text:
Plaintiffs Barbara Nitke ("Nitke"), the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom Foundation (collectively, "NCSF") respectfully submit this memorandum is support of their motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the obscenity prong of the Communications Decency Act, Section 502 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (codified at 47 U.S.C. §223(a)(1)(B)) (the CDA), and in opposition to the motion of defendants John Ashcroft ("Ashcroft"), Attorney General of the United States and the United States of America (collectively, the "Government") to dismiss the complaint herein.
Plaintiffs have filed this civil action pursuant to Section 561 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act of Feb. 8, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Title V, Subtitle C §561, 110 Stat. 56), and have requested, pursuant to that section, that a three judge district court be empaneled as set out in 28 U.S.C. §2284. On April 1, 2002, by order of the Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Circuit Judge, plaintiffs' request was granted, and a three-judge court, comprised of the Hon. Robert D. Sack, C.J., the Hon. Richard M. Berman, D.J., and the Hon. Gerard E. Lynch, D.J., was convened to hear and determine this action.
Plaintiffs now move for the issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the CDA, asserting its facial unconstitutionality, while the Government conversely moves to dismiss on the grounds that the statute is plainly constitutional. An examination of the governing caselaw establishes beyond cavil that the Government's motion must be denied, and the plaintiffs' motion should be granted.
It is well established that the regulation of expressive content in each medium must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by standards tailored to that medium. Despite this long standing position, the Government argues for a mechanistic, cookie-cutter application of obscenity precedents arising in physically-sited media, well situated for a geographic community analysis, to a medium which is equally sited in and accessible from every jurisdiction, whether metropolis or hamlet. Absent the harms which the geographic interpretation of "local community standards" was created to address, the Government nonetheless asserts that the standard should be applied in a manner that concededly will transform the local community standards from a shield into a sword. This result has been characterized by the Supreme Court as creating a content-based restriction of speech of unprecedented breadth.
The Government would have this Court hold, contrary to the concerns expressed by the United States Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 877-878 (1997), and by a clear majority of the Justices in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. ___ (May 13, 2002), that the placing of expressive materials on the Internet should be treated as a simultaneous physical distribution of those materials to each community within all 50 states with Internet access. Such a holding would transform the Internet from a free-ranging, open forum into a forum in which only speech that is inoffensive under the most prudish standard is safe from fear of prosecution. As much speech considered obscene in some communities would be found non-obscene in others, the Government's approach would allow for prosecution in the most restrictive community of speech which is fully protected throughout the vast majority of the United States and abroad. This result would chill much protected speech, and would destabilize the regime of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), under which each community was permitted to define for itself the required level of decorum for sexually-themed speech, but not for neighboring or even far-flung communities which may have dramatically different norms.
Accordingly, the complaint is not subject to dismissal, and plaintiffs have demonstrated the traditional requirements for the issuance of preliminary relief : (1) the prospect of irreparable injury inflicted by deprivation, however brief, of First Amendment rights; (2) the required showing of likelihood of success on the merits; and (3) a balance of equities favoring relief.
Plaintiffs Have Asserted And Demonstrated The Requisites For Entry of A Preliminary Injunction
In support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs "must establish irreparable injury, and either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) a sufficiently serious question going to the merits, with a balance of hardships tipping in favor of the party requesting a preliminary injunction." Tunick v. Safir, 209 F.3d 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2000). Where, as here, the plaintiffs seek to "stay governmental action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme," they must show "irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and a likelihood of success on the merits." Id.; see also, Latino Officers Association v. City of New York, 196 F.3d 458, 462 (2d Cir. 1999) (granting injunction); Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 694 (2d Cir 1996)(granting injunction); Metropolitan Council , Inc. v. Safir, 99 F. Supp.2d 438, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing cases; granting injunction); Amandola v. Town of Babylon, 251 F.3d 339, 342 (2001) (granting injunction and awarding judgment as a matter of law to plaintiffs). In this case, "because violations of First Amendment rights are presumed irreparable, the very nature of plaintiffs' allegations satisfy the requirement that [they] show irreparable injury." Tunick, 209 F.3d at 70 (internal quotations and citations omitted); quoting, Bery, 97 F.3d at 694; citing, Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); Amandola, 251 F.3d at 342. As the Supreme Court made amply clear in Elrod, "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." This strong recognition of the fragility of speech rights in the face of governmental actions has led the Second Circuit to repeatedly hold that "a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm arises in First Amendment cases." Id.; citing, Tunick, 209 F.3d at 70; Beal v. Stern, 184 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir.1999); Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d at 694.
The Court in Amandola acknowledged that in other cases the Courts in this Circuit have required the plaintiffs establish "an actual chilling effect" by competent testimony. Id.; see also, Pugh v. Goord, 184 F. Supp.2d 326, 332, n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Lynch, J.). In the instant case, the accompanying declarations of Barbara Nitke, Arthur C. Danto, Howard Rheingold, Candida Royalle, Robert and Carleen Thomas and Susan Wright present just such testimony of actual and potential chill of speech, as further set forth at Point III, based on their own individual observations and/or experiences. As these declarations establish, the speech of several speakers has actually been impacted by the prospect of prosecution. Ms. Nitke's work, for example, has been well received in some communities, but challenges the standards of others. (Nitke Decl. at ¶¶14-17). In addition to Ms. Nitke, many of the members of NCSF have websites, and have legitimate grounds to fear that the application of the most restrictive community standards to their speech could result in a colorable prosecution of their speech. (Wright Decl. ¶¶at 9-13). Moreover, as established by the testimony of Professor Danto, a sufficient divergence of views as to the proper quantum of value to be accorded artistic works exists such that the absence of clarity, along with the Government's claim to a roving commission, deprives the artist or commentator of a safe harbor in dealing with sexual themes on the Internet.
Because plaintiffs have, under either standard, established irreparable injury, the sole question remaining is whether they have established a clear likelihood of success on the merits. As courts within the Second Circuit have noted, "the issue of irreparable injury merges with the question of success on the merits." Metropolitan Council, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d at 443; following, Latino Officers Ass'n, 196 F.3d at 462; Beal, 184 F.3d 117, 123-124 (2d Cir. 1999); see also, Tunick, 209 F.3d at 70. As will be seen in the succeeding sections of this memorandum, plaintiffs have established a clear likelihood of success on the merits of this action, and thus the requested injunction should be granted.
Speech Regulations Evolved in Traditional Media Do Not Perfectly Translate To the Internet
The starting place for evaluation of the CDA under the First Amendment is a recognition of the simple fact, repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court, that each medium of expression "must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems." Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557 (1975); Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 868. Thus, it is not sufficient to flatly state that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. That truism, established since Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957),1 does not resolve the questions of definition.
The nature of the Internet creates difficulties in applying concepts evolved in more physically limited media; problems which the Supreme Court and other courts, as opposed to the Government, have recognized as impacting upon the application of such content-based regulations as involved herein. Thus, in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 851, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the battery of Internet communication devices "constitute a unique medium-known to its users as cyberspace-located in no particular geographic location but available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the Internet." See Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa, 265 F.3d 1232, 1236-1237 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 152 L.Ed.2d 115 (2002) (declining to apply local zoning ordinance governing adult entertainment establishments to premises where internet content is generated because "the public offering occurs over the Internet in 'virtual space'"); Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Assocs., 135 F. Supp.2d 409, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (Berman, J.) (Noting that "there are crucial differences between a 'brick and mortar outlet' and the online Web that dramatically affect a First Amendment analysis," distinguishing trademark law's application to Internet)(quoting and approving as "no doubt true" observation to the same effect in ACLU v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162, 169-170 (3d Cir. 2000), cert granted sub nom. ACLU v. Ashcroft, vacated other grounds, 535 U.S. ___, No. 00-1293 (May 13, 2002) (internal citation omitted)); Cyberspace Communications, Inc. v. Engler, 55 F. Supp.2d 737-743-744 (E.D.Mich. 1999), aff'd, 238 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2000) summ. judg. granted same grounds, 142 F. Supp.2d 827 (E.D.Mich. 2001) (same).
The application of existing constitutional principles to the Internet medium is a functional, not a formal one. Indeed, the evolution of the "borderless world of the Internet raises profound questions concerning the relationship among the several states and the relationship of the federal government to each state." Swedenburg v. Kelly, 2000 WL 1264285 (September 5, 2000) (Berman, J.) (quoting American Libraries Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)); PSINET, Inc. v. Chapman, 167 F. Supp.2d 878, 887-891 (W.D. Va. 2001) (applying Commerce Clause analysis to Internet to strike down state statute regulating adult websites). In short, the mere enunciation of settled principle does not automatically resolve the questions of application of these principles to the new medium at hand.
The Government seeks to analogize this new medium of expression to the ban on obscene "dial-a-porn" upheld in Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). However, that case involved a facial challenge to the very concept of regulating commercialized obscenity over any interstate medium, in that case, telephone communications. In view of the individualized nature of telephone communications, and the readily identifiable location of callers-in, the Court found it appropriate that commercial providers be held to the standard of the area comprising the market from which they solicited and accepted calls. 492 U.S. at 125-126. Under those circumstances, the statute was held not to create a "national standard" of what is obscene, in violation of the Court's rule in Miller. Id. The Court explicitly ruled that in Sable that the "cases before us do not require us to decide what is obscene or what is indecent, but rather to determine whether Congress is empowered to prohibit transmission of obscene telephonic communications" to the various locales, each of which is equipped with its own local community standards. Plaintiffs herein, unlike those in Sable, do not claim a global immunity from the application of obscenity law to this new medium.
This case, as opposed to the facts in Sable, genuinely poses a problem of definition. In a manner rather reminiscent of its argument in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), soundly rejected by the Supreme Court in that decision, the Government herein ignores the problem, rotely intoning that just as mailing books or magazines to another state subjects the mailer to the local community standards of the destination, dissemination through the Internet subjects the speaker to any and all communities which can access the speech. (Government memo at 13, quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 106 (1974)). Unlike the books and telephone calls at issue in Sable and Hamling, the Internet "is wholly insensitive to geographic distinctions, and Internet protocols were designed to ignore rather than document geographic location." Cyberspace Communications, Inc., 55 F. Supp.2d at 744 (citing Pataki, 969 F. Supp. at 167, 170). See Reno, 521 U.S. at 851.
This contrast and its implications were the basis of the opinions of a clear majority of the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. ACLU. In that case, the Government's argument, reiterated here, that the rulings in Sable and Hamling apply to the Internet to foreclose a facial challenge to community-standard based regulation, was explicitly rejected by the opinions of a majority of the Supreme Court. Thus, Justice O'Connor opined that "I agree with Justice Kennedy that, given Internet speakers' inability to control the geographic location of their audience, expecting them to bear the burden of controlling the recipients of their speech, as we did in Hamling and Sable may be entirely too much to ask, and would potentially suppress an inordinate amount of expression." (Ashcroft v. ACLU, O'Connor, J., slip op. at 2). Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, similarly rejected the application of those precedents: "In striking down COPA's predecessor, the Reno Court identified this precise problem, and if the Hamling and Sable Courts did not find the problem fatal, that is because those cases involved quite different media. The national variation in community standards constitutes a particular burden on Internet speech." (Ashcroft v. ACLU, Kennedy, J., slip op. at 7). Justice Breyer similarly distinguished Sable and Hamling, finding that "To read the statute as adopting the community standard of every locality in the United States would provide the most puritan of communities with a heckler's veto affecting the rest of the nation. The technical difficulties associated with efforts to confine Internet material to particular geographic areas make the problem particularly serious." (Ashcroft v. ACLU, Breyer, J., slip op. at 2).2 Justice Stevens likewise denied the applicability of Sable and Hamling to the Internet. (Stevens, J. dissenting, slip op. at 5, 6-7). While other factors split the Justices, a clear majority of six Justices rejected the argument, made again by the Government here, that Sable and Hamling control as to the Internet.
Rather, the six Justices who declined to join the opinion of Justice Thomas each opined that, upon an appropriate showing, enforcement of geographic local community standards to speech on the Internet under an obscenity theory would violate the free speech rights of content providers. In Point III, the various factors set forth in establishing the appropriate showing at least according to five of the six justices are discussed in the context of the sweeping prohibitions of the CDA. That showing, and the inherently overbroad and vague sweep of the CDA, plaintiffs submit, warrant the entry of the order which they seek.
The CDA's Reliance On Geographic "Local Community Standards" in Defining Obscenity on the Internet Renders the Statute Overbroad
The CDA, as it presently stands, bans materials which are deemed to be "obscene" from the Internet. Although couched as a provision for the protection of minors, the CDA by its terms has been authoritatively held to burden much adult speech. The CDA is codified at 47 U.S.C. §223, and prohibits the "knowing transmission of any ... communication which is obscene or indecent ... knowing that the recipient under 18 years of age."3 In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), the Supreme Court authoritatively found that the section above quoted would burden communications between adults, stating that "Given the size of the potential audience for most messages, in the absence of a viable age verification process, the sender must be charged with knowing that one or more minors will view it." 521 U.S. at 876. Thus, the Court concluded, "these limitations must inevitably curtail a significant amount of adult communication on the Internet." 521 U.S. at 877. See also Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. at ___, (Thomas, J.) slip op. at 4 ("existing technology did not include any effective method for a sender to prevent minors from obtaining access to its communications on the Internet without also denying access to adults"); (quoting Reno); see also, PSINET, Inc. v. Chapman, 167 F. Supp.2d at 887-890. This fact remains true whether the section of the statute applied is the indecency prong at issue in Reno, or the obscenity provision at issue here. See e.g., PSINET, (similar state statute invalid as to both obscene and harmful to minors speech).
Thus, the question before this Court is not whether the CDA limits speech directed at adults by adults in the interest of protecting the interests of children; that question has been litigated and resolved. Nor is the question whether obscenity, long deemed speech outside the protective ambit of the First Amendment, has somehow acquired a talismanic immunity based upon the fact that it is disseminated over a new medium. Plaintiffs have not alleged that it does. Rather, the question is whether the application of the CDA's unelaborated use of the word "obscenity" in the absence of a further statutory definition, creates a definition of obscenity that would unconstitutionally "restrict[] substantially more speech than is justified." Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at ___, (Kennedy, J., concurring) at 1 (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 (1973)). Plaintiffs submit, with respect, that the statute does just this, and is as a result violative of the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.
In Ashcroft, the Supreme Court rendered no one opinion disposing of the principal question raised herein: does the application of local geographic community standards to determine patent offensiveness and prurient appeal in a federal obscenity Internet statute render that statute overbroad? However, in that case, four of the opinions, adhered to by a clear six-member majority, reaffirmed the constitutionally problematic nature of such regulation under the First Amendment, as originally asserted in Reno, 521 U.S. at 877, and stated that an obscenity provision like that in question here was subject to facial challenge.
Justice O'Connor stated that the failure of the plaintiffs in that case left open the prospect that "[i]n future facial challenges to regulation of obscenity on the Internet, litigants may make a more convincing case of substantial overbreadth." (O' Connor, J., concurring, slip op. at 2). She continued: "Where adult speech is concerned, for instance, there may in fact be a greater degree of disagreement about what is patently offensive or appeals to the prurient interest." Id. Thus, the statute at issue, upon the appropriate factual showing of variation, "would potentially suppress an inordinate amount of expression." Id.
Justice Breyer who would apply a narrowing saving construction to COPA, explicitly concluded that quot;[t]o read the statute as adopting the local community standards of every community in the United States would provide the most puritan of communities with a heckler's Internet veto affecting the rest of the Nation." (Breyer, J., concurring, slip op. at 2). Like Justice O'Connor, he concluded that the technical difficulties of controlling the destination of speech via the Internet rendered this problem "particularly serious." Id.
Justice Stevens, dissenting in Ashcroft, stated that, "[i]n the context of the Internet, however, community standards become a sword rather than a shield." (Stevens, J., dissenting, slip op. at 1). He went on to find that, under the approach laid out in the CDA, "the community that wishes to live without certain material not only rids itself, but the entire Internet of the offending speech," in a manner inimical to the First Amendment. Id. at 11.
Along the same lines, Justice Kennedy opined that "[t]he national variation in community standards constitutes a particular burden on Internet speech," (Kennedy, J. concurring, slip op. at 7). Prior to declaring COPA unconstitutional on these grounds, Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Souter, sought clarification of factors potentially limiting the scope of the statute: (1) the scope of the definition of community; (2) any statutory specification as to what the "work" to be judges as a whole is; (3) any limitations on venue that could reduce the number of potentially applicable community standards; and (4) evidence as to the factual divergence of local community standards between jurisdictions, to ascertain that indeed speech would be subject to contrary rules under the statute. Upon such a showing, Justice Kennedy opined, "the ultimate conclusion" that this burden on Internet speech is unconstitutional "may prove correct."
Below, plaintiffs first address the absence of a definition of obscenity under the CDA, and the resultant breadth of the statute's application of the "default" definition to the Internet. Then, plaintiffs establish the failure of the drafters to narrow the statute's scope by either limiting the universe of speakers subject to it, or by defining what constitutes a "work" subject to its prohibitions in the context of the Internet. A similar failure to limit the statute's sweep by means of any venue restrictions follows. Finally, plaintiffs discuss the First Amendment consequences of this statute's undisputed holding all speech to the standards of the most puritan community in the Nation, the factor most important to each of the six justices.
1. The CDA's Obscenity Provision and the Miller Test
As acknowledged by the Government, the CDA does not contain a definition of what transmissions are "obscene." (Government memorandum of law ("Gov. Memo.") at 17). The parties agree that the silence of Congress in delineating the scope of the term obscene leaves as the Court's only guidance in understanding what Congress sought to proscribe the permissive language of the Supreme Court in describing the range of materials that could fall within the unprotected class of speech deemed obscene in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). As Chief Justice Burger wrote for the majority in Miller, the basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Id. (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. at ___, slip op. at 10. As subsequently enunciated, this standard can apply to federally defined obscenity regulation. Hamling, 418 U.S. at 118. Moreover, subsequent decisions have made clear that, in the context of traditional so-called "bricks-and-mortar media," the local community standards applied are geographical in nature. Ashcroft v. ACLU slip op. at 11, n. 7 (Thomas, J. for plurality), citing, Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500 (1987). Consistent with this, both parties acknowledge and all of the justices in Ashcroft held, both the appeal to prurient interest prong and the patently offensive prong of the definition are "question[s] of fact to be decided by a jury applying contemporary community standards." Id. It is the absence of content and context to define what that community standard is that renders the CDA overbroad as to speech that may be deemed obscene under the most restrictive community standard in the Nation.
2. The CDA Applies to All Internet Speakers and Speech
The CDA's "open-ended prohibitions," as the Supreme Court has twice noted, "embrace not only commercial speech or commercial entities, but also all nonprofit entities and individuals posting" on the Internet. Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. at ___, slip op. at 4 (quotation marks omitted), quoting ACLU v. Reno, 521 U.S. at 877. This observation, made by the Court in the context of the indecency provision, is equally true for the obscenity provision, which is, after all, included in the same sentence. Moreover, the CDA does not limit its coverage to any specific kind of online communication, but applies to all online communications, wholesale or retail.
That the sweep of the CDA does not distinguish between commercial purveyors of pornography and artistic explorers of sexual themes, or even spouses corresponding via e-mail eliminates one of the "crucial" potential narrowing factors, the limitation of targeted speech to commercially purveyed materials, cited by a three of the six justices rejecting the Government's argument herein in Ashcroft v. ACLU. (Kennedy, J., joined by Souter and Ginsburg, J.J., slip op. at 2-3, 10-11).
Likewise, the CDA does not address the thorny question of applying to the Internet the requirement under Miller that the works in question be "judged as a whole." As Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer pointed out, the "notion of judging work as a whole is familiar in other media, but more difficult to define on the World Wide Web. It is unclear whether what is to be judged as a whole is a single image on a Web page, a whole Web page, an entire multipage site, or an interlocking set of Web sites." Id. at 3, 11-12. By extrapolation, it is even possible-although not compelling-that the Web must itself be viewed as a "single, integrated system," and thus possibly the work itself. Id. at 11, quoting ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d at 483, 484.
Because the nature of the work effected is not defined, speakers on the Web can find themselves held accountable based upon either too focused or to expansive a view as to the "work" at issue. A single photograph from a Website, ripped from the context that gives it its artistic value, may be hard-pressed to escape prosecution; a Website itself not obscene may find itself held accountable for the speech of those who link to it. Under the CDA, prosecutors and triers-of-fact are accorded no guidance in determining the correct answer. Thus, the statute imperils the broadest possible category of online speech. Id.
3. The Venue Factor
Most importantly, the CDA does not address venue in explicit terms. Thus, as Justice Kennedy noted in the context of COPA, "prosecution may be proper in any district in which an offense was begun, continued, or completed." Id. at 12, quoting, 18 U.S.C. §3237(a). Thus, "it seems likely that venue would be proper where the material originates or where it is viewed." Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. §3237(a), 47 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3)). As the overwhelming majority of online speech may be viewed from anywhere in or outside of the Nation that has access to the Internet,4 the Government here is able to forum shop around the United States, or even, potentially, offshore possessions. Because, as Justice Kennedy noted, the choice of venue may be determinative of the choice of standard," the "more venues the Government has to choose from the more speech will be chilled by variation across communities." Id. At 12. Indeed, the Government here asserts just such unlimited venue, requiring speakers to be prepared to defend themselves before the most puritan tribunals to be found. (Gov. Memo. at 22-23). This contention, vitally necessary to sustain the CDA, would transmute local community standards from a means of protecting local diversity of cultural climate into a means of stifling it-turning the purpose of Miller on its head.
4. Material Obscene in One Jurisdiction May be Protected in Another
It cannot be contested, and has recently been reaffirmed, that "[p]eople in different States vary in their tastes and attitudes, and this diversity is not to be strangled by the absolutism of imposed uniformity." Miller, 413 U.S. at 33; Ashcroft v. ACLU, Kennedy, J., slip op. at 7. It "is neither realistic nor beyond constitutional doubt for the Congress, in effect, to impose the community standards of Maine or Mississippi on Las Vegas and New York." Ashcroft, op cit. As demonstrated below, the actual evidence of such variation that plaintiffs will present establishes that material deemed acceptably non-obscene in some jurisdictions may nonetheless be prosecuted in others.
To the contrary of the Government's assumption that any errors or chilling effect here is negligible, it is well-established that material that is not obscene under each and every one of Miller's three prongs is fully protected speech under the First Amendment, and chilling such speech violates the First Amendment, despite the disapproval by some of the message conveyed therein. Reno, 521 U.S. at 874 (citing Sable, 492 U.S. at 126); United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group 529 U.S. 803, 807 (2000). Indeed, material that is allegedly "obscene" is and has long been recognized, to be "presumptively under the protection of the First Amendment." Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 504 (1973); New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 871-874 (1986) (noting, id. at 874, that such materials are "presumptively protected"; following Roaden); United States v. Jasorka, 153 F.3d 58, 59-60 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that in obscenity cases, specially careful examination of proof by magistrate required prior to issuance of a warrant because "of the danger that constitutionally protected materials may be suppressed and because of the subtlety of the inquiry required to distinguish obscenity from protected matters"; following P.J. Video); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 63 (1989) (materials allegedly be obscene are "materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment."); see also United States v. Any and All Radio Equipment, 93 F. Supp. 414, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (following Fort Wayne Books, distinguishing seizure of equipment from seizure of expressive materials alleged to be obscene).
On behalf of the CDA, the Government claims that only speech that is "utterly lacking in any literary, artistic, political or scientific value in any community" stands in peril from this statute (Government Memorandum at 24). This is simply incorrect; as the Government's prior correct encapsulation of Miller establishes, speech which "flunks" the prurience and patently offensive prongs of Miller can only be saved if it has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." (Gov. Memo. at 17, quoting Miller, 413 U.S. at 24). Indeed, the very next sentence of the Miller opinion makes clear that the Government's representation as to the scope of speech that may fall prey to the CDA is untenable: "We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the utterly without redeeming social value test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. at 419." Id. (emphasis in original), citing, Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 231 (1972).
The Government's argument that the only speech "that even the most cautious Internet content provider would withhold from publication" would work a "de minimis impact on protected, yet utterly valueless, pornographic speech" (Gov. Memo. at 24) is belied by the very authorities the Government relies upon to establish the proposition. Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana, 489 U.S. at 60 is not to the contrary, but merely upheld the application of state-defined obscenity statutes, which were appropriately limited in scope as required under the First Amendment as establishing predicate acts under the state RICO statute. 489 U.S. 57-58 (holding that the statute in question "is closely tailored to conform to the Miller standard" and the petitioner did not raise "any alleged defect in the underlying obscenity law." Id. Here, by contrast, the appropriate scope of the obscenity law on this new medium is the very issue to be decided. In delineating the scope of protection, it is crucial to note that much speech of literary, artistic, political or scientific value may fall beneath the censor's lash because its seriousness of intent may not measure up to the level deemed by the finder of fact to be sufficiently serious. As the Court reaffirmed in Playboy Entertainment, "the line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may be legitimately regulated, suppressed or punished is finely drawn," and any "[e]rror in marking that line exacts an extraordinary cost." 529 U.S. at 817.
5. The Serious Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific Value Prong Does Not Save the CDA
The Supreme Court has not held, as the Government urges the Court to find, that the application of a "reasonable person" standard to the inquiry of whether material involved is of sufficient value to resist categorization as "obscene" is sufficient to cure the overbreadth of the statute. As the principal Supreme Court decision relied upon by the Government, Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-501 (1987), simply reversed a conviction, and remanded for harmless error analysis, an obscenity conviction based upon the application of the local community standards to this third prong of the Miller test, the contention rests wholly upon the citation to lower court, outside of circuit authority. The Supreme Court has twice declined to follow this logic, with ample reason.
A similar claim was made and properly rejected in Reno, where the application of Miller's "patent offensiveness" prong as a test for indecency was argued to sufficiently withstand a vagueness and an overbreadth challenge. As the Supreme Court explained, "Just because a definition including three limitations is not vague, it does not follow that one of those limitations, standing by itself, is not vague. Each of Miller's additional two prongs ... critically limits the uncertain sweep of the obscenity definition." 521 U.S. at 873. Here, of course, two of the three prongs relied upon in the definition are subject to overbreadth and vagueness challenge; the Government asserts, absent support in law and logic, that the one remaining prong uninfected by the taint complained of is sufficient to salvage the statute. Such a contention, for the reasons set forth by the Court in Reno, must fail.
Moreover, a majority of the Court in Ashcroft declined to join Justice Thomas' opinion to that effect, each indicating that an overbroad application of the local community standard prongs of the Miller definition to obscenity regulation of the Internet would establish a First Amendment violation. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at ___, (O'Connor, J., concurring slip op. at 2 ), (Breyer, J., concurring, slip op. at 2), (Kennedy, J., concurring, slip op. at 5, 7-8, 10); (Stevens, J., dissenting, slip op. at 10). While the Government argued this exact point in Ashcroft (see Government Reply Brief on Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Ashcroft v. ACLU, Exhibit B to the Wirenius Declaration, at 4), that argument failed to command a Court, and should be rejected here.
Factually, as attested to herein by Professor Danto in his declaration, the "existence of serious literary, artistic, or political social value of speech requires evaluation of the content of a speech that calls for subjective value judgments in a manner not entirely predictable by a reasonable speaker." The difficulty of this analysis has led to much controversy as to the presence or lack of such value in the context of various works of art. (Id.) Such conflicts can be seen even in the context of the Supreme Court's review of obscenity convictions. In Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 156-157 (1974), a divided panel of the Supreme Court of Georgia had affirmed the finding that the acclaimed film Carnal Knowledge was obscene under Miller, finding not only that the film appealed to the prurient interest and was patently offensive, but also that it lacked the serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value needed to avert an adjudication of obscenity.5
By not employing any of the available potential means of narrowing the universe of speakers impacted by the statute's scope, the CDA entirely fails to ameliorate the extreme breadth of its prohibition. Thus, the sole remaining question of overbreadth analysis here is whether the variety of community standards is such that the application of the local standards in any district where the Government might choose to bring a case would result in the chilling of a substantial body of speech protected in other communities.
6. The Nature and Variety of Communities
In establishing the required showing to satisfy the concerns of four members of the Supreme Court, the last element required to be established by plaintiffs at trial is the existence of a substantial variance as to standards amongst different communities. Justice Kennedy's opinion especially sought such proof in order to determine the constitutional validity of COPA, because in that case the Government asserted, and the plaintiffs denied, that Congress had established a national standard as to what sexual speech was considered to appeal to the prurient interest of minors and would be patently offensive as to minors. As Justice O'Connor noted, a simple obscenity provision such as that remaining in the CDA, raises a far more problematic question for the Government: does the variation among what is considered prurient and patently offensive for consenting adults to be exposed to create a substantial overbreadth? Plaintiffs, in seeking to establish that they are clearly likely to prevail on the merits have adduced sworn testimony in the form of declarations as follows:
- Robert and Carleen Thomas, long time residents of the San Francisco Bay area, testify that they disseminated via the Internet material that law enforcement determined was wholly unobjectionable for consenting adults in the areas in which they resided. Under the local community standards of the district the United States chose to prosecute them within, the Western District of Tennessee, these materials were deemed to be patently offensive and prurient in nature;
- Candida Royalle has almost 20 years' experience as a director and producer, with the hazards of nation-wide distribution amongst community standards, and testifies to the variety of local community standards throughout the nation;
- Arthur C. Danto, Johnsonian Professor of Philosophy at Columbia, testifies, both in general and in the specific context of the work of Robert Mapplethorpe, considerable regional variation from community to community exists in the standard of what is considered offensive or prurient;
- Barbara Nitke, plaintiff herein, testifies that her work which has been well-received by sex-positive, artistically oriented communities has been greeted with hostility in more traditionally minded locales, and that, in 2001 when she sought advice as to posting her speech on the Internet, she was cautioned that she could face prosecution under less receptive community standards; and
- Susan Wright, Policy Director of plaintiff NCSF, testifies that the speech of members of NCSF have been targeted for harassment on the grounds that some local communities deem their speech "offensive" and "prurient."
This testimony establishes the variety as to local community standards, providing the evidence which Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg sought as an element of a facial challenge. Combined with the broader holding of Justice Stevens, and likely concurrence of Justice Breyer, a majority of the Supreme Court in Ashcroft, would be "clearly likely" to find the CDA and its application of local community standards to the Internet unconstitutional on this showing. Accordingly plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction should be granted.
The CDA's Obscenity Provisions Are Unconstitutionally Vague
Plaintiffs have asserted that the obscenity provisions of the CDA will chill and would actually subject to criminal liability an inordinate amount of constitutionally protected expression. They have pleaded, alternatively, that the obscenity provision of the CDA is unconstitutionally vague. The CDA, as above argued, and as conceded by the Government, does not specify what the applicable "local community standard" is. Indeed, the CDA does not define "obscene" in the context of the Internet, but the plaintiffs and the Government have extrapolated from prior caselaw and the traditional definition of obscenity in the context of federal regulation of obscenity that the statute applies the local geographic community standards of any community from where the material may be accessed. (Gov. Memo. at 18). However, alternate theories of what "community" standards should apply to the Internet have been proposed, and plaintiffs have pointed out no fewer than six equally feasible possible approaches to constructing a community standard. (Complaint &182;32). Two of the Justices of the Supreme Court have suggested in Ashcroft that a nation-wide standard could apply to the Internet, a sort of rough sense of the Nation's views of what is appropriate for adults on the Internet. (Ashcroft, supra, opinions of O'Connor, J. and Breyer, J.). Other courts have suggested, as has expert Howard Rheingold, that specific communities, by membership affiliation or by a computer online provider, or even a specific bulletin board-specific standard might provide a viable approach to community online. United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406, 426 (1996); Rheingold Declaration.
Plaintiffs simply urge that, in the event the Court deems the CDA to mean something other than the "most restrictive" standard (which the Government has argued, and plaintiffs have alleged) applies, that the failure to explain what such a standard is fails to provide meaningful notice as to what conduct is forbidden by the statute. Where a content based regulation, such as the CDA, is vague, it "raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 871-872 (striking CDA's indecency provision as vague). Moreover, the fact that the CDA is a criminal statute, bearing the concomitant stigma of conviction, the risk of imprisonment, and the prospect of discriminatory enforcement, poses special First Amendment concerns. Id.; citing Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 494 (1965).
Additionally, as noted above at page 15, the utter lack of specification of what the work that is to be taken as a whole in the context of the Internet is raises problems of definition that a speaker should not be forced to confront for the first time in a criminal trial. Ashcroft, (Kennedy, J., concurring, slip op. at 11); Playboy Entertainment, 529 U.S. at 817.
The Government argues that this vagueness challenge is "foreclosed" by the judgment of the three-judge panel in Shea v. Reno, 930 F. Supp. 916, aff'd mem. 521 U.S. 1117 (1997). The Court in Shea rejected a vagueness claim analogous to the overbreadth challenge herein presented, stating that it "appears to raise questions of overbreadth rather than vagueness." 930 F. Supp. at 938. In view of the factual showing before that panel, and the main holding of the three judge panel, which was to strike the statute on overbreadth grounds, the panel declined to resolve the vagueness/overbreadth challenge. Id. Moreover, the affirmance in Shea upheld the judgment, not the opinion, of the three judge panel. That summary affirmance endorses only the logic employed by the panel necessary to its ultimate conclusion: that the CDA's indecency provision was overbroad. See Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) (judgment, not dicta, of three judge panel as affirmed summarily by Supreme Court, entitled to deference); 640 Broadway Renaissance Co. v. Cuomo, 740 F. Supp. 1023, 1029 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (same).
In the instant case, to follow the logic of the Shea panel would be to ignore the reasoning of a majority of the Supreme Court in ACLU v. Reno, which found the CDA vague as well as overbroad, in open rejection of the language from Shea relied upon by the Government. 521 U.S. at 871. Moreover, it would ignore the reasoning of the six justices in Ashcroft as described in Point III. The Government's argument based on the panel's ruling in Shea, which is inconsistent with Reno itself as well as with Ashcroft, sets form against function, and shows just how meritless the Government's argument that the statute is not overly vague is. This Court should follow Reno, not the contrary dictum in Shea, and strike the statute as both vague and overbroad.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny the motion to dismiss in toto, grant plaintiffs' cross-motion for preliminary relief, and set an expeditious discovery and trial schedule.
Dated: Carle Place, New York
May 24, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
One Old Country Road
Carle Place, N.Y. 11514
(516) 873-9550
1 The concept that obscenity fell within the class of "low-value" speech outside the protections of the First Amendment dates to Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), in which it is expressed as dictum in a case scrutinizing a disorderly conduct conviction under a different class of "low value" speech, so-called "fighting words." Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877) did not involve a general ban of the kind the Government seeks to find within it, but merely denied the facility of the federal mails to materials deemed "lewd" or "obscene." Far from upholding a generalized obscenity prohibition, the Court explicitly declared that Congress was free to not participate in the distribution of materials deemed by it to be immoral, but stated that "[i]f , therefore, matter be excluded from the mail, its transportation in any other way cannot be forbidden by Congress." Id. at 733.
2 Justice Breyer engaged in a "saving construction" of the purported "national community standard" enacted in COPA, a standard even attempted by Congress in the CDA. After the language quoted, he found that application of even similar local community standards of what is harmful to minors to the Internet posed "special difficulties" which "potentially weaken the authority" of Sable and Hamling in which those difficulties did not arise. Id.
3 The complaint, at 7, quotes the section above encapsulated, 223(a). The CDA, at §507, further amended section 223; as summarized by the conference committee report, "a new section 223(d) is added to prohibit the use of a telecommunications device to make or make available an obscene communication." Senate Conference Report No. 104-230 (Feb. 1, 1996) (Schilling Declaration at Exhibit C) at 187; Ashcroft v. ACLU, slip op. at 3. As the Supreme Court has construed the section relied upon in the complaint as discussed above, the plaintiffs have not relied upon this effectively cognate provision as establishing their cause of action. However, should the Court read section (d) to sweep differently than the cited section, the complaint should not be dismissed, but at most amended, although the citation of a wrong theory of recovery or statute does not render a pleading insufficient. Nothrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., 134 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1997).
4 This statement is based on the fact that e-mail or BBS or list postings are directed to the recipient's e-mail account, which may be accessed by the recipient from a remote location, or through a remailer service, and not merely their home computer. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 851-852 (various internet fora), 855-856 (impossibility of identity, address or age verification through e-mail address).
5Because the Supreme Court reversed the factual findings as to prurience and patent offensiveness, it did not explicitly address the third prong; however, the Court's discussion strongly suggests that the film would have been rescued under that test as well. 418 U.S. at 158-159.


text: 2015-16 Man United Home Shirt (Mata 8) - Kids. Official Juan Mata - Kids football shirt for Manchester United. This is the new Man United home shirt for the 2015-16 Premier League season which is manufactured by Adidas and is available in adult sizes S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL and kids sizes small boys, medium boys, large boys, XL boys. This Manchester United football shirt is red in colour and comes with Juan Mata - Kids shirt printing on the jersey.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The New York Times Magazine published a very good piece this weekend on the Texas State Board of Education, it's Christian exceptionalist members and their motivations. The piece is called "How Christian were the Founders?". It's long, but thourough and fair. I recommend it.
One of the last points Russell Shorto makes at the end of the article is that a few of the SBOE members are vulnerable or not seeking reelection (Cynthia Dunbar). We Texans have a chance to correct some of these problems in the upcoming March primaries and in the general election in November. If you live in Texas, we urge you to pick candidates who will truly improve education in Texas.


text:
"Do you need to restructure
your business in order to
maximise its potential?"
"4 convenient office
locations - you come to
us or we come to you."
"Save time and money by
having one firm for all your
legal and accounting needs."
"We can help you on
the path to achieving
your business goals."
"Giving our clients the
best integrated legal and
accounting advice."
Who Are We?
GST Solutions was formed in response to the implementation of the Australian Goods and Services Tax. We work closely with business owners, company directors and financial controllers to resolve GST problems and queries, including problems with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
With The Quinn Group, you will receive the benefit of our years of experience and commitment to providing superior Client Service.
- We will save you time, money and stress
- We have 5 offices located in Sydney and the Sydney metropolitan area
- We are available to meet you at a location convenient to you, at your office or home
- We offer web and teleconferencing facilities for regional, interstate and overseas clients
- We simplify jargon and give you control through our professional advice
We understand that the quality of our work is a critical factor in earning your trust, so we strive to meet the highest professional standards.
Our accounting team has conducted extensive research into GST legislation and how it affects your business. We are able to provide advice on a wide range of GST queries including compliance requirements and general queries regarding legal and reporting obligations as well as situations where more specific advice is required, such as liaising with the ATO on your behalf regarding a debt or payment arrangements. Visit the Our Services page for a comprehensive list of GST matters that we can assist with.
Our dedicated team can assist you with all your accounting and GST related matters. Complete and submit the Express Enquiry form on the top right hand side of this page and we will contact you to discuss your enquiry or call us on 1300 QUINNS (1300 784 667) or on +61 2 9223 9166 to arrange an appointment.
The Quinn Group – Providing the Total Solution
The Quinn Group are an integrated professional services firm that offers:
- Accounting and taxation advice
- Legal counsel
- Financial and investment planning
Through our combined services, professional expertise and industry resources we can help you achieve your business and personal goals.
The Quinn Group is pleased to announce that it has been awarded the AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 accreditation in August 2011 for its legal and accounting service divisions. This was based on an independent audit by SAI Global examining our firm's work processes, quality management and control systems which verified that the firm's processes, systems and procedures fully complied with the ISO 9001:2008
The accreditation is assessed each year to ensure that practices and procedures are followed to achieve the highest standard of technical competence. Assessment process includes staff qualifications and competence, training and development, and documenting processes. Receiving this accreditation certifies that we meet international standards for our products and services, and we are delighted with this as it highlights our commitment to offering consistent and quality service across the board.
As a multi-disciplinary firm The Quinn Group are able to offer a range of legal and accounting services in one convenient location. Visit our Legal Services page to see our full range of legal services.
Visit our Accounting Services page for more information on the wide range of Accounting Services that The Quinn Group can provide to you as an individual or a business.
Whilst we have 5 offices located in Sydney, we are also able to meet you at location convenient for you. Additionally, we have web and teleconferencing available for regional, interstate or international clients.
Complete and submit the Express Enquiry form on the top right hand side of this page or call us on 1300 QUINNS (1300 784 667) or +61 2 9223 9166 for more information or to arrange an appointment.
Express Enquiry
© The Quinn Group Australia Pty Ltd ABN 86 078 526 860
The Quinn Group operates Quinn Consultants, Quinn Lawyers, Quinn Financial Planning and Quinn Financial Solutions. The Quinn Group provides related information in regard to legal, accounting and financial planning issues. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation* *other than for the acts or omissions of financial services licensees.


text:
Company details
Banco Comercial Portugues S.A. (EX)
Banco Comercial Portugues (BCP) is one of Portugal's leading banking groups. Net operating revenues break down by activity as follows:
- retail banking (66.6%): including Portugal and Poland, Greece, Romania, Angola and Mozambique operations;
- corporate and investment banking (22.6%);
- private banking and asset management (2.8%);
- other (8%).
At the end of 2012, the group managed EUR49.4 billion in current deposits and EUR66.9 billion in current credits.Net operating revenues breaks down geographically as follows: Portugal (58.8%), Poland (20.8%), Mozambique (9.6%), Angola (5.6%), Greece (2.4%), and other (2.8%).


text:
LSU Athletics Hall of Fame Inductee Wendell Davis
Prior to Wendell Davis beginning his career at LSU, State-Times writer George Morris introduced the gaping hole in the Tiger's offense that Davis needed to fill after the graduation of former LSU standout Eric Martin: four years, 152 catches, 2,542 yards, 14 touchdowns and one Southeastern Conference record.
Morris described the outgoing Martin's cleated shoes as not just big, but large enough to be sold as condominiums.
When Davis left following his senior season in 1987 he rewrote LSU's receiving record books to the tune of 183 catches, 2708 yards and 19 touchdowns. His cleated shoes weren't just big, but large enough to be sold as mansions.
"I had no idea he would be this good when I first saw him," wide-receiver coach Jerry Sullivan said in an Associated Press Article headlined, 'No defenses can hold him,' written midway through the 1987 season. "I saw the great cutting ability he had, but the rest of it he's developed through hard work."
After 15 seasons without an SEC Title, the 1986 Tigers ended the drought with an SEC Championship by relying on a relatively unproven wide receiver who had caught only 31 passes in his first two seasons and a rangy redshirt freshman quarterback.
To the shock of the entire country, Davis and quarterback Tommy Hodson emerged as arguably the best receiver-quarterback duo in LSU history while revolutionizing SEC football during their two seasons together.
"Things were beginning to turn around at LSU," Davis said, "It was a time that I think all the players really saw that we had a lot of talent and if we just brought it together we could win games for LSU."
Davis and Hodson went on to set numerous school records in 1986 while unexpectedly replacing a graduated starting backfield that had amassed 16,000 yards in the four previous seasons.
During the magical 1986 season, Davis broke numerous single-season records: 80 catches, 1244 receptions, 11 touchdown receptions and 14 catches in one game against Ole Miss.
"It wasn't until the end of the year when I noticed the records," Davis said. "It was one of those things where it wasn't a personal goal of mine. It just happened. I really had a great connection going and the offense fell into place for what I did. My goal was just to win the SEC, and that is what we did."
Following Davis's spectacular junior season performance, the All-American's statistics began to decline because of the increased attention and double-teams. However, that did not stop him from being named 1987 SEC Most Valuable Player of the Year after totaling 72 receptions, 993 yards and seven touchdowns.
"After my junior year, teams kind of game planned against me a little bit," Davis said. I know we did a lot better job of spreading the ball around my senior year. We had some very good athletes and guys that could make plays at any given time. It was hard to stop us offensively."
Despite all of the numerical accomplishments and the culture changing seasons, Davis remains humble and values the time with his teammates the most.
"What really sticks in my mind was the tradition for us where we started holding hands in the huddle," Davis recounts. "That is something that I will never forget. It didn't matter if we were down two touchdowns or up one touchdown. We were coming together. If we were down, we were coming back to win the game. It was a great feeling to have to see all the guys have their hands together, come together as a team and march the ball down the field."
The Tigers went 28-6-2 in Davis' last three seasons with appearances in the Liberty, Sugar and Gator Bowls. Davis fondly remembers the transition from his first game in Tiger Stadium.
"I have all kinds of memories walking through the tunnels of Tiger Stadium," Davis said." I was scared out of my mind. I'm not going to lie. It was something that was bigger than me. I wasn't sure how to handle it, but it was unbelievable. I was scared, excited and all of those things rolled up into one. Once you felt the love of the fans in that atmosphere, it was just electrifying. Every game after that walking into Tiger Stadium, it was not fear. It was more excitement. I loved putting on a show for our fans."
Davis was selected 27th overall in the first round of the 1988 NFL Draft by the Chicago Bears. He went to play for six seasons, seeing action in 81 games with 207 catches for 3,000 yards and 14 touchdowns before injuries cut short his career.
After a wonderful career at LSU and a successful professional career, Davis will use his LSU Hall of Fame induction on Sept. 9 to reflect on the trials and tribulations of his football days.
"I know I wouldn't be receiving this honor if it wasn't for my teammates and the sacrifices that they made as well," Davis said. "I am very honored and very humbled of the fact that I am joining some of the great athletes, coaches and athletic directors in LSU history."


text:
The Sports Xchange
Broncos' Dumervil arrested for aggravated assault
Denver Broncos defensive end Elvis Dumervil was arrested Saturday night in Miami and charged with aggravated assault with a firearm, according to court records in Miami-Dade County, multiple media outlets reported.
Dumervil was held on $7,500 bail, according to KCNC in Denver, and he was not listed as an inmate at Dade County jail on Sunday morning, according to the Denver Post.
The events that led to the arrest are not yet known, but, according to NFL.com, he could face up to five years in prison if convicted, according to Florida law.
Broncos officials have been in contact with police officials in Miami, and the Broncos released a statement that read, "Our organization is aware of the matter and is continuing to gather facts. This is a very serious allegation, and we will thoroughly review the details while the legal process runs its course."
Broncos players are scheduled to report to training camp on July 25.
Dumervil, 28, is a two-time Pro Bowl player who had 9.5 sacks in 14 games last year despite injuries.


text:
Conservatives and Republicans have been saying for a year that Obama is an empty shirt. So he can give a nice speech, big deal. What has he actually said? What does he actually stand for? What specific legislation will he pursue?
No one knows, perhaps not even Obama.
Obama's fuzziness may certainly be at least partly strategic—an attempt to be, if not all things to all people, then at least as many things to as many people as possible. This trait is hardly unusual in politicians. But Obama takes it to an extreme degree, and over time it is starting to hurt him. It is such a consistent characterisitc of his, across so many areas, that one can conclude (as I have) that it is part of his personality on a very deep level, and not just a political ploy.
Slightly different topic, but this is great. The surveyors showed a group of 440 people this pro-Obama video by the "Obama Girl." Watch how the negatives get bigger as the video goes on. The sharpest drops are among women when the Obama Girl shows the most skin: when she's on the bed and on the couch.


text:
Welcome to William & Mary, the ideal law school experience.
William & Mary Law School boasts a remarkable history - Thomas Jefferson helped found it over 230 years ago - and a reputation for producing lawyers who are not only highly skilled and successful attorneys, but dedicated public servants.
At William & Mary, we're looking for diverse, talented applicants who have what it takes to become citizen lawyers - models of professionalism and service that began with Jefferson and are personified today by our amazing faculty.
Why apply to W&M? Because our academic programs offer a unique, hands-on legal education and full access to the Law School's rich intellectual life. And don't forget our vibrant student life - clubs, journals, moot court - and our beautiful home town of Williamsburg.
We offer three full-time degree programs. Learn how to apply:
* Juris Doctor (J.D.) - This three-year program is open to first-year, transfer, and visiting law students.
* Combination Degree Program - Students accepted to the J.D. program may also apply for joint degrees from the School of Business, the Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy and the American Studies Program. A separate application must be made to each program.
* LL.M. in the American Legal System - This one-year program is designed for students who have received law degrees outside of the United States and seek advanced training in American law.
Please keep in mind important dates and deadlines. And don't forget to apply for financial aid. For 2018-19, the Law School awarded $11.1 million in merit- and need-based scholarships.
Register to take a tour of the Law School and see all there is to do in Williamsburg. And don't hesitate to contact us with any questions. You can also check out our helpful admissions FAQs and download a brochure.


text:
October 29, 2012
| 5:30 p.m.
Electoral Dysfunction
A new documentary film that uses humor and wit to take an irreverent–but nonpartisan–look at voting in America.
Screening begins at 5:30 p.m. Reception to follow screening.
RSVP Appreciated.
About the film
Where is the Electoral College—and does it have a winning football team? Why does the U.S. have 13,000 separate electoral districts? And why is the right to vote missing from the Constitution? Political humorist Mo Rocca sets out to find the answers.
Screened at both the 2012 Republican and Democratic National Conventions and soon to air locally on WTTW, Electoral Dysfunction is for Americans across the political spectrum who want their votes to count.
More information is available on the Electoral Dysfunction website.
Sponsored by Brennan Center for Justice, MacArthur Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, and WTTW.


text:
A 2-1 win for Korea Republic over Brazil in Wellington was enough to put them into second spot in Group D on goals scored. Brazil, though still mathematically in with a chance of progression, face a very difficult task now.
The first half was barren of chances. Korea Republic looked the more likely to score initially, and on 17 minutes Lee Hyun Young broke through on the left, but her shot found the side netting. Brazil were generally reduced to shots from distance in the first period, although Raquel did find space for a close-range shot on 27 minutes following a sweeping move. The effort, however, flew over.
In the second half, the Koreans took control. Only two minutes after the interval, Lee Hyun Young's shot rebounded to her on the right, and she slipped Lee Min Sun through on goal, who took a touch to round the keeper and then slotted the ball home. Ten minutes later it was two, when Shin Mi Na's long ball evaded the Brazilian defence and fell to Lee Hyun Young; clean through on goal, she rode Aline's challenge and knocked the ball into an empty net.
On 66 minutes, Brazilian hopes rose when Raquel headed home Rafaelle's cross from the left, but they could not make the most of their chances thereafter. In fact, it was the Koreans who came closest to another goal, when Ji So Yun blazed over from close range in the 88th minute.


text:
Goodbye Alex Box! Hello Omaha, LSU's Coming Back
LSU Sports Interactive
BATON ROUGE -- Seventy years of history at Alex Box Stadium ended on Monday night at 10:01 p.m. -- and the next era will start on Sunday in Omaha. LSU's rapid ascent back to the top of college baseball continued with an NCAA Super Regional thumping of UC Irvine, 21-7, to advance to the NCAA College World Series for the 14th time.
"Omaha, here come the Tigers," LSU head coach Paul Mainieri said. "I've been waiting to say that for so long, and I know that the Tiger Nation will follow us up there. Omaha, Nebraska, it just feels great to say. These kids would not be denied today, you could just see it. I went into the locker room about three hours before game time. They were loose, confident and having fun. There was not an ounce of nervousness in them. You could see the determination in their faces."
A little over 24 hours earlier, LSU (48-17-1) was down to its final three outs and trailed the Anteaters (42-18) by three runs before staging a comeback for the ages that resulted in the Tigers setting up an NCAA Super Regional winner-take-all game. LSU carried the momentum from Sunday's thriller into Monday night and closed out the grand old ballpark by securing the program's first Omaha appearance since 2004.
A stadium record 8,173 fans packed into every available space to watch the 1,723rd and final game at "The Box" as LSU improved to 30-6 on championship day in NCAA postseason play. The actual attendance shattered the previous mark of 7,607 set against Texas A&M in the second game of the 2004 NCAA Baton Rouge Super Regional.
LSU will play North Carolina in the opening round of the 2008 NCAA College World Series at 6 p.m. Sunday. The game will be televised nationally by ESPN 2.
The Tigers connected for seven home runs and used a memorable six-run first inning that featured three consecutive blasts from designated hitter Blake Dean, catcher Micah Gibbs and first baseman Matt Clark. LSU added three more runs over the next two frames and put the game out of reach with a seven-run uprising in the fifth.
"It was the confidence level that these kids had tonight," Mainieri said. "Back-to-back-to-back home runs in the first inning, I think it sent the message that we meant business. Nothing was going to stand in our way tonight."
UC Irvine starter Bryce Stowell (8-3) entered the rubber game with a 2.77 ERA and a .236 opponent's batting average. Stowell, who blanked Oral Roberts for seven innings in the NCAA Lincoln Regional, suffered his shortest outing of the season, allowing six runs five earned -- without making it out of the first inning.
LSU tallied 21 runs the most in an NCAA postseason game since posting 21 runs against UL-Monroe at the 2000 Baton Rouge Regional -- and the Tigers pounded a school postseason record 24 hits.
Dean tied a school record with five of those hits and became the first LSU player to reach the five-hit plateau since Ryan Patterson did so against Tennessee on May 14, 2005.
Third baseman Michael Hollander started the barrage when he drew a four-pitch, leadoff walk, and left fielder Jared Mitchell singled. A balk was then ruled on Stowell and Hollander came into score the first run. Dean immediately crushed an offering over the right field wall for a two-run homer. Gibbs followed and lined an opposite field, solo shot over the left field wall.
Clark gave the Alex Box faithful yet another memory when he lifted his nation-leading 26th homer over the left-centerfield wall to complete the back-to-back-to-back blasts.
The feat represented the second time LSU had homered in three consecutive at-bats this season and the first time in NCAA postseason play since Brad Cresse, Clint Earnhardt and Wes Davis did so against Mississippi State in the second inning of a 1998 College World Series contest.
Clark tied Eddy Furniss (1996) for sixth place in single-season home runs and matched Florida State's Buster Posey for the national lead with his 26th dinger of the season.
Back-to-back doubles by Dean and Gibbs led to another run in the second, and Mitchell lined an RBI single through the right side in the third.
The 8-1 margin proved to be sufficient for LSU starter Blake Martin, who made his 17th start of the season. Martin worked into the fifth inning, issuing only two runs on five hits while striking out three and walking one.
After he exited, LSU put the game out of reach with seven runs in the bottom of the fifth. Second baseman Ryan Schimpf drove in three runs in the frame, launching a leadoff homer to start the inning and closing the scoring with a two-run double into the right field corner.
Right fielder Derek Helenihi added a two-run single and the Tigers took a 16-2 advantage into the later innings.
Junior right-hander Jordan Brown (5-0) inherited the lead and qualified for the victory, allowing two runs on four hits in two innings of relief.
Schimpf added his second homer in the seventh, a two-run blast that gave him five RBI for the game. Freshman outfielder Johnny Dishon connected for a solo shot in the same inning, and junior first baseman Buzzy Haydel, who replaced Clark, launched his first homer of the season in the eighth to punctuate the final homer in the stadium's history and give the Tigers a 20-7 lead.
Dishon entered for centerfielder Leon Landry, who was hit in the eye by the ball while attempting to make another incredible catch in the fifth. Landry was OK after the game and should be ready to play Sunday.
Fittingly, Hollander, the Tigers' lone senior position player, drove an RBI single through the left side in his final home at-bat that accounted for the final margin.
Freshman Anthony Ranaudo tossed the final inning and recorded the final out in Alex Box Stadium history when second baseman Tyler Hoechlin grounded out to the right-hander. Haydel earned the final putout and tossed the ball into the air to give the Alex Box faithful one lasting image.
"There was no other way to send this stadium out, except to go out there and get the job done,"Mainieri said. "I'm just so happy for the people who have invested so much into this program and their support. It makes us feel so great that they got one more night in the memorable stadium."
LSU 21, UC Irvine 7 (Jun 09, 2008 at Baton Rouge, La.)
UC Irvine........... 001 010 230 - 7 13 2 (42-18)
Pitchers: UC Irvine - Stowell, Bryce; Bergman, Christian (1); Calahan, Tom (5); Slaught, Crosby (5); Avison, Noel (6); Dufour, Matt (7); Necke, Kyle (8).
LSU - Blake Martin; Jordan Brown (5); Ryan Byrd (7); Austin Ross (8); Anthony Ranaudo (9).
Win-Jordan Brown (5-0) Loss-Stowell, Bryce (8-3) T-3:54 A-8348
HR UCI - Deragisch, Eric (1); Bell, Dillon (5).
HR LSU - Blake Dean (20); Micah Gibbs (2); Matt Clark (26); Buzzy Haydel (1); Johnny Dishon (2); Ryan Schimpf 2 (12).
Weather: 93 degrees and partly cloudy
Actual attendance: 8,173
Largest actual attendance in Alex Box history.
Byrd faced 4 batters in the 8th.
UC Irvine vs. LSU
NCAA Baton Rouge Regional Tournament- Game 3
June 9, 2008
Opening Statement...
"Omaha, here come the Tigers! I've been waiting to say that for so long and I know that the Tiger nation will follow us up there. Omaha, Nebraska. It just feels great to say. These kids would not be denied to today, you could just see it. I went into the lockerroom about three hours before game time. They were loose, confident and having fun. There was not an ounce of nervousness in them. You could see the determination in their faces. It would have not mattered who we played today. It was a great ball club we played, Irvine. Obviously, I want to make a comment that I think Mike Gillespie is one of the all time great coaches in college baseball and he had a tremendous year. That is one of the most well coached team you will ever find and it was bad for them that we just had to go all the way tonight. The kids were fighting and would not let anything stand in their way. There was no other way to send this stadium out, except to go out there and get the job done. I'm just so happy for the people who have invested so much into this program and their support. It makes us feel so great that they got one more night in the memorable stadium."
On the back-to-back home runs...
"It was the confidence level that these kids had tonight. Back-to-back home runs in the first inning, I think it sent the message that we meant business. Nothing was going to stand in our way tonight."
On losing the winning streak in the SEC and losing the first game...
"The streak was great I wish we could have won 30 in a row. That would have been something great to talk about. Once we lost the ball game I told the kids that the idea is to win two out of three. That it didn't matter in what order. The kids had their back against the wall and they responded."
On his at-bats...
"I was just doing what I could to help out the team. It is hard to put into words, but as long as you can go up [to the plate] and do what you need to do, everything is going to work out."
DH Blake Dean
On going to the plate...
"I was up there and everyone was on their feet, loud as usual. I guess I had to get a hit right there. You just can't ask for anything else.
On the team this year...
"You dream about this your senior year and having a team like this with a great coach and great coaching staff. There is not a day that goes by that I don't thank God that I'm a part of a team and program like this playing at Alex Box Stadium in the final game in front of 7,000+ screaming, hollering and crazy fans. They are the greatest fans in the world."
On the first inning...
"We started off with momentum going for us. A few of my hits were a little cheap and just snuck in there, but we came out and played the game the way we knew we could play all year. We didn't do anything different. We didn't push and we didn't press, but we just played the way we knew how to play top-notch baseball."
On getting a quick start against UC Irvine...
"Against a team like UC Irvine that is one of the things coach preached to us. We needed to get ahead and take them out of their game. Other than that, we were excited and knew we needed to jump on them earlier. It's great to come out and put up a six spot."
Opening Statement
"Congratulations to an outstanding Louisiana State University ball club. I think they demonstrated why they got on the roll they got on, and they really had a great night. They put a world class beating on us. I think (LSU head coach) Paul Mainieri has done a great job in a remarkably short period of time. It's clear that what people have in this program at LSU is a genuine, true program. We know that (LSU athletics director) Skip Bertman is at the root of all the beginnings of this. He is the genesis of this program. Of course it has now continued with coach Mainieri.
"I actually think coach Smoke Laval deserves credit as well. I think if we go way back and remember, the folks who follow LSU and have followed LSU for a long time will remember that Smoke Laval was there at the beginning. He was part of the building of this program. The folks at LSU did a marvelous job organizing this regional. I think to organize a regional at this particular place with this size crowd, all the logistics that go with preparing this and organizing this, I think these folks deserve a ton of credit. They did a marvelous job."
On if the team was flat today after LSU's late-inning comeback victory in game two ...
"It really had a lot to do with the way the game played out. They (LSU) ran that six out there in the first inning and literally took our starter out of the game. If we were going to be able to contend in this tonight, we were going to have to have (starting P) Bryce Stowell pitch deep into the game, so it clearly had a dramatic effect on us.
"Don't we wish there was a big storm that hit in the seventh inning yesterday, a real storm that would have stopped the game. I would not suggest that we had the life sucked out of us after yesterday. I was very confident in the belief that our guys would come out and compete. I have a hard time laying tonight's result off what happened yesterday."
UC-Irvine Player Quotes
On UC-Irvine's 2008 season...
"First, we'd like to congratulate LSU and wish them good luck. We had a good year and these last two days don't take away from what we did all year and we're extremely proud of what we did. We wish we could've won one of these, but like I said, this doesn't take away from what UC-Irvine did this year."
On his career at UCI and the way they've played the last two seasons...
"The past two years we've been to Texas, Wichita, Nebraska and now here. It doesn't get much better than that; to come to the biggest powerhouses in college baseball. I love it. We've had dog fights every time and have come out swinging you can't ask for anything else."
On the game...
"I'm proud of my team that we were getting beat down pretty hard today and never gave up. We kept pushing and punching back, but unfortunately they were so far in front. I'm really happy with my guys today; we didn't give up and that's what we're all about. We don't quit until the last pitch."
On if LSU's comeback in Game 2 had anything to do with the game today...
"I don't think so. We know that when we take our uniforms off we need to leave it all out on the field and move on. We know that we always need to be ready for tomorrow and we always look forward, never backward. It really had nothing to do with last night at all."
On what happened during the confrontation in the first inning...
"A couple of the guys were saying some things to [P Bryce Stowell] after he was getting hit pretty hard and I just felt it was unnecessary. We got it straightened out. It was no big deal."
On how tough it was to keep the pitchers calm in the first inning...
"I can't tell you how it felt to be Bryce Stowell today, but with the way the crowd was I can tell you it was not easy. We talked about it yesterday and I just felt, since the coaches can't always come out, that if somebody was in trouble we needed to meet out there and calm each other down and it didn't work today. You've just got to tip your cap to LSU."