that petition, which was joined by the ACLU, the NYCLU contended first that, contrary to the conclusion of the Second Circuit, the complaint had to be read to allege that law-enforcement officials had stopped a large number of African-Americans solely on the basis of their race and to the exclusion of nonracial information (e.g.
		The NYCLU and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project filed an Article 78 proceeding arguing that the Elks’ policy of excluding women was arbitrary and capricious and that the exemption of the Elks from the anti-discrimination provisions of the New York Executive Law §292 was itself irrational and unconstitutional in violation of the Equal Protection principles.
	www.nyclu.org /docket.html (15495 words)

	ACLU v. Ashcroft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Ashcroft may refer to one of a number of United States legal court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union and the United States government under the George W. Bush administration —represented by former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
		American Civil Liberties Union - freedom of speech, internet, child pornography) a SCOTUS case that began in 1999, which found provisions of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to be in violation of the free speech clause in the First Amendment.
		Ashcroft (2004) - A district court ruled against the government on an issue of constitutionality for a section (NSL provision) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, because it failed to outline legal process by which a party subpoenaed for information, based on the ECPA NSL provision, could challenge the government.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/ACLU_v._Ashcroft (193 words)

	Medill School of Journalism - On the Docket
		Rumsfeld) and the other on the consequence of when foreign nationals arrested in the U.S. are not notified of their right to contact their consulate (Sanchez-Llamas v.
		Indiana), and the third a patents case involving a device that detects vitamin B deficiency (Laboratory Corp. of America v.
		Farmer, in which in 2000, he wrote a concurring opinion that recognized that a New Jersey law banning "partial-birth abortions" was unconstititional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that same year in Stenberg v.
	docket.medill.northwestern.edu /?...&-recordID=33206&-search (738 words)

	No. 03-218: Ashcroft v. ACLU - Appendix (Petition)
		Initially, the government moved the District Court to dismiss the ACLU's action insofar as the individuals and entities that it purported to represent were not in danger of prosecution under COPA and therefore lacked standing.
		Because the ACLU met its burden for a preliminary injunction, the District Court granted its petition.
		As in all areas of constitutional strict scrutiny jurisprudence, the government must establish that the challenged statute is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest, and that it seeks to protect its interest in a manner that is the least restrictive of protected speech.
	www.usdoj.gov /osg/briefs/2003/2pet/7pet/2003-0218.pet.app.html (17265 words)

	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01)
		Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. Our decision in that case was influenced by the distinctive characteristics of the broadcast medium, as well as the expertise of the agency, and the narrow scope of its order.
		ACLU I, 521 U.S., at 896 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (“While discussions about prison rape or nude art … may have some redeeming educational value for adults, they do not necessarily have any such value for minors”).
		As we recognized in ACLU I, 521 U.S., 854 (1997), “ ‘the receipt of information on the Internet requires a series of affirmative steps more deliberate and directed than merely turning a dial’ ”–or scanning a magazine rack.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/00-1293.ZD.html (3220 words)

	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
		ASHCROFT V. 322 F.3d 240, affirmed and remanded.
		COPA was enacted in response to Reno v.
		After considering testimony presented by both respondents and the Government, the District Court granted the preliminary injunction, concluding that respondents were likely to prevail on their argument that there were less restrictive alternatives to COPA, particularly blocking or filtering technology.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/03-218.ZS.html (1281 words)

	Legal Theory Blog
		This is the 1 person 1 vote case in which the lower court had struck down a redistricting plan for state legislators on the theory that political gerrmandering was illicit.
		Wade: "[I]t is not constitutional law, and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." There was at best a cosmetic difference between the University of Michigan undergraduate school's crude "20-points-extra for minority applicants" (which the Court struck down) and the Law School's "holistic" and disingenuous preferences (which the Court upheld).
		From this account follows a new general test: The compelled subsidization of the speech of others violates the First Amendment just when the funds collected are used to promote the message of an identifiable viewpoint or interest in debate on a controversial political or ideological issue.
	lsolum.blogspot.com /archives/2004_06_01_lsolum_archive.html (11359 words)

	Ashcroft v. ACLU
		The day after the COPA was passed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought an action against the Attorney General, Janet Reno, challenging the COPA’s constitutionality and seeking to forbid its enforcement.
		As a method to block the availability of the different levels of offensive material, COPA attempts to restrict access to material that may be deemed lustful, obscene or of no serious value to children.
		The district court held that COPA is a content-based restriction because it prohibits Web publishers from displaying material that is “harmful to minors.” Laws that discriminate based on content are “presumptively invalid” and must pass the strict scrutiny test.
	www2.norwich.edu /jjageman/MT/aclu_a.htm (5277 words)

	Supreme Court Reverses Third Circuit in Ashcroft v. ACLU While National Academy of Sciences Study Questions Efficacy of ...
		California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the “patent offensiveness” and “prurient appeal” of sexually oriented materials should be determined by reference to contemporary community standards. But the decision in Ashcroft v.
		ACLU revived the debate that raged on the Court before Miller, about what kind of standards -- and which community -- should govern obscenity determinations.
		ACLU and served as an expert reviewer for the National Academy of Science study.
	www.mediainstitute.org /ONLINE/FAM2003/2-a.html (660 words)

	firstamendmentcenter.org: news
		ACLU (1997) found the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, Congress tried again to find a way to restrict minor's access to sexually explicit material on the Internet.
		ACLU, the Supreme Court said the use of the "community standards" rule in the law was not overbroad under the First Amendment.
		ACLU II back to lower court for trial that could give government a chance to prove that COPA doesn't go too far.
	www.firstamendmentcenter.org /news.aspx?id=13584 (670 words)

	ACLU v. Ashcroft -- Facts, Info, and Encyclopedia article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01)
		(additional info and facts about ACLU) ACLU v.
		The NSL (Section 2709) permitted the FBI to obtain customer records from phone and Internet companies in terrorism investigations, and was introduced by Democrat (additional info and facts about Patrick Leahy) Patrick Leahy and enacted in 1986.
		The ACLU argued that the NSL violated the (An honours degree of the highest class) First and (additional info and facts about Fourth Amendment) Fourth Amendments of the (additional info and facts about US Constitution) US Constitution because:
	www.absoluteastronomy.com /encyclopedia/a/ac/aclu_v._ashcroft3.htm (314 words)

	FindLaw's Modern Pracice - Cyberlaw
		ACLU, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision relating to minors and the Internet.
		The idea - and it is one the Supreme Court has previously accepted, in cases such as Ginsberg v.
		New York - is that material that is not obscene as to adults, may still be legally deemed unfit for children to see.
	practice.findlaw.com /cyberlaw-0804.html (1628 words)

	ACLU v. Reno II -- Challenge to Internet Censorship
		In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Reno v.
		In late February, 2001, the Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Third Circuit.
		In April EPIC joined with the ACLU and EFF in a brief opposing certiorari that asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to disturb the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Child Online Protection Act to be unconstitutional.
	www.epic.org /free_speech/copa (944 words)

	ipedia.com: Supreme Court of the United States Article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01)
		Respondent", where the petitioner is the party that requested certiorari after having lost the previous decision in the case, and the respondent is the party having prevailed in the lower court.
		Where the case has come to the court by an appeal of right, as in what is called "probable jurisdiction," the appealing party (the "appellant") is named first.
		Even though much of the country approved of the New Deal, they did not approve of his attempts to "pack the court," and the plan failed on July 22 when the United States Senate voted down the plan.
	www.ipedia.com /supreme_court_of_the_united_states.html (1728 words)

	IPTAblog: Ashcroft v. ACLU link roundup
		The Department will continue to work to defend children from the dangerous predators who lurk in the dark shadows of the World Wide Web.
		ACLU: "The least restrictive means in this case are filters.
		ACLU link roundup is part of the iptablog.org weblog.
	www.iptablog.org /2004/06/29/ashcroft_v_aclu_link_roundup.html (563 words)

	beSpacific: Courts Archives
		Ashcroft et al., No. 04-CIV-2614, Judge Victor Marreo, Southern District of New York, "struck down an entire Patriot Act provision that gives the government unchecked authority to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight.
		ACLU), the Supreme Court held that "The Third Circuit was correct to affirm the District Court's ruling that enforcement of COPA (Pub.
		ACLU II; Cornell's Legal Information Institute, SCOTUSBlog, and AP, and this EFF press release.
	www.bespacific.com /mt/archives/cat_courts.html (8407 words)

	FindLaw - U.S. Supreme Court - March 2004 Cases
		Is the Fifth Circuit's rule requiring a "nexus" to the crime before evidence of impaired intellectual functioning and judgment can be considered as mitigation for purposes of determining whether there is a violation of Penry v.
		Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (Penry I), inconsistent with the rationale of Atkins v.
		Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v.
	supreme.lp.findlaw.com /supreme_court/docket/2003/march.html (2262 words)

	Docket for 03-218
		Appendix of John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General filed.
		Reply of petitioner John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General filed.
		Brief of petitioner John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General filed.
	www.supremecourtus.gov /docket/03-218.htm (415 words)

	American Civil Liberties Union: 404
		Use the ACLU website's site search engine (above right).
		This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
		Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.
	www.aclu.org /SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16596&c=262 (128 words)

	People For the American Way - ACLU v. Ashcroft
		People For the American Way - ACLU v.
		The first attempt was called the Communications Decency Act and People For the American Way Foundation joined as co-plaintiffs and co-counsel along with book publishers, librarians, and others in a lawsuit entitled American Library Association v.
		Department of Justice which led to a nearly unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down that law which criminalized the sending of so-called "indecent" communications over the Internet.
	www.pfaw.org /pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2972 (678 words)

	The Importance of...: First Thoughts on Ashcroft v. ACLU (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01)
		The Importance of...: First Thoughts on Ashcroft v.
		Or, you can read the 41-page decision for yourself, here: Ashcroft v.
		This is the third time that an internet censorship case has come before the Supreme Court (not counting the library filtering case) and there are still a number of very interesting aspects to be dealt with.
	www.corante.com /importance/archives/004676.html (3609 words)

	Supreme Court of the United States - Questionz.net , answers to all your questions (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01)
		In cases involving a federal agency (for example, the United States Department of Justice), the head of the agency is often named as a party to the case, such as Ashcroft v.
		stands for versus, Latin for "against." In speaking, it is sometimes read as "v", sometimes as "versus", and sometimes as "against."
		Recently, the Supreme Court delivered a highly controversial 5-4 decision in Bush v.
	www.questionz.net /US_Supreme_Court.html (1297 words)

	Ashcroft v. ACLU
		A civil liberties organization brought an action against Attorney General Ashcroft alleging that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) violated free speech guarantees.
		The district court issued a preliminary injunction to prevent COPA's enforcement, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
		Whether the court of appeals properly barred enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act on First Amendment grounds because it relies on community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors.
	law.duke.edu /publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2003/ashvACL.html (99 words)

	Ashcroft v. ACLU commentary
		The following is a commentary Max Hailperin wrote immediately following the Supreme Court's decision on 2004-06-29 in the case of Ashcroft v.
		The ACLU is probably right that some legitimate, non-pornographic messages would have been chilled, but that isn't the big problem.
		The big problem is how the commercial pornographers would have responded.
	www.gustavus.edu /+max/ashcroft-aclu-commentary.html (680 words)

	Begging to Differ - June 2004 Archives (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01)
		UPDATE: Now I see that Will Baude has noted the difference in the ACLU case as well.
		As the Government bears the burden of proof on the ultimate question of COPA’s constitutionality, respondents must be deemed likely to prevail unless the Government has shown that respondents’ proposed less restrictive alternatives are less effective than COPA.
		Meanwhile, CNN reports here that "[t]he lead prosecutor in the nation's first trial based on post-September 11 terrorism investigations is the subject of two federal probes, one of them criminal, according to court documents." An investigation doesn't mean much.
	www.beggingtodiffer.com /archives/2004_06.html (9043 words)

	American Civil Liberties Union : Complaint for Relief in ACLU v. Ashcroft
		American Civil Liberties Union : Complaint for Relief in ACLU v.
		The urgency to keep America safe and free has never been greater as sections of the Patriot Act are set to "sunset" unless Congress votes to reauthorize it.
		If you need the viewer for this file format, go to: Adobe Acrobat Reader
	www.aclu.org /SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=15552&c=262 (136 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)