Supreme Court Hears Web-Blocking Case
Supreme Court Rules on Web Blocking Case
ACLU Disappointed, but Sees Limited Impact on Adults
|
General Materials
Legal materials
- Supreme Court ruling
- Supreme Court Brief
- Response to Government's Jurisdictional Statement
- Government's appeal to Supreme Court
- Trial court decision (May 31, 2002)
- Plaintiffs
- Trial Schedule and Witness Biographies
- Courtroom Report
- Plaintiffs' Joint Post-Trial Documents
- ACLU Pretrial Brief
- Redacted final joint party stipulations
- ACLU Complaint in Multnomah County Public Library et al., vs. United States of America, et al.
- ACLU Response to Government's Motion to Dismiss
- Expert Report: Study of Web Blocking Programs by Ben Edelman of Harvard University's Berkman Center
- Expert Report: Prof. Joseph Janes of the University of Washington
- Expert Report: Library Consultant Anne G. Lipow
Examples of Wrongly Blocked Web Sites
- Evidence submitted at trial
- Consumer Reports Reviews Blocking Software Programs
- Find Out Who's Been Censored at the Censorware Project
ACLU Special Reports
- Censorship In a Box: Why Blocking Software is Wrong for Public Libraries
- Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?
Press Releases
- ACLU Disappointed in Ruling on Internet Censorship in Libraries, But Sees Limited Impact for Adults (6/23/2003)
- ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Reject Law Mandating Internet Censorship in Libraries (3/05/2003)
Other Resources
- American Library Association page on CIPA challenge
- COPA Commission report (panel created by Congress that recommended against blocking programs)
- Government Report on the Digital Divide
Plaintiffs' Legal Team
- Ann Beeson and Christopher A. Hansen of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
- Stefan Presser of the ACLU of Pennsylvania Foundation
- David L. Sobel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Chuck Sims with the New York City law firm Proskauer Rose
Scott Asphaug, Multnomah County Attorney.