The United States of America Permanent Residence The United States of America Permanent Labor Certi

I-485 I-90 I-140 I-901 I-551 I-765 I-360 I-600 Approval Notices I-797C USCIS DHS - ICQ Blogs - ICQ.com

2008-10-10T07:33:00.001-07:00

I-485 I-90 I-140 I-901 I-551 I-765 I-360 I-600 Approval Noices I-797C USCIS DHS - ICQ Blogs - ICQ.com

Blogged with the Flock Browser

IMM-5445 Canada Permanent Resident Card - ICQ Blogs - ICQ.com

2008-10-09T12:45:00.001-07:00

IMM-5445 Canada Permanent Resident Card - ICQ Blogs - ICQ.com

Blogged with the Flock Browser

I-151 I-551 I-797C US Permanent Resident Card - ICQ Blogs - ICQ.com

2008-10-09T12:21:00.001-07:00

I-151 I-551 I-797C US Permanent Resident Card - ICQ Blogs - ICQ.com

Blogged with the Flock Browser

CBP Nexus Card New York State USA Province of Ontario Canada SEVIS N0000425665 US VISIT.chris1991 (I-551, IMM5445) USCIS DHS

2008-09-29T19:36:00.001-07:00

CBP Nexus Card New York State USA Province of Ontario Canada SEVIS N0000425665 US VISIT.chris1991 (I-551, IMM5445) USCIS DHS

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Christian H Milan I-551 I-485 I-90 I-140 I-901 I-765 I-797C A098927620 N0000425665 US VISIT jurisdoctorstud

2008-09-28T13:02:00.001-07:00

Christian H Milan I-551 I-485 I-90 I-140 I-901 I-765 I-797C A098927620 N0000425665 US VISIT jurisdoctorstud

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Milan Christian , I-766 ( I-140 I-765, I-90, I-901, I-551, I-797C) Jurisdoctorstud N0000425665 A098927620

2008-09-28T11:54:00.001-07:00

Milan-Christian , I-766 ( I-140 I-765, I-90, I-901, I-551, I-797C) Jurisdoctorstud N0000425665 A098927620

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Christian Milan I-551 ( I-90, I-797C ) USCIS DHS

2008-09-28T08:04:00.001-07:00

Christian Milan I-551 (J-90, I-797C ) USCIS DHS

Blogged with the Flock Browser

USCIS DHS Permanent Resident Card of Chris1989 N0000425665 A098927620

2008-09-23T17:28:00.000-07:00

http://www. uscis. gov.i901.i765. i90.i551.i797c/ 3
i90 i-551 www.uscis.gov 2
uscis boston,170 portland street,boston, 1
how do i make appointment U.S. permanent resident 1
i-797c approval notice 1
how do i make appointment permanent resident 1
"uscis application support center" boston massachusetts 1
A098927620 N0000425665 Search Views
i 797c form for biometrics 1
ambassade de france a montreal + inscrip 1
ma i797c adoption 1

Today
None

Yesterday
Referrer Views
blogenius.com/results.php?search=juri… 2
Top Posts & Pages
These posts on your blog got the most traffic.

Today
Title Views
US Permanent Resident Card I-551 I-90 I- 1
The United States of America Common Law 1
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 1

Yesterday
Title Views
* My Account o Global Dash 1
US Permanent Resident Card I-551 I-90 I- 1

Search Engine Terms
These are terms people used to find your blog.

Today
Search Views
national visa center/i-797c 1
oklahoma "community property system" 1

2008-09-22
None
Clicks
Your visitors clicked these links on your blog.

Today
None

2008-09-22
None

Blog Stats Summary Tables
Total views: 746

Busiest day: 42 — Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Views today: 3

Totals
Posts: 465

Comments: 87

Categories: 370

Tags: 948

I-551: United States of America Permanent Resident Card I-797C N-400
Carte de Résident Français CNI RF European Union Resident …
Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 ——————————————————————————– « Government …
[Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
[Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
* My Account o Global Dashboard o Tag Surfer o My Comments o Stats …
The United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
More »

Referrers
People clicked links from these pages to get to your blog.

Yesterday
Referrer Views
form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogsp… 1

Yesterday
Referrer Views
form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogsp… 1
Top Posts & Pages
These posts on your blog got the most traffic.

Today
None

Yesterday
Title Views
Form I-765 Form I-90 Form I-797C USCIS D 4
[jurisdoctorstudent] " Form I-90 Applica 3
The United States of America Permanent R 1
Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 --------------- 1
US Permanent Resident Card I-551 I-90 I- 1
Form I-551 Form I-90 Form I-90 ASC Appoi 1
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 App 1

Search Engine Terms
These are terms people used to find your blog.

Yesterday
Search Views
http://www. uscis. gov. i90/ 3
i90 int www.uscis.gov 2
uscis boston,170 portland street,boston, 1
how do i make appointment permanent resi 1
i-797c approval notice 1
how do i make appointment permanent resi 1
"uscis application support center" phila 1

Yesterday
Search Views
http://www. uscis. gov. i90/ 3
i90 int www.uscis.gov 2
uscis boston,170 portland street,boston, 1
how do i make appointment permanent resi 1
i-797c approval notice 1
how do i make appointment permanent resi 1
"uscis application support center" phila 1
Clicks
Your visitors clicked these links on your blog.

Today
None

2008-09-23
None

Blog Stats Summary Tables
Total views: 657

Busiest day: 39 — Monday, September 1, 2008

Views today: 0

Totals
Posts: 443

Comments: 62

Categories: 372

Tags: 1,217

I-551: United States of America Permanent Resident Card I-797C N-400
Carte de Résident Français CNI RF European Union Resident …
Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 ——————————————————————————– « Government …
[Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
[Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
More »

Massachusetts Resident Milan Christian Hamond U.S Student and Exchange Visitor Program N0000425665 US Permanent Resident Card Form I-797C Form I-551

2008-09-22T12:01:00.000-07:00

The United States of America Permanent R 2
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-901 Fo 2
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 App 1
Form I-901 Form I-765 Form I-90 Form I-7 1
Arizona Department of Corrections 1

Search Engine Terms
These are terms people used to find your blog.

Today
None

Yesterday
Search Views
after i-797c biometric taken can i apply 2
student permanent resident card 2
i797c us green card pro. 1
+freedom of speech usa permanent residen 1
az department of corrections visitation 1
Clicks
Your visitors clicked these links on your blog.

Today
None

Yesterday
URL Clicks
phillyimc.org/en/node/72005 1

Blog Stats Summary Tables
Total views: 741

Busiest day: 42 — Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Views today: 0

Totals
Posts: 465

Comments: 87

Categories: 370

Tags: 948

I-551: United States of America Permanent Resident Card I-797C N-400
Carte de Résident Français CNI RF European Union Resident …
Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 ——————————————————————————– « Government …
[Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
[Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
* My Account o Global Dashboard o Tag Surfer o My Comments o Stats …
The United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
More »

jurisdoctorstud jurisdoctorstudent Stats: Jurisdoctorstud (Dashboard)

Days Weeks Months

Referrers
People clicked links from these pages to get to your blog.

Today
None

2008-09-21
None
Top Posts & Pages
These posts on your blog got the most traffic.

Today
Title Views
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 App 2
Consulat général de France à Montré 1

Yesterday
Title Views
Form I-765 Form I-90 Form I-797C USCIS D 7
Esquire Jurist Christian Milan American 1

Search Engine Terms
These are terms people used to find your blog.

Today
Search Views
i 797c form for biometrics 1
ambassade de france a montreal + inscrip 1
ma i797c adoption 1

Yesterday
Search Views
findpdf 7
after i-797c biometric taken can i apply 1
Clicks
Your visitors clicked these links on your blog.

Today
None

2008-09-21
None

Blog Stats Summary Tables
Total views: 636

Busiest day: 39 — Monday, September 1, 2008

Views today: 3

Totals
Posts: 443

Comments: 62

Categories: 372

Tags: 1,217

Incoming Links
I-551: United States of America Permanent Resident Card I-797C N-400
Carte de Résident Français CNI RF European Union Resident …
Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 ——————————————————————————– « Government …
[Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
[Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
More »

Form I-551 U.S. Alien Registration Receipt Card A#098927620 Milan Christian N0000425665

2008-09-21T07:02:00.000-07:00

The United States of America Permanent R 2 More stats
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-901 Fo 2 More stats
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 App 1 More stats
Form I-901 Form I-765 Form I-90 Form I-7 1 More stats
Arizona Department of Corrections 1 More stats
Yesterday
Title Views
Form I-901 Form I-765 Form I-90 Form I-7 5 More stats
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551 3 More stats
US Permanent Resident Card I-551 I-90 I- 2 More stats
Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 --------------- 1 More stats
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 App 1 More stats
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-901 Fo 1 More stats
Canada Border Services Agency | Agence 1 More stats
Government of the United States of Ameri 1 More stats

Search Engine Terms

These are terms people used to find your blog.
Today
Search Views
after i-797c biometric taken can i apply 2 More stats
student permanent resident card 2 More stats
i797c us green card pro. 1 More stats
+freedom of speech usa permanent residen 1 More stats
az department of corrections visitation 1 More stats
Yesterday
Search Views
how long it will take to approve i-797c 2 More stats
green card time after i797c 2 More stats
i-797c transfer notice in ny 1 More stats
phone number: uscis application support 1 More stats
biometric fingerprinting for permanent r 1 More stats
permanent resident card i-551 1 More stats
what' s the i-551 ohio 1 More stats
permanent resident card i-551, law enfor 1 More stats
form i 797 c 1 More stats
permament resident card form i-551 1 More stats
Clicks

Your visitors clicked these links on your blog.
Today
URL Clicks
phillyimc.org/en/node/72005 1 More stats
Yesterday
URL Clicks
methinkyou.com/2008/08/appointment-no… 2 More stats
blog.lowerautoinsurance.net/form-i-90… 1 More stats

* I-551: United States of America Permanent Resident Card I-797C N-400
* Carte de Résident Français CNI RF European Union Resident …
* Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 ——————————————————————————– « Government …
* [Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
* [Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
* US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
* * My Account o Global Dashboard o Tag Surfer o My Comments o Stats …
* The United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
* [jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
* [jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …

Search Views
after i-797c biometric taken can i apply 2 More stats
student permanent resident card 2 More stats
i797c us green card pro. 1 More stats
+freedom of speech usa permanent residen 1 More stats
az department of corrections visitation 1 More stats
Yesterday
Search Views
how long it will take to approve i-797c 2 More stats
green card time after i797c 2 More stats
i-797c transfer notice in ny 1 More stats
phone number: uscis application support 1 More stats
biometric fingerprinting for permanent r 1 More stats
permanent resident card i-551 1 More stats
what' s the i-551 ohio 1 More stats
permanent resident card i-551, law enfor 1 More stats
form i 797 c 1 More stats
permament resident card form i-551 1 More stats
uscis philadelphia 10300 drummond road 1 More stats
2008-09-19
Search Views
i600a file in utah 2 More stats
fingerprinting at uscis office for i-90 2 More stats
i-151 vs. i-551 1 More stats
i765 employment 1 More stats
biometrics test uscis how long will the 1 More stats
appeal on 140 can i get extension of h1b 1 More stats
what does it mean of biometrics test in 1 More stats
emerson border services 1 More stats
application support center utah phone nu 1 More stats
diversity visa lottery state nebraska go 1 More stats
travel implication re us green card 1 More stats
asc biometrics or i-551 1 More stats
permanent resident card biometrics wait 1 More stats
does speaking to an officer at uscis abo 1 More stats
new form i765 form uscis 1 More stats
application for employment biometrics al 1 More stats
immigration biometric fingerprint expire 1 More stats
2008-09-18
Search Views
i90 process fingerprint 2 More stats
united state visa lottery 1 More stats
asc offices biometric appointment i-90 w 1 More stats
us immigration biometric fingerprints gr 1 More stats
how to make an appointment for fingerpri 1 More stats
approval notice sent on i765 1 More stats
asc form 1 More stats
http://www.immigrationdirect.com follow 1 More stats
detroit ins green card renewal 1 More stats
case approved with uscis 1 More stats
phone number for uscis asc alexandria 1 More stats
penn law october 1 2008 application 1 More stats
i765 notice of approval 1 More stats
uscis application support center " witho 1 More stats
2008-09-17
Search Views
i-90 application - wiki 3 More stats
me girardin mcgill 2 More stats
request for form i-797c 1 More stats
i-551 permanent resident card pdf 1 More stats
i-765 form 2008 1 More stats
i-90 form uscis 1 More stats
visa petition remained pending in f4 cat 1 More stats
permanent resident card dui 1 More stats
victoria nourse 1 More stats
i-797c i-140 1 More stats
i-765 outside 90 days 1 More stats
i-797c form 1 More stats
i-90 application 1 More stats
i-551 entry to us by air 1 More stats
2008-09-16
Search Views
fafsa i-797c 3 More stats
form i-797c 2 More stats
what are the requirements for biometric 2 More stats
ins form i-90 florida 2 More stats
u.s. permanent resident card form i-90 1 More stats
green card biometrics testing 1 More stats
americavisa section 1 More stats
797 c application for assylum 1 More stats
drummond road "fingerprints" 1 More stats
h15 visa for america 1 More stats
i-797c n400 1 More stats
boalt law admissions index 1 More stats
"federal circuit" november calendar anno 1 More stats
information asylum status uscis -spouse 1 More stats
aos interview salt lake 2008 1 More stats
immgration form i 765 2008 1 More stats
fafsa vs i-797c 1 More stats
henry k prempeh 1 More stats
i 551 "categories" 1 More stats
office in alexandria virginia to applied 1 More stats
asc center fingerprint form 1 More stats
2008-09-15
Search Views
usd law school logo 4 More stats
i-901 form 2 More stats
fingerprinting i90 2 More stats
when will they put up new i-765 form? 1 More stats
form i 90 1 More stats
i-539 3a i-140 pending 1 More stats
uscis form i-90 1 More stats
form i-797c 1 More stats
green card petition us consulate milan 1 More stats
uscis.dhs 1 More stats
fmjfee.com/i901fee/students/ 1 More stats
european commissioner cambodia elections 1 More stats
non immigrant i-90 form 1 More stats
seton hall law application 1 More stats
uscis time to receive i-797c 1 More stats
can i travel with my form i-797c 1 More stats
i-485 pd october 2008 1 More stats
uscis/dhs. 1 More stats
i-765 year 2008 1 More stats
i-765 form expired 1 More stats
web3.uottawa.ca 1

Form I-551 U.S. Permanent Resident Card A#098927620 Christian Milan N0000425665

2008-09-21T06:50:00.000-07:00

Esquire Jurist Christian Milan American 1 More stats
Yesterday
Title Views
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 App 2 More stats
Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 --------------- 1 More stats
Government of Canada Skip all menus (acc 1 More stats
* My Account o Global Dash 1 More stats

Search Engine Terms

These are terms people used to find your blog.
Today
Search Views
after i-797c biometric taken can i apply 1 More stats
Yesterday
Search Views
where to download i-797c form 2 More stats
fabrice lemaire et qrc et documentation 1 More stats
jurisdoctorstud 1 More stats
Clicks

Your visitors clicked these links on your blog.
Today

None
Yesterday
URL Clicks
geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/boston… 1 More stats
connect2canada.com 1 More stats
geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/boston… 1 More stats
geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/boston… 1 More stats
geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/boston… 1 More stats

* I-551: United States of America Permanent Resident Card I-797C N-400
* Carte de Résident Français CNI RF European Union Resident …
* Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 ——————————————————————————– « Government …
* [Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
* [Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
* US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
* [jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
* [jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …

after i-797c biometric taken can i apply 1 More stats
Yesterday
Search Views
where to download i-797c form 2 More stats
fabrice lemaire et qrc et documentation 1 More stats
jurisdoctorstud 1 More stats
2008-09-19
Search Views
sample imm5292 2 More stats
uscis, boston, portland street, appointm 1 More stats
sevis 1 More stats
"secondary level vocational training" an 1 More stats
code 3 on asc appointment notice 1 More stats
uscis tn-1 bachelor 1 More stats
asc biometrics or i-551 1 More stats
2008-09-18
Search Views
i-797c form download 1 More stats
2008-09-17
Search Views
us citizenship and immigration services 1 More stats
u of baltimore school of law seal 1 More stats
uscis boston, 170 portland street, bosto 1 More stats
france general consul montreal 1 More stats
work permit "asylum seekers" 1 More stats
2008-09-16

None
2008-09-15
Search Views
passport i-151 1 More stats
vivre à montreal

The United States of America Permanent Resident Card I-551

2008-09-09T17:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=processed+for+i-551&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=+I-551+approved&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=tn-1+to+green+card&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=nexus+card%2Btn+visa&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/uscis+support+center.html
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=i551+uscis+dhs&submit=Search
http://journals.aol.com/chmilan19/Form-I-551/entries/2008/08/28/national-benefits-center/1989
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=completed+i-797c+example&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=765+approved+am+i+am+us+person&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=imm1000+nmber&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=form+i-485+package&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=form+i+140&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=form+i-901&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=form+i-765&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=form+i-90&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=form+i-551&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=A098927620&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=N0000425665&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=BOS214F00040.000&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=l24033516&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=L01432062&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=L02773316&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=mccallum+law+school+waltham&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=canadian+pr+card&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=imm5292+form&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=CC01159700&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=permanent+resident+card&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=alien+registration+card%2Fuscis+i-551&submit=Search
http://www.blogenius.com/results.php?search=alien+registration+card%2Fuscis+i-551&submit=Search

WordPress tip: Update about your pages so your readers can learn a bit about you.
Stats: Jurisdoctorstud

« Return to Stats
Search Terms for all days ending 2008-09-10 (Summarized)
Summarize: 7 Days 30 Days Quarter Year All Time
All Time
Search Views
jurisdoctorstud 48 More stats
l24033516 8 More stats
form i-797c 7 More stats
download form i-797c 7 More stats
l02773316 6 More stats
asc appointment notice 5 More stats
i-797c form 4 More stats
i-551 form 4 More stats
jurisdoctorstud labor certification 4 More stats
i-797c requirement 4 More stats
what gun does cbsa use 3 More stats
bluedark-10 wordpress 3 More stats
what is i-551 3 More stats
afe@mels.gouv.qc..ca 3 More stats
document.lansa._calfld.value 2 More stats
physical therapist tn-1 visa 2 More stats
da renouvellement 2008 afe 2 More stats
what is i-551? 2 More stats
i-797c uscis 2 More stats
tn canadian "green card" 2 More stats
i797c uscis 2 More stats
imm1262 2 More stats
domestic helper working usa i-765 2 More stats
form i 797c 2 More stats
christian+milan+jurisdoctorstud 2 More stats
i-797c and i-765 2 More stats
l01432062 2 More stats
congress h2b 2 More stats
christian milan jurisdoctorstud 2 More stats
imm5292 2 More stats
government form 797c 1 More stats
document.body.ishomepage body.offsetwidt 1 More stats
dhs i-90 1 More stats
filing fee of i-90 in 2008 1 More stats
i-485 i-360 1 More stats
n0000425665 1 More stats
"employment and training administration" 1 More stats
alien registration card/uscis i-551 1 More stats
uscis form i-90 for 2008 1 More stats
student loan and bursary quebec best ban 1 More stats
i797c pdf 1 More stats
form i-551 alien registration 1 More stats
sevis i-90 form 1 More stats
i-765 1 More stats
processed for i-551 1 More stats
imm1000 nmber 1 More stats
form i-140 & form i-485 package 1 More stats
i-551 dhs 1 More stats
proof of landing in canada imm5292 1 More stats
dhs form i-765 1 More stats

WordPress tip: Put your picture next to your comments and posts, upload an avatar.
Stats: Jurisdoctorstudent

« Return to Stats
Search Terms for all days ending 2008-09-10 (Summarized)
Summarize: 7 Days 30 Days Quarter Year All Time
All Time
Search Views
october 2008 visa bulletin predictions 16 More stats
form i-797c receipt type notice of actio 6 More stats
alexandria, va application support cente 5 More stats
october 2008 visa bulletin prediction 5 More stats
christian milan jurisdoctorstud 3 More stats
uscis baltimore asc photo fingerprints " 3 More stats
how long for green card after i-797c bio 3 More stats
ins form i-901 3 More stats
q es i-797c 2 More stats
uk visa 10300 drummond philadelphia 2 More stats
visa bulletin predictions 2 More stats
american i-90 form 2 More stats
la-documentation-francaise@informations. 2 More stats
"october 2008 visa bulletin" predictions 2 More stats
i-765 (a)(9) 05/27/08 2 More stats
i-797c 2008 2 More stats
visa bulletin predictions 2008 october 2 More stats
form i90 usa resident 2 More stats
how long takes permit work i-765 2 More stats
2 year permanent resident card renewal f 2 More stats
helge dedek 2 More stats
chmilan18 2 More stats
cbp form i-90 2 More stats
"october 2008 visa bulletin" 2 More stats
uscis application support center boston 2 More stats
nvc visa center 2008 august 2 More stats
prediction for october 2008 visa bulleti 2 More stats
change request form fingerprint appointm 2 More stats
government form i-797c 2 More stats
oct 2008 visa bulletin predictions 2 More stats
atlanta i600a 1 More stats
i551 wikipedia 1 More stats
2008 usa permanent resident application 1 More stats
"october 2008 visa bulletin 1 More stats
completed i-797c example 1 More stats
visa bulletin october 2008 predict 1 More stats
why my i-90 form was send to national be 1 More stats
how long does it take to get your united 1 More stats
asc appointment notice biometrics i-797c 1 More stats
permanent resident card san antonio 1 More stats
form i-765 media 1 More stats
i 765 form after augest 1 1 More stats
mateo taussig 1 More stats
does getting a dui affect i90 immigratio 1 More stats
philadelphia british visa agency drummon 1 More stats
i-797c application for asylum 1 More stats
visa bulletin october 2008 predictions 2 1 More stats
cbsa quebec region telephone numbers 1 More stats
uscis free form i-901 1 More stats
"october 2008 " "visa bulletin" "predict 1 More stats

Just a note: we don't count your own visits to your blog. All times are in EST.

Thank you for creating with WordPress | Frequently Asked Questions
Support

Form I-551

2008-09-08T12:59:00.000-07:00

* My Account
o Global Dashboard
o Tag Surfer
o My Comments
o Stats
o Edit Profile
o Contact Support
o WordPress.com
o Log Out
* My Dashboards
o jurisdoctorstud
o jurisdoctorstudent
* New Post
o jurisdoctorstud
o jurisdoctorstudent
*

* Blog Info
o Random Post
o Subscribe to blog
o Add to Blogroll
o Report as spam
o Report as mature
* Go to a random blog...

JurisdoctorstudentVisit Site
Speed up WordPress

WordPress now has support for Gears, which adds new features to your web browser.
More information...

After you install and enable Gears, most of WordPress’ images, scripts, and CSS files will be stored locally on your computer. This speeds up page load time.

Don’t install on a public or shared computer.
Install Now Cancel
Gears Status

Gears is installed on this computer, but is not enabled for use with WordPress.

To enable it click the button below.

However, Gears should not be enabled if this is a public or shared computer.
Enable Gears Cancel
Gears Status

Gears is installed and enabled on this computer. You can disable it from your browser’s Tools menu.

If there are any errors try disabling Gears, reloading the page, and re-enabling Gears.

Local storage status: Updating files:
Close
Gears Status

This web site is denied to use Gears.

To allow it, change the Gears settings from your browser’s Tools menu and reload this page.

However, Gears should not be enabled if this is a public or shared computer.
Cancel

Howdy, jurisdoctorstud! | Log Out | Help | Forums | Turbo

* Jurisdoctorstudent
* Jurisdoctorstud

Choose a Category

* music
* blog deletion
* categories / tags
* comments
* compliments
* domain names
* email address
* feeds
* images / picture
* pages
* posts - read more
* privacy
* login / password
* stats
* themes
* uploads
* users
* upgrades
* video
* widgets
* Other

Visit WordPress FAQ — where 80% of questions are answered

* Write
* Manage
* Design
* Comments 0
* Upgrades

* Settings
* Users

* Dashboard
* Blog Stats
* Blog Surfer
* My Comments
* Tag Surfer

WordPress announcement: Sticky Posts!
Stats: Jurisdoctorstudent
Days Weeks Months
Referrers

People clicked links from these pages to get to your blog.
Today
Referrer Views
209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=fr… 2 More stats
Yesterday
Referrer Views
translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr… 1 More stats
Top Posts & Pages

These posts on your blog got the most traffic.
Today
Title Views
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551 4 More stats
[jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 App 2 More stats
United States of America Alien Registrat 2 More stats
TN-1 Visa Nexus Card US Permanent Reside 2 More stats
The United States of America Visa Bullet 2 More stats
. U.S. Consulate Toronto Click for Podca 1 More stats
Yesterday
Title Views
Form I-901 Form I-765 Form I-90 Form I-7 5 More stats
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-901 Fo 5 More stats
Government of the United States of Ameri 3 More stats
The United States of America Visa Bullet 2 More stats
BOS214F00040.000 1 More stats
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551 1 More stats
I-90 1 More stats
US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551 1 More stats
United States of America Alien Registrat 1 More stats
. U.S. Consulate Toronto Click for Podca 1 More stats

Search Engine Terms

These are terms people used to find your blog.
Today
Search Views
visa bulletin predictions 2008 october 2 More stats
visa bulletin october 2008 predict 1 More stats
why my i-90 form was send to national be 1 More stats
mateo taussig 1 More stats
"october 2008 visa bulletin 1 More stats
atlanta i600a 1 More stats
i551 wikipedia 1 More stats
Yesterday
Search Views
form i90 usa resident 2 More stats
change request form fingerprint appointm 2 More stats
visa bulletin predictions 2 More stats
will green card renewal impact for bad c 1 More stats
free application form for permanent resi 1 More stats
permanent resident card renewal form 1-9 1 More stats
uscis free form i-901 1 More stats
adoption forms logan ohio 1 More stats
i131 re-entry permit biometric taking to 1 More stats
permanent resident card san antonio 1 More stats
Clicks

Your visitors clicked these links on your blog.
Today
URL Clicks
thevisabulletin.com/forums 1 More stats
Yesterday
URL Clicks
daisynruss.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-… 1 More stats

Blog Stats Summary Tables

Total views: 444

Busiest day: 42 — Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Views today: 15
Totals

Posts: 465

Comments: 87

Categories: 370

Tags: 948
Spam

Jurisdoctor has protected your site from 100 spam comments.
Incoming Links

* Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 ——————————————————————————– « Government …
* [Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
* [Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
* US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
* * My Account o Global Dashboard o Tag Surfer o My Comments o Stats …
* The United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
* [jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
* [jurisdoctorstudent] Comment: "US Immigration Forms"
* [jurisdoctorstudent] AOL AIM FLOCK NETSCAPE FIREFOX
* [jurisdoctorstudent] America On Line AOL 9.1 VR Flock

More »

Just a note: we don't count your own visits to your blog. All times are in GMT.

Thank you for creating with WordPress | Frequently Asked Questions
Support
* My Account
o Global Dashboard
o Tag Surfer
o My Comments
o Stats
o Edit Profile
o Contact Support
o WordPress.com
o Log Out
* My Dashboards
o jurisdoctorstud
o jurisdoctorstudent
* New Post
o jurisdoctorstud
o jurisdoctorstudent
*

* Blog Info
o Random Post
o Subscribe to blog
o Add to Blogroll
o Report as spam
o Report as mature
* Go to a random blog...

JurisdoctorstudVisit Site
Speed up WordPress

WordPress now has support for Gears, which adds new features to your web browser.
More information...

After you install and enable Gears, most of WordPress’ images, scripts, and CSS files will be stored locally on your computer. This speeds up page load time.

Don’t install on a public or shared computer.
Install Now Cancel
Gears Status

Gears is installed on this computer, but is not enabled for use with WordPress.

To enable it click the button below.

However, Gears should not be enabled if this is a public or shared computer.
Enable Gears Cancel
Gears Status

Gears is installed and enabled on this computer. You can disable it from your browser’s Tools menu.

If there are any errors try disabling Gears, reloading the page, and re-enabling Gears.

Local storage status: Updating files:
Close
Gears Status

This web site is denied to use Gears.

To allow it, change the Gears settings from your browser’s Tools menu and reload this page.

However, Gears should not be enabled if this is a public or shared computer.
Cancel

Howdy, jurisdoctorstud! | Log Out | Help | Forums | Turbo

* Jurisdoctorstud
* Jurisdoctorstudent

Choose a Category

* music
* blog deletion
* categories / tags
* comments
* compliments
* domain names
* email address
* feeds
* images / picture
* pages
* posts - read more
* privacy
* login / password
* stats
* themes
* uploads
* users
* upgrades
* video
* widgets
* Other

Visit WordPress FAQ — where 80% of questions are answered

* Write
* Manage
* Design
* Comments 0
* Upgrades

* Settings
* Users

* Dashboard
* Blog Stats
* Blog Surfer
* My Comments
* Tag Surfer

WordPress tip: Update your about page so your readers can learn a bit about you.
Stats: Jurisdoctorstud
Days Weeks Months
Referrers

People clicked links from these pages to get to your blog.
Today
Referrer Views
mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=… 1 More stats
Yesterday
Referrer Views
by121w.bay121.mail.live.com/mail/Inbo… 1 More stats
us.f817.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.ran… 1 More stats
Top Posts & Pages

These posts on your blog got the most traffic.
Today
Title Views
TN-1 Visa Nexus Card US Permanent Reside 6 More stats
Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 --------------- 2 More stats
South Texas College of Law 1 More stats
Form I-551 Form I-90 Form I-90 ASC Appoi 1 More stats
Le Parti Québécois L02773316 L01432062 1 More stats
BENTLEY COLLEGE ELKIN B MCCALLUM GRADUAT 1 More stats
* My Account o Global Dash 1 More stats
[jurisdoctorstudent] " Form I-90 Applica 1 More stats
US Permanent Resident Card I-551 I-90 I- 1 More stats
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO LAW SCHOOL SUNY (2 1 More stats
Yesterday
Title Views
[jurisdoctorstudent] " Form I-90 Applica 1 More stats
United States of America Alien Registrat 1 More stats
TN-1 Visa Nexus Card US Permanent Reside 1 More stats

Search Engine Terms

These are terms people used to find your blog.
Today
Search Views
physical therapist tn-1 visa 2 More stats
bachelor student for canadian pr card 1 More stats
"martin lemay" 1 More stats
university at buffalo law school web por 1 More stats
mccallum law school waltham 1 More stats
imm1000 nmber 1 More stats
nexus card+tn visa 1 More stats
processed for i-551 1 More stats
Yesterday
Search Views
us workers visa 1 More stats
Clicks

Your visitors clicked these links on your blog.
Today
URL Clicks
grasmick.com/forum.htm 1 More stats
2008-09-07

None

Blog Stats Summary Tables

Total views: 566

Busiest day: 39 — Monday, September 1, 2008

Views today: 17
Totals

Posts: 443

Comments: 62

Categories: 372

Tags: 1,217
Spam

Jurisdoctor has protected your site from 42 spam comments.
Incoming Links

* Jurisdoctorstudent I-551 ——————————————————————————– « Government …
* [Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
* [Jurisdoctorstud] " TN-1 Nexus Card US Permanent Resident Card …
* US Permanent Resident Card Form I-551
* [jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
* [jurisdoctorstudent] ” Form I-90 Application Support Center I-797C …
* Geology+and+Geophysics
* Call for Proposals: CCN Conference

More »

Just a note: we don't count your own visits to your blog. All times are in GMT.

Thank you for creating with WordPress | Frequently Asked Questions
Support

Government of the United States of America: USA Green Card: US Diversity Visa: US Permanent Resident Card: US Alien Registration Card USCIS Support Center

2008-08-17T11:45:00.000-07:00

chmilan18

USA & SECRET TORTURE PRISON/DETENTION: FURTHER UNTOLD FACT ON ... [#]
petitions, the USCIS NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER and USCIS District Office, Boston MA agreed to issue BIOMETRIC TEST APPOINTMENT but the Judge must sign, stamp and enter simple phrase, BIOMETRIC TEST IS REQUIRED IN THIS CASE. ...
Philadelphia Independent Media Center - Passionate and Accurate Tellings of Truth (2008-08-16T18:46:15Z)

USCIS Announces 2 YR Renewal Pollicy! [#]
For more information on Employment Authorization Documents, please contact the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283 or review the USCIS Employment Authorization Documents web page at: ... the wrong validity period, ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-06-13T15:16:00Z)

Appointment Notice [#]
Specifically I will have it next week at around ten o'clock in the morning in the nearest uscis application support center. I'm happy for immigration's quick responce to my application. And hopefully before my hubby and I will make a ...
Simply Me (2008-08-15T22:06:00Z)

N-400 Naturalization - Continue to File with USCIS Service Center ... [#]
Applicants will continue to file their N-400 along with all supporting documents and fees with the USCIS Service Center having jurisdiction over their place of residence Also, applicants will also continue to report to ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-06-06T20:16:09Z)

USCIS DHS Form I-765 Form I-90 Form I-90 ASC Application Support ... [#]
... Resident Card Employment Based Petition Permanent Labor Certification electronic approval notice The United States of America Employment Authorization Document USCIS DHS Form I-765 Form I- 90 Form I-90 ASC Application Support Center ...
jurisdoctorstudent (2008-08-13T20:37:47Z)

FY2009 H-1B Cap Update [#]
According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the US Citizenship & Immigrations Service (USCIS) has provided the following update regarding H-1B cap subject cases that were received for fiscal year 2009: 1. ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-06-12T16:17:45Z)

Just A Little Update! [#]
Today we went to USCIS Application Support Center in Salt Lake to have my biometrics taken for my green card application. After my biometric appointment, we went to Bountiful Temple and since Russ is not feeling good enough to do a ...
My Life, My Love, My Family, My World (2008-08-14T00:48:00Z)

Christian Milan L02773316 L01432062 L24033516 jurisdoctorstud ... [#]
The Esquire Christian Milan attempted more than once to provide to our American Bar Association, sufficient details for us to decide to aggree under oath to petition for Christian Milan L02773316 L01432062 LSAC L24033516 USCIS DHS Form ...
Jurisdoctorstud's Weblog (2008-07-29T14:59:06Z)

The United States of America Alien Registration Card The United ... [#]
BOS214F00040.0000The United States of America Federal Government+USCIS Related Blog Search Results Fact Sheet: The United States of America Legal Permanent Resident applications/petitions Processing [#] US Citizenship and Immigration ...
Citizenship and Immigration Services United States of America USCIS DHS (2008-07-29T21:40:03Z)

USCIS TO REQUIRE BIOMETRICS FOR TRAVEL DOCUMENTS [#]
... will become effective March 5, 2008, that require applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents to provide biometrics (eg, fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Centers (ASC) for background and. ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-03-05T23:30:57Z)

New USCIS Resources Are Coming!!! [#]
As has been the established practice, we expect free dissemination to all naturalizations applicants reporting to the Application Support Center for their fingerprinting appointments to begin on October 1, 2008. ...
US Citizenship Podcast (2008-07-07T22:10:00Z)

USCIS BIOMETRICS CHANGES FOR RE-ENTRY PERMITS AND REFUGEE TRAVEL ... [#]
The instructions include changes effective March 5, 2008 that require applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents to provide biometrics (eg, fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) for ...
Immigration Blog (2008-07-09T16:21:48Z)

Torn Apart by War, Kept Apart by the Patriot Act [#]
Known as the material support bar, the law was also at the center of a high-profile case in April in which a Transylvania University student faced deportation to his native Sudan . Authorities said that because Lino Nakwa was kidnapped ...
Baltimore Nonviolence Center (2008-07-28T00:56:00Z)

The United States of America Permanent Resident Card [#]
... United States of America Employment Authorization Document USCIS DHS Form I-765 Form I- 90 Form I-90 ASC Application Support Center Notice of an Approval Action The United States of America Permanent Resident Card Protected Person ...
The United States of America Permanent Residence The United States of America Permanent Labor Certi (2008-08-13T20:18:00Z)

L01432062 American Bar Association [#]
... fomer application to replace his United States of America Alien Registration Card Form I-90 ASC Appointment Notice application support center notice of approval the applicant named Christian Milan received his United States of ...
USCIS DHS Form I-90 Form I-797C INS DOS USDS CBP ICE FBI CIA DOE DOD DOL (2008-07-06T17:38:06Z)

Adoption social worker ohio. Find experienced adoption, support ... [#]
Pre- and post-placement visits to the adoptive home by an adoption social worker adoption tax credit; uscis to increase international adoption fees; adoption tax credit for ohio. Ohio s adoption system is so flawed that it cannot ...
higher education (2008-08-15T01:28:00Z)

USCIS Consolidates Biometrics Appointments for I-485 Applicants [#]
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that effective today it will begin consolidating biometrics collection when employment-based adjustment of status applications and employment authorization requests are filed at ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-02-15T16:30:45Z)

I-131 Re-Entry Permit and Refugee Travel Document Biometric ... [#]
Applicants for re-entry permits and refugee travel documents will, effective March 5, 2008, be required to provide biometrics (fingerprints and photographs) at a USCIS Application Support Center. Here are the new ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-03-06T02:59:38Z)

Philadelphia USCIS Application Support Center for Biometrics and ... [#]
I have received a few calls about the specific new address for the USCIS Philadelphia Application Support Center where fingerprinting and biometrics are taken in support of various USCIS immigration applications. ...
Philadelphia Immigration Lawyer Blog (2008-01-23T00:11:35Z)

No Credit Build Credit Unsecured Apply Online Cards [#]
You do not need to contact the national Visa center or uscis will then send Visa petition of you change your address? The center will notify you, there is a change and you may affect your eligibility, it is facilitating interest free ...
Credit Cards For Bad Credit With Balance Transfer (2008-08-15T07:59:00Z)

A conservative take on immigration reform [#]
The Reformation of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Reforms must provide adequate revenue to support services that: (1) meet the needs of customers; (2) protect the interest of the nation, including the integrity of ...
Fire and judgment (2008-08-07T14:21:00Z)

New Background Check Policy for I-485 Applicants [#]
to appear at an Application Support Center, (ASC) if his or her fingerprints have expired? A12. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new or updated fingerprint checks are needed. Source: USCIS.gov ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-02-28T17:39:18Z)

Green Card Lawyer - Biometrics Now Required for Reentry Permits ... [#]
If you hold a green card and know in advance that you must be outside the United States for more than one year, it's worth applying to USCIS for a reentry permit. This lets you to stay away for up to two years. ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2008-03-14T05:41:52Z)

Gulen v. Chertoff: USCIS MUST approve Extraordinary Ability Petition! [#]
To date, USCIS has issued no refund. On August 13, 2007, the USCIS Vermont Service Center issued a request for evidence in support of Gülen's petition. The request characterized Gülen as a "clergyman" on the basis of ...
Immigration News & Issues (2008-07-21T16:18:00Z)

How to file EAD renewal [#]
You will receive a notice in the mail from the USCIS that will provide you with your USCIS-scheduled appointment for capturing biometrics and photographs at an Application Support Center. You MUST bring the following materials to your ...
Kannan M Durai (2008-06-02T21:00:00Z)

The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) L02773316 ... [#]
Effective July 24, 2008, our address will be 44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 110, Alexandria, VA 22314. Phone numbers remain the same. Expansions to the Castle Doctrine: Implications for Policy and Practice ...
USCIS DHS Form I-90 Form I-797C INS DOS USDS CBP ICE FBI CIA DOE DOD DOL (2008-07-31T00:13:28Z)

Holding on... [#]
Our I-600A application was sent on June 9 via overnight mail, received by USCIS on June 10, processed on June 16 and we received notice on June 17 that we must appear at the USCIS Support Center in Hartford, Connecticut at 3 pm on July ...
seoulmama (2008-06-23T08:11:00Z)

Applying for a US Fiance Visa [#]
STEP 3: The USCIS will forward the approved petition to the National Visa Center (NVC), which will then forward this to the US Embassy in your country. "The Embassy will send the fiancé(e) information on how to apply for the K-1 visa, ...
bitsnpieces (2008-07-27T07:38:44Z)

I Understand Why The Government Screens Your Calls [#]
My first phone call this morning has been to the NVC (National Visa Center) to see if USCIS in Memphis had sent them the paperwork for processing. I actually was able to speak with a real live person named Renee and although she wasn't ...
McGowan Moments (2008-08-15T13:43:00Z)

Naturalization Interview Process Changes [#]
... appropriate training.4 Through this memorandum we are designating the USCIS officer corps, including Adjudications Officers, Fraud Detection and National Security Officers, Asylum Officers, Application Support Center Managers, ...
Michael Baker -Immigration & Naturalization Law, DUI & Criminal Lawyer, Chicago, I (2008-07-16T18:32:00Z)

26197 [#]
Dura Soft 1 Optifit Toric Contact Lens What Isdigital Publishing And Web Media Usb Stick Forum The Red Lion Hotel And Salt Lake City Java Tutorial X Uscis Support Center Idealism Approaches To Study Of International Rela ...
12848 (2008-06-06T15:48:00Z)

The United States of America Immigration and Customs Enforcement [#]
My USCIS DHS ASC Appointment Support Center Approval Notice of Action from our United States of America Department of Homeland Security Form I-90 Form I-797C of a US petition type Form I-90 before our United States of America ...
The United States of America SEVIS SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (2008-07-03T21:34:45Z)

The United States of America [#]
... America Department of Homeland Securityat the USCIS DHS application support center USCIS of Boston Massachusetts United States of America, to have me: Christian Milan of Bentley College or Bentley College student/alumni @02571288, ...
The United States of America Citizenship (2008-07-03T00:14:56Z)

#1: Your Employer is NOT H-1B quota exempt, BUT, your Employment ... [#]
The USCIS has interpreted the regulations to deem an H-1B nonimmigrant "quota exempt" who works "at" a quota exempt institution, even if he or she works for a non-exempt employer, under certain circumstances, as discussed in this ...
Physical Therapy Chat (2008-07-26T00:03:00Z)

University of Dayton School of Law [#]
cmilan485 Registration of my United States of America Legal Permanent Resident status (LPR) holding a United States of America Permanent Resident Card USCIS DHS Form I-90 Form I-797C application support center notice of action the ...
The Law School Admission Council LSAC L24033516 (2008-07-11T22:57:00Z)

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL ( 3457 ) Fall 2007 [#]
Form I-90 application support center notice of action on which it said that the applicant received his legal permanent resident status ; Christian says : fly to Logan International Airport and pick his United States of America Permanent ...
The Law School Admission Council LSAC L24033516 (2008-07-13T23:38:00Z)

Free makeovers help put smiles on the faces of cancer patients ... [#]
Free makeovers help put smiles on the faces of cancer patients Mohave Valley News, NV - Jul 8, 2008 … Care Cancer Support Center, 1225 Hancock Road, Suite 202. For more information, or to schedule an appointment for Aug. ...
make an appointment (2008-07-09T21:37:55Z)

Opening Statement Making the Difference Access to Justice [#]
The Center has started a CLE series, the first conference of which the Nexus beteen the Education and Juvenile Justice Systems and the Impact of Mental Health Issues, is being held this fall and is cosponsored by the South Texas College ...
The United States of America Permanent Residence The United States of America Permanent Labor Certi (2008-08-13T21:24:00Z)

Immigration lawyer in houston tx. Criminal defense; white collar ... [#]
Certification form san antonio san marcos victoria, texas tx city dover ellendale etown greenwood harrington houston us usa uscis immigration law visa h1b i firm lawyer. Houston, tx during the last several years, i have the annual ...
adult social networking (2008-08-13T02:31:00Z)

We're Going to Have Our Biometrics Captured! [#]
Yay! Yesterday, we finally got appointments from the USCIS! We have been instructed to appear at the application support center on August 7 to have our biometrics captured--in other words, to have our fingerprints done. ...
The Mistrettas (2008-07-30T01:17:00Z)

Re: [immigration_info] Filing Form FD-258 as part of I-751 ... [#]
About a month later, the notification came with a date and time to have my photo and FP taked an the Application Support Center. Unless they have changed the procedure? ----- Original Message ----- From: lovenotrockets ...
Immigration Info (2008-07-23T18:31:00Z)

Phase 2, continued [#]
We received notice in the mail to appear at the USCIS Application Support Center for biometric fingerprinting. We were impressed with the efficiency of the operation - we didn’t have to wait too long. They put your fingers on a little ...
Our Adoption Abroad Weblog (2008-05-28T02:01:59Z)

Papers Send to USCIS [#]
I-797 USCIS Approval Notice * National Visa Center Approval Notice * Notice of her Interview w/ US Embassy * Passport pages w/ Non-Immigration Visa * I-94 Departure Record * I-864 Affidavit of Support * (Husband)Employment letter ...
In My Dreams (2008-08-01T22:50:38Z)

BIOMETRICS [#]
As expected, my fingerprints did not scan well and I will be making another trip to the US Citizenship and Immigration Support Center sometime in the future. I watched the screen as the tech scanned each finger. ...
Mary's Musings (2008-06-04T19:50:00Z)

Applying for UK Visa in USA [#]
We need to bring our appointment letter printout on USCIS Application support center. (Bring the payment receipt as well however they did not checked it for us). 5. The staff at USCIS office handled us politely and they took all of our ...
DoAnalyze.com (2008-04-26T20:42:50Z)

USCIS ANNOUNCES EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION UPDATE FOR TPS [#]
WASHINGTON - US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced that certain Hondurans, Nicaraguans and Salvadorans eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) re-registration, who have an application pending with USCIS ...
Settlement Support Center, LLC - Justia BlawgSearch.com (2007-03-09T13:19:00Z)

Hello world! [#]
Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center, (ASC) if his or her fingerprints have expired? A12. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new or updated fingerprint checks ...
JTM (2008-03-16T17:41:34Z)

Chase bank visa. Chase bank discover card american express bank of ... [#]
At the dads & grads guide audio & video business jp morgan chase visa gift cards center cameras cell the top safety scorecard honor went to bank of america s platinum. As it works with the world- p es, visa and mastercard, chase bank is ...
used car loan (2008-08-12T01:41:00Z)

Today I had my ASC appointment for biometrics! [#]
I went pretty early to the “Application Support Center” at the address written on the notice. It was really close from my apartment, on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. By the way, no cell phone is allowed inside. ...
French Lolie (2008-04-27T04:55:33Z)

Directions from the Misdirected [#]
For this purpose, I needed to travel 16 miles from Penn to an application support Center located at 10300, Drummond Road. The way to get there was fairly simple actually. “A subway to Frankford Station, then transfer to a bus to Academy ...
Aatir's Slate

chmilan18

*
USA Lottery Diversity Visa: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....

by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago

Add Comments
*
USA Diversity Visa Lottery Winner: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C http://www.blogenius.com/uscis+support+center.htmlU.S. Permanent R....

by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago

Add Comments
*
USA Diversity Visa Lottery Winner: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....

by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago

Add Comments
*
USA Green Card I-140: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....

by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago

Add Comments
*
US Green Card Lottery Diversity Visa: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....

by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago

Add Comments
*
USA Green Card Lottery Diversity Visa: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-901 Form I-765 Form I-797C: USA Green Card Lottery Diversity Visa U.S. ....

by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago

Add Comments
*
Welcome back !: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797CThe United State....

by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago

Add Comments
*
Green Card I-140: U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-797C GREEN CARD Form I-140 USCIS DHS U.S. Permanent Resident Card Form ....

by jurisdoctorstud (online) 1 day ago

U.S. Green Card Form I-90 Form I-797C

2008-08-15T07:17:00.000-07:00

Thanks to all of us that contributed in the issuance of my United States of America replacement of my U.S. Alien Registration Receipt Card, United States of America Permanent Resident Card. I Christian Milan is in possession of my United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-797C Form I-90 ASC appointment notice from the United States of America Citizenship and Immigration Services of the United States of America Department of Homeland Security. Our United States of America Department of State suggested to me personally the applicant beneficiary petitioner for the replacement of my United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-90 Form I-765 Form I-901 Form I-485 Form I-140 Form I-551 Form I-797C that my United States of America electronic evidence published on America Online by our United States of America Federal Government about my United States of America machine readable visa represents a U.S. lawful approval of my United States of America petition to renew my United States of America Department of State valid travel documents -- U.S. temporary evidences of my United States of America Legal Permanent Resident status LPR status - U.S. Naturalization eCertificates -- U.S. Permanent Residence approval of a U.S. Permanent Labor Certification Application ( USDS DOS INS USCIS DHS DOL ETA Form LCA, Form LC, Form LPR status )----

http://journals.aol.com/jurisdoctorstud/form-i-551-form-i-90-form-i-765/

http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html

http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html

http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html

- - processing for a United States of America Permanent Resident Card Form I-551--------------------

The United States of America machine readable visa types: K-1/F-1/M-1/J-1/F-3/M-3/H-1B/A-1/O-1/H2-B

http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html

http://journals.aol.com/jurisdoctorstud/form-i-551-form-i-90-form-i-765/

http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html

http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html

http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html .

The new passport version or biometric passport type may be required if the desired stay in the United States of America on my/a United States of America visa is for a period of less/more than ninety days for complying with the terms of our United States of America Visa Waiver Program The United States of America Visa Waiver Program Federal Nominee Christian Hamond Milan.

Love us dearly.

Christian Milan

http://journals.aol.com/jurisdoctorstud/form-i-551-form-i-90-form-i-765/

http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html

http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html

http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html

PS: A private conversation transcript between me and a United States of America Diplomat appointed by Lord Excellency President Bush at the current Foreign Post of our United States of America Citizenship and Immigration Services of the United States of America Department of Homeland Security The American Embassy The United States of America Department of State www.state.gov The U.S. Diversity Visa Program Federal Award Nominee.

http://cmilan485.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-department-of-state-emachine.html

http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/united-states-of-america-permanent.html

http://form-i-90-form-i-765-uscis-dhs.blogspot.com/2008/08/us-green-card.html

U.S. Permanent Resident Card

2008-08-14T09:03:00.000-07:00

Home : Advanced Search

Search Results for US Permanent Resident Card
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 14116 | Next

ACLU Coalition Letter Supporting an Elimination of Arbitrary Numerical Caps on Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Persons Who Have Already Been Granted Asylum or Refugee Status 01/21/2004
... Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Persons ... parolees who can apply for permanent resident status in the ... individuals who legally reside in the US and are ... checks as required to grant a green card or ... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/asylum/11628leg20040121.html

Statement of John Madrid at the Press Conference for the Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA 03/07/2002
... Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family ... Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family ... He had his green card since he was 11. They would not tell us where he was being kept at one ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/11613leg20020307.html

kyr_english_4.pdf
... citizens who are already in the US do not ... who have been issued valid US immigration ... examples include an unexpired permanent resident card ("green card ... If you have your valid US immigration documents and you ...
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf

Get Busy. Get Equal: Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage in Canada?
If you are a permanent US resident, you will need your green card and a passport. Temporary US residents need a passport. Do we need a marriage license? Yes. You can apply for citizenship after becoming a permanent resident and meeting ... ...
www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/canada.html

ACLU and MN Community Groups Challenge Driver's License Rule That Turns ID into ""Internal Passport"" 07/22/2002
... license statute; and that the use of exempt ... present documents as proof of permanent US resident status, lawful short-term admission to the country or US citizenship ... Minnesota's driver license, permit or state identification
www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14809prs20020722.html

ACLU - Stand Up!
... the detention of any non-US resident if he believes ... " This means that any US lawyer who defends ... sections mentioned above are permanent provisions of ... Got it? Become a card-carrying member of the ACLU!
www.aclu.org/standup/rants/rant_farrarhudkins.html

Discriminatory Bank Policy Prohibits Foreigners from Receiving Credit, ACLU Charges 05/24/2005
"Denying a credit card to someone because ... the United States as a lawful permanent resident. ... credit by applying for a credit card from Union ... denying credit to people who are not US citizens, the ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11744prs20050524.html

Riley v. USA and Unknown INS Officers - Fact Sheet: INS Harassment and Detention of Richard Riley 10/17/2000
... documentation of his lawful permanent resident status and ... shows them his social security card, the stub ... everything -- everything you say to us, this ... the only way Jamaicans can get a green card is if they "jerked ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11756prs20001017.html

ACLU Statement to the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Regarding FISA "Modernization" 05/01/2007
... companies a get out of jail free card. ... communications into and out of the US are ... who is not a citizen, lawful permanent resident or company incorporated in the US who "is expected to possess, control ...
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/29611leg20070501.html

Army0483_0486.pdf
... FCC 14 5 Claims form Us foreign commission ... citizen and national of I A permanent resident I-. h- TOTAL AMOUNT: US DOLLAR IX-3.c. The claims card provided by the claimant is not an original ...
www.aclu.org/natsec/foia/pdf/Army0483_0486.pdf

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

Search Results for green card
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 1826 | Next

Settlement Reached in Florida Election Lawsuit; Punch Card System Continues to Face Scrutiny Nationwide: Statement of Laughlin McDonald, Director, ACLU Voting Rights Project 09/03/2002
... challenging the use of punch card machines ... decertified further use of punch card machines ... California, further use of punch card machines was ... motion to dismiss the lawsuit, giving a green light to the ...
www.aclu.org/votingrights/er/12929prs20020903.html

ACLU Calls Immigrant Registration Program Pretext for Mass Detentions 12/19/2002
... have provided extensive information as part of their green card applications," he said ... INS arrested men who were simply waiting for approval of their green card applications, or those with ...
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17078prs20021219.html

Riley v. USA and Unknown INS Officers - Fact Sheet: INS Harassment and Detention of Richard Riley 10/17/2000
... Riley shows them his social security card, the stub of ... and financial aid documents, his ATM card and the complete ... tells him that the only way Jamaicans can get a green card is if they "jerked chicken ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11756prs20001017.html

Federal Court Ends County Official's Policy Of Denying Marriage Licenses Based On Immigration Status 02/12/2008
... marriage license applicants by requiring that they show a green card or current visa in ... license, however, because Arias-Maravilla did not have either a green card or a current visa.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/34080prs20080212.html

kyr_english_4.pdf
... an unexpired permanent resident card ("green card"), I-94, Employment Authorization Document (EAD), or border crossing card.
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf

ACLU Welcomes Immigration Detention Medical Treatment Legislation 05/05/2008
They include asylum seekers, long-time green card holders with minor immigration violations and families with small children.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/detention/35234prs20080505.html

ACLU Welcomes Detainee Basic Medical Care Act 05/13/2008
They include asylum seekers, long-time green card holders with minor immigration violations and families with small children.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/35244prs20080513.html

Pennsylvania Couple Wrongfully Denied Marriage License Because of Immigration Status, ACLU Charges 04/18/2007
... them that their application would not be accepted because Arias could not provide a current visa or green card, even though such documents are not required ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/29428prs20070418.html

Statement of John Madrid at the Press Conference for the Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA 03/07/2002
My brother has lived in this country since age 11/2 . He had his green card since he was 11. Did the immigration system perpetuate injustice? Damn straight.
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/11613leg20020307.html

kyr_english_5.pdf
If you are a non-citizen, you should carry your green card or other valid immigration status documents at all times.
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_5.pdf

Home : Advanced Search

Search Results for Alien Registration Receipt Card
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 2431 | Next

kyr_english_4.pdf
... documents are often called "alien registration" documents ... unexpired permanent resident card ("green card"), I-94, Employment Authorization Document (EAD), or border crossing card.
www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf

Temporary Restraining Order Hearing Transcript in ACLU v. Reno II (PART 2) 11/19/1998
... so we do not have credit card capability within ... the TRO proceedings to the receipt of these declarations ... about the cost of the credit card -- complying ... material on costs and feasibility of registration of age, I ...
www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15734lgl19981119.html

Temporary Restraining Order Hearing Transcript in ACLU v. Reno II (PART 2) 11/19/1998
... so we do not have credit card capability within ... the TRO proceedings to the receipt of these declarations ... about the cost of the credit card -- complying ... material on costs and feasibility of registration of age, I ...
www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15735lgl19981119.html

ACLU Blog: Because Freedom Cannot Blog Itself: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
), illegal alien criminals, and for "doctors ... fanatical Muslim, illegal alien, sadistic pedophile ... I will happily put an ACLU card in my wallet ... book ownership, such as licensing and registration.
blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

ACLU Amicus Brief in Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 02/20/1997
... use of a verified credit card, debit account ... Rather, the receipt of information on the Internet ... whether those defenses -- credit card verification ... A registration requirement would also prevent Americans from exercising ...
www.aclu.org/scotus/1996/22956lgl19970220.html

Take Back Your Data/Privacy Rights Pocket Card 12/31/1997
... discarding pay stubs, credit card receipts and other ... Stop filling out "warranty registration" cards. Their sole purpose is to collect personal information about you. Your sales receipt is all you need to ensure that ... ...
www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/15438res19971231.html

TreatyWatch.org
... fraud, including credit card fraud, have ... Receipt of this information would enable the ... , as well as the provision and registration of communication ... information of users of so-called prepaid cards for mobile ...
www.treatywatch.org/explanatoryreport.html

ACLU Calls Immigrant Registration Program Pretext for Mass Detentions 12/19/2002
... immigrant fingerprinting and registration program ... Ashcroft is using the immigrant registration program ... information as part of their green card applications ... that mandates the fingerprinting and registration of all male ... ...
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17078prs20021219.html

Appeals Court Postpones California Recall Election Until State Can Correct "Punch Card" Voting Machines 09/15/2003
... , and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project ... use of decertified "punch card" voting machines ... outdate, decertified, "punch card" voting ... the Ninth Circuit in Southwest Voter Registration ... ...
www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/12936prs20030915.html

The 110th Congress so far... 02/15/2008
... Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM ... Act called for a biometric national ID card and other invasive ... redefined as lobbying - and therefore subject to registration and strict quarterly ...
www.aclu.org/legislative/34133leg20080215.html

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

U.S. Legal Permanent Resident status LPR status received Form I-90 Form I-765 Form I-797C

2008-08-14T08:24:00.000-07:00

American Civil Liberties Union
ACLU Supreme Court legislative update action center donate now

Home : Advanced Search

Search Results for U.S. Legal Permanent Resident status LPR status received Form I-90 Form I-765 Form I-797C
Date | Relevance | displaying 1-10 of 10189 | Next
Did you mean: legal permanent resident status lpr [2] legal permanent resident status lpr [1] U.S legal permanent resident status of Sir Milan, Christian H. [10] legal permanent resident status leper [3] legal permanent resident status Lpr [3]

ACLU Coalition Letter Supporting an Elimination of Arbitrary Numerical Caps on Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Persons Who Have Already Been Granted Asylum or Refugee Status 01/21/2004
... wait even longer to become a legal permanent resident - for these ... granted conditional asylum status and must wait ... opportunity to apply for lawful permanent resident status in January ... Asian Law Caucus Asian Pacific ...... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/asylum/11628leg20040121.html

Statement of John Madrid at the Press Conference for the Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA 03/07/2002
... Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents Adversely Affected by Enactment of AEDPA and ... 7/2002) A Coalition of American and Legal Permanent Resident Family Members of Legal Residents ... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/review/11613leg20020307.html

Human Trafficking: Modern Enslavement of Immigrant Women in the United States 05/31/2007
An asylee may adjust to permanent resident status one year after being granted asylum. ... trafficking, with the option of adjusting to legal permanent resident status. ' To find legal representation to pursue immigration relief, ... ...
www.aclu.org/womensrights/humanrights/34683res20070531.html

ACLU Letter to the Department of Agriculture Expressing Concerns regarding Rural Development Regulations (USDA Proposed Rule 68 Fed. Reg. 3560) 08/01/2003
In this instance, the resident should not be ... abuser is a citizen or lawful permanent resident and the victim ... alien' and eventually obtain legal permanent resident status (Battered Immigrant ... sufficient time to pursue immigration ... ...
www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/13127leg20030801.html

Support the Rights of All Families to Be Together through the "Permanent Partners Immigration Act" 05/10/2003
... Be Together through the "Permanent Partners Immigration ... American, your partner can gain permanent resident status-and ... skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like ... Nadler (D-NY) introduced the &q ...
www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12067res20030510.html

ACLU Charges Abuse in Case of Black US Student Shackled and Strip-Searched by Immigration Officials 10/17/2000
Richard Riley, a legal permanent resident of the United States ... someone who could understand his legal status. ... indicating that he was a lawful permanent resident, but, in ... numerous other incidents in which genuine legal visitor... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/11755prs20001017.html

Urge Congress to Allow Gay Couples to Stay in Committed Relationships 01/07/2003
... American, your partner can gain permanent resident status -- ... skills can petition the INS for legal resident status, just like ... The "Permanent Partner Immigration Act," HR 690 would ... law that provide immigration ... ...
www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12008res20030107.html

Upsetting Checks and Balances: Congressional Hostility to Courts in Times of Crisis, Statement of Laurie Kozuba 11/01/2001
... American wife of a long-time legal permanent resident, and ... for one technicality - his status. Robert, a long time Legal Permanent Resident, had a possession conviction ... American principals regardless of ones status.
www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/12466prs20011101.html

ACLU of Indiana Urges Rejection of Anti-Immigrant Bill 01/27/2006
... agencies to verify the status of suspected ... their parents' immigration status, and to serve ... Even legal permanent resident immigrants are functionally ineligible ... detect and report the immigration status of ... ...
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/23963prs20060127.html

Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage in California: A Practical Guide for Same-Sex Couples 05/15/2008
... non-US citizen to gain legal permanent residence in the US? ... his or her spouse become a permanent legal resident; however, current ... hardship and can cause significant legal problems ... couples in which one member does ... ...
www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/35420res20080515.html

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

Enter Search Term(s):

Sort Results by Relevance or Date:
Relevance Date

Narrow Results by State/Region:

Narrow Results by Document Type:

Narrow Results by Date:
Search Current Year Only

Search From:

To:

Issues (Check all that apply):
Criminal Justice Death Penalty
Disability Rights Drug Policy
Free Speech HIV/AIDS
Immigrants Rights Int'l Human Rights
Lesbian & Gay Rights National Security
Police Practices Prisoners Rights
Privacy and Technology Racial Justice
Religious Liberty Reproductive Freedom
Rights of the Poor Safe and Free
StandUp/Youth Supreme Court
Voting Rights Women's Rights

Your Local ACLU Congressional scorecard multimedia forums publications support us store contact
Christian Milan jurisdoctorstudent L02773316 L24033516 L01432062 chris2277384 chmilan18 chmilan27 milanc3 cricri26 cricounet cmilan485 jurisdoctorstudent BOS214F00040.000 N0000425665 A098927620
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
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.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map
Criminal Justice
Death Penalty
Disability Rights
Drug Policy
Free Speech
HIV/AIDS
Human Rights
Immigrants' Rights
Lesbian & Gay Rights
National Security
Police Practices
Prisoners' Rights
Privacy & Technology
Racial Justice
Religion and Belief
Reproductive Freedom
Rights of the Poor
Safe and Free
Stand Up/Youth
Voting Rights
Women's Rights
Ala. to Calif.
Colo. to Ga.
Hawaii to Iowa
Kan. to Md.
Mass. to Mo.
Mont. to N.J.
N.M. to Ohio
Okla. to S.C.
S.D. to Vt.
Va. to Wyo.

In re: Broadband Industry Practices and In the Matter of the Petition of Public Knowledge et al. for Declaratory Ruling Stating that Text Messaging a

2008-08-14T08:11:00.000-07:00

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
April 17, 1994
In re: Broadband Industry Practices
and
In the Matter of the Petition of
Public Knowledge et al.
for Declaratory Ruling Stating that Text Messaging and Short Codes are Title II Services or are Title I Services Subject to Section 202 Nondiscrimination Rules
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket Nos.
07-52
and
08-7
COMMENTS
OF
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (“ACLU”),
THE TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERY PROJECT OF THE ACLU,
AND
THE ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
BY
Christian Milan, ESQ.
TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES POLICY DIRECTOR,
ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and ACLU of Northern California support the underlying petitions and urge the Commission to find in favor of Petitioners by upholding concepts of accessibility and non-discrimination in the provision of text messaging and short code services and in the delivery of broadband services. 1
COMMENTS OF THE ACLU, TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERTY PROJECT OF THE ACLU, AND ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and the ACLU of Northern California have been principal participants in nearly all of the Internet censorship and neutrality cases that have been decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past two decades, including Reno v. ACLU,1 Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,3 and the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies providing broadband Internet access were “information service providers” for purposes of regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.4 The ACLU of Northern California and its Technology and Civil Liberties staff have been leaders on preserving Internet neutrality at both the national and state level. Our recent work has included advocacy for net neutrality, safeguarding unimpeded internet access at public libraries, and protecting the free speech, freedom of association and privacy of users of California’s growing number of municipal wireless (Wi-Fi) networks.5
The underlying Petitions are not just about a simple dispute between an ISP (Comcast) and service provider (BitTorrent) or about the ability of a text messaging provider (Verizon Wireless) to censor the political speech of an advocacy organization (NARAL Pro-Choice America), but about the future of the Internet as a marketplace of
1 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act and holding that the government cannot engage in blanket censorship in cyberspace).
2 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (upholding a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected speech).
3 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (striking down restrictions on so-called “virtual child pornography”). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2001 WL 740913 (June 28, 2001).
4 See National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2005 WL 470933 (Feb. 22, 2005).
5 For more information, please visit http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/index.shtml.
2
ideas for all users. Specifically, the Petitions raise the broader question of whether the Internet is to be preserved as a bastion for the exchange of lawful content and ideas free of censorship by corporate gatekeepers. These principles are embodied in the Commission’s own “Four Freedoms” established in its 2005 policy statement, including user “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running “applications and services of their choice.”6 We commend the Commission for that statement, which recognized the need to preserve neutrality rules in place prior to the 2005 Brand X decision. We further applaud the initiative of the Chairman and other members of the Commission for holding public hearings on the importance of preserving Internet freedom and neutrality. Nevertheless, corporate service providers increasingly are trampling on those Four Freedoms through actions like Comcast’s deliberate blocking of online file-sharing through BitTorrent and the refusal by Verizon Wireless to allow text messaging by NARAL Pro-Choice America. The growing body of content-based discrimination demonstrates that the threat to Internet freedom has never been greater.
Congress and the courts have recognized how an open Internet facilitates speech and associational activities. Unlike other media, “the Internet has no ‘gatekeepers’ – no publishers or editors controlling the distribution of information.”7 It provides “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”8 Equally important, “[i]t enables people to communicate with one another with unprecedented speed and efficiency and is rapidly
6 See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf.
7 Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. 44, 48 n.7 (D.D.C. 1998) at 48 n.7.
8 47 U.S.C. § 230(a)(1)(3).
3
revolutionizing how people share and receive information.”9 No one “owns” the Internet. Instead, the Internet belongs to everyone who uses it. The combination of these distinctive attributes allows the Internet to provide “a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions.”10
Neutrality promotes open discourse. The Internet’s openness enhances speech through its decentralized, neutral, nondiscriminatory “pipe” that automatically carries data from origin to destination without interference. Consumers decide what sites to access, among millions of choices, and “pull” information from those sites rather than having information chosen by others “pushed” out to them, as with television and other media in which the content is chosen by the broadcaster.
The Internet’s structure facilitates free speech, innovation, and competition on a global scale. “The Internet presents low entry barriers to anyone who wishes to provide or distribute information. Unlike television, cable, radio, newspapers, magazines, or books, the Internet provides an opportunity for those with access to it to communicate with a worldwide audience at little cost.”11 “Such broad access to the public carries with it the potential to influence thought and opinion on a grand scale.”12 The Internet has thus become one of the leading marketplaces of ideas because of neutrality rules that promote nondiscriminatory speech, association, and content.
Content discrimination by service providers such as Comcast and Verizon Wireless threatens the online free exchange of ideas. At the end of 2007, Comcast
9 Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp..at 48.
10 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 853.
11 American Library Ass’n v. United States, 201 F. Supp.2d 401, 416 (E.D. Pa. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
12 Oja v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2006). 4
engaged in “traffic shaping,” which can be an appropriate and even necessary way of managing data flows over the Internet. However, Comcast went further by blocking file transfers from customers using popular peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent, eDonkey, and Gnutella.13 To prevent the successful transmission of materials, Comcast delivered messages to users involved in file-sharing that forced them to terminate the transmission. It succeeded in its attempts by using hacking technology to pose as a party involved in the file-sharing process, contrary to company statements that it “[respects its] customers’ privacy.”14 Comcast’s online discrimination is contrary to the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement, which provides that “consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice” and “are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.”15
In late 2007, Verizon Wireless similarly committed an egregious act of discrimination by cutting off NARAL Pro-Choice America’s access to a text-messaging program that the right-to-choose group uses to communicate messages to its supporters. Verizon Wireless stated it would not service programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”16 Verizon claimed that it had the right to ban NARAL’s messages because current laws that prohibit carriers from blocking voice transmissions do not apply to text messages. In addition, Verizon argued that the
13 Peer-to-peer technology allows customers to share files on their personal computers with other Internet users. Comcast’s actions were confirmed by nationwide tests conducted by the Associated Press.
14 Comcast, http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4391.
15 Complaint at 10, Hart v. Comcast, PG 07355993 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, Nov. 13, 2007), available at http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/legal_docs/comcast_bittorrent.
16 Adam Liptak, Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1&oref=login.
5
Communications Act, which requires that commercial cellular providers must be nondiscriminatory for commercial mobile services, does not apply to non-traditional uses of phone services such as text-messaging.
In both cases, the service providers later reversed course after being ravaged by widespread negative publicity. Verizon Wireless claimed the company’s initial resistance to NARAL’s messages was merely “an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy” that was implemented before text messaging technology could ensure that customers would not receive unwanted messages.17 Recently, Comcast and BitTorrent announced a side agreement they described as a collaborative effort to jointly manage Internet traffic.18 While the reversal of these intentionally discriminatory policies is a positive development, it does not alter the need for relief in the underlying Petitions.
BitTorrent is but one of an infinite number of present and future applications to make use of the Internet. The fact that Comcast has reached an agreement with this particular company provides no guarantee that other application developers, innovators, and speakers will be able to reach an accommodation with their providers. It certainly does not ensure that such innovators will be able to communicate with Internet users on a fair and equal basis with other, potentially more powerful, competitors. If and when some innovators create an improved alternative to BitTorrent, will they be able to compete with BitTorrent based on the value of their product alone, or will they be
17 Adam Liptak, Verizon Reverses Itself on Abortion Message, N.Y TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27cnd-verizon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
18 Vish Kumar, Comcast, BitTorrent to Work Together on Network Traffic, WALL ST. J., Mar. 27, 2008, at B7.
6
hamstrung unless and until they can swing their own deal with Comcast? In such negotiations, what leverage would they possess to overcome what might be a tight corporate relationship between their ISP and a powerful incumbent whom they are trying to challenge? What if their main product is speech, advancing a point of view that the provider or a key corporate or political ally despises?
A situation in which content and applications developers – speakers making use of their First Amendment rights – are forced to negotiate with and strike deals with network operators is precisely the situation that the FCC should seek to avoid, and that a genuine network neutrality policy would avert. A city might award a company a charter to build a bridge across a river and give the company the right to collect a toll. But it would not be conducive to efficient commerce or the public interest in general to allow that company to meddle or interfere with the people or goods that cross the bridge, thereby forcing businesses and individuals to strike individual bargains with the bridge keeper. Such a scheme could permit a farmer with inferior produce to gain an advantage in the marketplace because he has gained favor with the bridge keeper and can bring his vegetables across more cheaply. The same holds true in the case of Internet connectivity, and “the marketplace of ideas.” The Internet is too valuable a public conduit to allow it to fall prey either to ideology or to parochial business interests.
Comcast claims that its interference with Internet traffic was conducted only for network management purposes. However, it is significant that the application that Comcast appears to have intended to target most of all, BitTorrent, is one used most commonly for the distribution of video – an activity that has long been Comcast’s core business in its role as cable television operator (as opposed to Internet Service Provider). 7
Comcast and other companies appear to want to position themselves as providers of video services over the Internet. But the problem for such providers is that, on a free Internet, the producers of video or other content can distribute that content directly to individuals – perhaps using a protocol such as BitTorrent – thereby cutting the provider out of the deal entirely. Comcast, in short, may have a strong interest outside of network traffic management in obstructing BitTorrent.
Whether or not such interests were at work in the Comcast-BitTorrent case or will come into play at a later date, the fact is that providers have: (1) strong business incentives to interfere with content, and; (2) the technical ability to do so. Should Comcast decide to refrain from pursuing any revenue-producing strategies for exploiting its technological control over Internet traffic, it would not long be able to maintain that stance if its competitors do not. This is a clear case in which the government needs to step in and declare: “Competition that depends upon discrimination is not conducive to the public good; it has too great a distorting effect on other markets and on the marketplace of ideas. We’re declaring it off limits.”
Some have implied that the Comcast-BitTorrent agreement has proven that, after all, the free market has worked, and that the agreement shows that government action is not needed.19 But there is a glaring flaw in that argument: the Comcast-BitTorrent agreement was hardly the product of fair business bargaining in a free market. Standing behind BitTorrent Inc. at the table and tipping the scales in its favor was an assortment of factors that cannot be routinely relied upon to produce fair outcomes in the future: (1) the full glare of the media spotlight; (2) a number of public-interest groups including the
19 An Alternative to ‘Net Neutrality,’ editorial, WALL ST. J., April 12, 2008, at A8.
8
ACLU; (3) a highly engaged segment of the educated public; (4) a powerful government regulator debating the wisdom of intervening; and (5) a looming presidential election in which several candidates have expressed support for such regulation. In the absence of these factors, it is far from clear what kind of leverage or power BitTorrent Inc. would have had to extract concessions from Comcast, much less what kind of leverage other, smaller, parties would have in a future negotiation. It is only because this battle is live that this deal was struck in the way it was. Once the issue is settled, the power will swing decisively to the side of the providers.
Internet access is not just any business; it involves the sacred role of making available to citizens a First Amendment forum for speech and self-expression and access to the speech and self-expression of others. It is a forum that is perhaps the most valuable new civic institution to appear in the United States in the past century. There is a vital public interest in assuring that Internet access remains free and unencumbered by the kind of tomfoolery that Comcast exhibited with its attempt to sabotage particular uses of the bandwidth that it sells.
CONCLUSION
The ACLU, the Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and the ACLU of Northern California endorse the requests in the underlying Petitions for the FCC to act immediately and apply the anti-discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act – as well as the Commission’s “Four Freedoms” policy – to conclude that discrimination is prohibited in providing text messaging and short code services and in the delivery of broadband services. We also support the Petitioners’ alternative request to exercise ancillary jurisdiction to apply the nondiscrimination
9
10
provisions of Title II to these services to ensure a robust and open communications infrastructure. Regardless of the mechanism used in evaluating the Petitions, the resulting regulatory framework should establish an accessible, non-discriminatory, and content-neutral regimen, provide for meaningful enforcement available to all users of text messaging, short code, and broadband services, and uphold the concepts of neutrality, non-discrimination, equality of access, and non-exclusivity in the provision of those services. We urge the Commission to act favorably on the underlying Petitions, which seek a result consistent with these principles.

2008-08-14T08:06:00.000-07:00

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
En Banc Hearing on Broadband and the Digital Future
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
July 21, 2008
COMMENTS
OF Christian Milan jurisdoctorstudent L02773316 L24033516 L01432062 chris2277384 chmilan18 chmilan27 milanc3 cricri26 cricounet cmilan485 jurisdoctorstudent BOS214F00040.000 N0000425665 A098927620,
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (“ACLU”),
THE TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERY PROJECT OF THE ACLU,
AND
THE ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
By
Barb Feige
Deputy Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania and
Director, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, ACLU of Pennsylvania
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office
Jay Stanley
Director of Public Education
The Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU
And
Dr. James Thomas Tucker
Policy Counsel, ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office
Christian Milan ACLU appointed Chair of the American Bar Association Student Lawyer Section The White House Fellow United States of America Department of Justice Intern Legal Writing Lawyering Extensive American Publications Electronic Evidences jurisdoctorstudent L02773316 L24033516 L01432062 chris2277384 chmilan18 chmilan27 milanc3 cricri26 cricounet cmilan485 jurisdoctorstudent BOS214F00040.000 N0000425665 A098927620,
COMMENTS OF THE ACLU, TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERTY PROJECT OF
THE ACLU, AND ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and the ACLU of
Pennsylvania have been principal participants in many of the important Internet
censorship and neutrality cases decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past
two decades, including Reno v. ACLU,1 Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition,3 and the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies
providing broadband Internet access were “information service providers” for purposes of
regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.4 The ACLU of Pennsylvania was
co-counsel in two of the leading Internet decisions, Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. ACLU.
Last year, the ACLU of Pennsylvania obtained relief in the Ashcroft litigation that
permanently enjoined the Child Online Protection Act (“COPA”).5
We applaud the Commission for holding today’s hearing on broadband and the
digital future. We also commend Chairman Martin for encouraging the Commission to
take enforcement action against Comcast for violating open access rules by unlawfully
blocking file-sharing services such as BitTorrent. We join the Chairman in urging the
Commission to impose penalties on Comcast for censoring its own customers. The
Commission’s proposed action will ensure that the rule of law is followed in keeping the
1 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act and holding that the
government cannot engage in blanket censorship in cyberspace).
2 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (upholding a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which
imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected speech).
3 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (striking down restrictions on so-called “virtual child pornography”). The
ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2001 WL 740913 (June 28, 2001).
4 See National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The ACLU’s
amicus brief is available at 2005 WL 470933 (Feb. 22, 2005).
5 See ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp.2d 775 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
2
exchange of lawful content and ideas free of censorship by corporate gatekeepers. In the
process, it will reaffirm the Commission’s “Four Freedoms” established in its 2005
policy statement, including user “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice”
and running “applications and services of their choice.”
Today, we are at a crossroads where the fate of broadband and the digital future
hangs in the balance. The Internet has grown into one of the most important methods of
communication in human history because of neutrality rules. Corporate gatekeepers,
such as Comcast, threaten the existence of the Internet as a forum for speech, making it
essential to restore neutrality to the Net immediately. At the same time, the Commission
must avoid engaging in censorship itself, including the imposition of unconstitutional
license conditions such as mandatory and automatic filtering. Likewise, the increasing
use of intrusive deep packet inspections, which track and share private information about
consumers without their knowledge or consent, chill speech and associational activities.
Perhaps most importantly at a basic level, despite the Internet’s explosive growth,
millions of Americans have been left behind. The Commission must take steps to bridge
the digital divide by encouraging applicants to provide low-cost or no-cost Internet
services in exchange for licenses to use the dormant bandwidths of the wireless
broadband spectrum. The Commission’s actions going forward will play a significant
role in what the future of broadband will hold.
1. The Importance of the Internet as a Marketplace of Ideas
The Internet binds its users together in a virtual world that transcends geography.
An Internet user in the farthest reaches of the world is just a few keystrokes away from
searching the greatest libraries for the wealth of human knowledge. A soldier in
3
Afghanistan can post a picture of herself online, letting her loved ones back home know
that she is safe. Political activists previously confined to passing out a handful of leaflets
in a local park can now communicate their messages to millions online. The Internet
“enables people to communicate with one another with unprecedented speed and
efficiency” in a way that “is rapidly revolutionizing how people share and receive
information.”6 These qualities make the Internet a shining example of a modern day
marketplace of ideas.7
The Internet’s marketplace has thrived because of its decentralized, neutral,
nondiscriminatory “pipe” that automatically carries data from origin to destination
without interference. Neutrality promotes open discourse. Consumers decide what sites
to access, among millions of choices, and “pull” information from sites rather than
having information chosen by others “pushed” out to them, as with television and other
media in which the content is chosen by the broadcaster. The Internet’s structure
facilitates free speech, innovation, and competition on a global scale. Accessibility to a
mass audience at little or no cost makes the Internet a particularly unique forum for
speech. “The Internet presents low entry barriers to anyone who wishes to provide or
distribute information. Unlike television, cable, radio, newspapers, magazines, or books,
the Internet provides an opportunity for those with access to it to communicate with a
6 Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 48 (D.D.C. 1998).
7 See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., joined by Brandeis, J., dissenting).
The marketplace of ideas metaphor aptly applies to an Internet free of corporate or government censors of
lawful content. See generally Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 885 (rejecting government censorship of content
in “the new marketplace of ideas,” the Internet).
4
worldwide audience at little cost.”8 “Any person with a phone line can become a town
crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”9
The Internet differs from other forms of mass communication because it “is really
more idea than entity. It is an agreement we have made to hook our computers together
and communicate by way of binary impulses and digitized signals.”10 No one “owns” the
Internet. Instead, the Internet belongs to everyone who uses it. The combination of these
distinctive attributes allows the Internet to provide “a vast platform from which to
address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions.”11
Never before has it been so easy to circulate speech among so many
people. John Doe can now communicate with millions of people from the
comfort, safety and privacy of his own home. His communication
requires minimal investment and minimal time – once the word is written,
it is disseminated to a mass audience literally with the touch of a button.
Moreover, Internet speakers are not restricted by the ordinary trappings of
polite conversation; they tend to speak more freely online.12
“It is ‘no exaggeration to conclude that the content on the Internet is as diverse as human
thought.’”13 “Such broad access to the public carries with it the potential to influence
thought and opinion on a grand scale.”14 The Internet truly has become one of the leading
marketplaces of ideas because of neutrality rules that promote nondiscriminatory speech,
association, and content.
8 American Library Ass’n v. United States, 201 F. Supp.2d 401, 416 (E.D. Pa. 2002), rev’d on other
grounds, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
9 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 870.
10 Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. at 48 n.7 (quoting Bruce W. Sanford & Michael J. Lorenger, Teaching An
Old Dog New Tricks; The First Amendment In An Online World, 28 CONN. L. REV. 1137, 1139-43 (1996)).
11 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 853.
12 Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. at 48 n.7 (quoting Sanford & Lorenger, supra note 9).
13 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 852 (quoting ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 842 (E.D. Pa. 1996)).
14 Oja v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2006).
5
2. Corporate Gatekeepers Threaten the Future of the Internet’s Marketplace
Chairman Martin’s recommendation that Comcast be sanctioned for its censorship
recognizes the growing threat corporate gatekeepers pose to the Internet. Content
discrimination is real and it is happening every day. Comcast applied hacking technology
to block its own customers from using popular peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent,
eDonkey, and Gnutella,15 violating its policy of respecting customer privacy.16 Similarly,
Verizon Wireless suspended NARAL Pro-Choice America’s access to a text-messaging
program for grassroots lobbying by citing a company policy of terminating service to any
group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be
seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”17 In both cases, the service
providers later reversed course after being ravaged by widespread negative publicity and
in the face of possible FCC sanctions. The reversal of these intentionally discriminatory
policies and the Commission’s proposed Comcast ruling are positive developments and
bolster the need to restore enforceable neutrality principles immediately.
That conclusion is inescapable in light of the growing list of other examples of
corporate censorship in the aftermath of Brand X. In 2006, Time Warner/AOL blocked a
grassroots e-mail campaign by the DearAOL.com Coalition to inform and mobilize
customers against AOL’s pay-to-send e-mail tax scheme.18 In 2007, AT&T censored a
15 Peer-to-peer technology allows customers to share files on their personal computers with other Internet
users.
16 Comcast, http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4391.
17 Adam Liptak, Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1&oref=login.
18 Rob Malda, Pay-per-e-mail and the "Market Myth,” Slashdot, March 29, 2006, available at
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/29/1411221.
6
portion of Eddie Vedder’s musical critique of President Bush19 and threatened to use its
terms of service contract to terminate a customer’s DSL service for any activity that it
considered “damaging” to its reputation.20 In 2006, BellSouth blocked its customers in
Florida and Tennessee from using MySpace and YouTube.21 Cingular Wireless has
blocked the ability of its customers to use PayPal, a popular billing service used to pay
for many online purchases, such as those from eBay.22 Every major service provider has
engaged in censorship since 2005. The list of examples of corporate censorship doubtless
would be much longer if the Commission had not required many service providers to
temporarily comply with neutrality rules in the recent wave of mergers.
Comcast’s censorship of BitTorrent is just the tip of the iceberg. The recent
agreement between Comcast and BitTorrent that ended Comcast’s content-based
restrictions on BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer file sharing provides no guarantee that other
application developers, innovators, and speakers will be able to reach an accommodation
with their providers. It certainly does not ensure that innovators will be able to
communicate with Internet users on a fair and equal basis with other, potentially more
powerful, competitors. If and when some innovators create an improved alternative to
BitTorrent – in a garage, perhaps – will they be able to compete with BitTorrent based on
19 Reuters, AT&T Calls Censorship of Pearl Jam Lyrics an Error, Aug. 9, 2007,
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN091821320070809?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=tr
ue
20 Ken Fisher, AT&T Relents on Controversial Terms of Service, Announces Changes, ArsTechnica, Oct.
10, 2007, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071010-att-relents-on-controversial-terms-of-serviceannounces-
changes.html?rel
21 Steve Rosenbush, The MySpace Ecosystem, BUSINESS WEEK, July 25, 2006,
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060721_833338.htm.
22 Scott Smith, Cingular Playing Tough on Content Payments, The Mobile Weblog, July 7, 2006,
http://www.mobile-weblog.com/50226711/cingular_playing_tough_on_content_payment.php.
7
the value of their product alone, or will they be hamstrung unless and until they can
swing their own deal with Comcast? In such negotiations, what leverage would they
possess to overcome what might be a tight corporate relationship between their ISP and a
powerful incumbent whom they are trying to challenge? What if their main product is
speech, advancing a point of view that the provider or a key corporate or political ally
despises? Might the next Comcast-BitTorrent deal require Comcast to keep such
innovators offline?
A situation in which content and applications developers – speakers making use
of their First Amendment rights – are forced to negotiate with and strike deals with
network operators is precisely the situation that the FCC should seek to avoid, and that a
genuine network neutrality policy would avert. In addition, providers have strong
business incentives to interfere with content and the technical ability to do so. Internet
access is not just any business; it involves the sacred role of providing a First
Amendment forum for speech and self-expression and access to the speech and selfexpression
of others. It is a forum that is perhaps the most valuable new civic institution
to appear in the United States in the past century. There is a vital public interest in
assuring that Internet access remains free and unencumbered by the censorship of
corporate gatekeepers.
Restoration of meaningful rules protecting Internet users from corporate
censorship is essential to the future of free speech on the Internet. Neutrality rules would
simply restore the status quo in effect before the Brand X decision in 2005, when ISPs
were prohibited from picking and choosing which users could access what lawful content
through the gateways they provided to their paying customers. With a single order, the
8
Commission could restore net neutrality to all Americans who use broadband services, as
the Supreme Court made clear in Brand X. Such an action would merely be a formal
codification of the “Four Freedoms” established by the FCC in its 2005 policy statement,
which assured users “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running
“applications and services of their choice.”23 In the process, FCC’s action would afford
consumers the peace of mind to know that they, not corporate gatekeepers, hold the
power to decide the lawful content that they could access and exchange. It would provide
greater certainty by applying a uniform set of rules to all providers, under the
Commission’s oversight. And equally important, it would do so while still allowing
service providers to engage in reasonable network management, as long as they did not
cross the line into unlawful censorship of online activities and speech.
The future of the Internet as we know it is at stake. Now is the time for the
Commission to act by restoring net neutrality rules to all providers.
3. Mandatory Online Filters are Unconstitutional and Censor Lawful Speech
Recently, the Commission proposed rules that for the first time would impose a
requirement that licensees use mandatory filters to block certain websites and content.
Under the proposed rules for broadband wireless licenses in certain bandwidths,24 any
content deemed to be pornographic or harmful to adolescents or minors would have to be
automatically blocked by the licensee. Adult users could unblock the filter, but only after
affirmatively opting-out by identifying themselves and providing corroborating personal
23 See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf.
24 The broadband wireless bandwidths affected by the proposed rules are in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-
2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, 2155-2175 MHz, and 2175 MHz-2180 MHz bands.
9
information demonstrating they are eighteen years or older.25 The Commission’s
proposed rules are ill-conceived efforts to impose unconstitutional conditions on
licensees. The rules would censor the exchange of lawful content and violate the privacy
rights of users seeking to disable the filter to access that content.
The Supreme Court struck down similar content-based restrictions in COPA26 and
the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”).27 In ACLU v. Reno, the Court made
it clear that the Internet is subject to the same constitutional standards that apply to
content-based restrictions through other modes of communications.28 “Sexual expression
which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.” 29 Therefore,
strict scrutiny applies to the proposed content-based regulation of speech, requiring the
Commission to establish that it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling
governmental interest.30 We can assume, without further comment, that the government
has a compelling interest in protecting minors. But “even where speech is indecent and
enters the home, the objective of shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket
ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.”31 And even if
the speech is merely burdened, the restrictions nevertheless are subject to strict scrutiny
25 See Notices of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Dkt. Nos. 04-356 & 07-195.
26 Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681.
27 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 103
28 See 521 U.S. at 870 (“our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny
that should be applied” to the Internet).
29 Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).
30 Id.
31 United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 814 (2000).
10
review.32 The proposed mandatory filters fail strict scrutiny because they are not the least
restrictive means and are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.33
The proposed rules offer no guidance regarding the content being censored, as
required by Miller v. California.34 They likewise do not identify who will make the
determination of what must be censored, or how that will be accomplished consistent
with the neutrality principles the Commission embraced in 2005.35 Contrary to Miller’s
mandate, the Commission has not identified the contemporary community standards that
are to be applied. The Supreme Court found that a similarly overbroad restriction in the
CDA made it impossible to apply Miller in any meaningful way.36 Even if it were
possible to resolve the problems with the proposed rules under Miller, the Commission
has failed to explain how users could continue to access all material protected by the First
Amendment. Of course, no explanation exists – it is impossible to craft a mandatory
filter that would not block some constitutionally protected material and speech. In the
process, the automatic mandatory filter would chill protected speech in violation of the
First Amendment. The application of the proposed rules is unworkable and as such, is
facially unconstitutional.37
32 See id. at 812 (“The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of
degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its contentbased
bans.”).
33 See id. at 818 (“When First Amendment compliance is the point to be proved, the risk of nonpersuasion
– operative in all trials – must rest with the Government, not with the citizen.”).
34 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973).
35 The Commission established “Four Freedoms” in its 2005 policy statement, including user “access to
the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running “applications and services of their choice.” See
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf.
36 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 877-78.
37 See id. at 874; see also Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 967-68
(1984) (“Where, as here, a statute imposes a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity, and
11
Furthermore, requiring users to prove “that they are of the age of the majority”
does not cure unconstitutional restrictions imposed on adults. In Reno, the Court rejected
a similar requirement in the CDA, which provided for age verification by requiring a user
to provide a credit card number, and found that ‘[t]hese limitations must inevitably curtail
a significant amount of adult communication on the Internet.”38 Reno concluded that
“there is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing
material” online.39 In Ashcroft, the Court upheld a preliminary injunction prohibiting
enforcement of COPA,40 in part because the adult identification requirements it included
– like those in the CDA – did not “constitute the sort of ‘narrow tailoring’ that will save
an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision.”41 Moreover, requiring credit
card or age-verification screening for access to the filter to disable it severely burdens the
expression of users and content providers who wish to maintain their privacy.42 It also
would violate the rights of those users to engage in constitutionally protected anonymous
where the defect in the statute is that the means chosen to accomplish the State’s objectives are too
imprecise, so that in all its applications the statute creates and unnecessary risk of chilling free speech, the
statute is properly subject to a facial attack.”).
38 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 877.
39 Id. at 855.
40 See 542 U.S. at 656.
41 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 882.
42 See ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473, 487, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1999); see also id. at 487 (“in general, users
of the Web are reluctant to provide personal information to Web sites unless the are at the end of an online
shopping experience and prepared to make a purchase.”).
12
speech.43 Federal courts have struck down similarly flawed identity requirements for
other communications media regulated by the Commission.44
Finally, the proposed mandatory filters are unconstitutional because there are less
restrictive means available for parents to block their children’s access to protected
Internet content. Specifically, voluntary “[b]locking and filtering software is an
alternative that is less restrictive… and in addition, likely more effective as a means of
restricting children’s access to materials harmful to them.”45 The Court recognized that
the government may encourage voluntary filtering by “enacting programs to promote the
use of filtering software… [that] could give parents that ability without subjecting
protected speech to severe penalties,” but the government may not make a filter
mandatory.46 That is where the power to impose a filter on the content that children view
rightfully belongs: with the parents, not the Commission, a licensee, or service provider.
We strongly urge the Commission to abandon its proposed rules to censor lawful
content and activity on the Internet. We respectfully submit that the Commission should
focus on enforcing neutrality rules to stop censorship by service providers, instead of
pursuing its own unconstitutional course of policing morality on the Internet.
43 See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizing that anonymous political
speech is protected under the First Amendment and striking down a requirement that the speaker identify
themselves).
44 Denver Area Educ.Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 754 (1996); Fabulous Assocs.,
Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 896 F.2d 780, 785-86 (3d Cir. 1990); ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F.
Supp.2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999).
45 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 666-67.
46 Id. at 670 (emphasis added).
13
4. Deep Packet Inspections (DPI) Violate Privacy and Chill Speech
We also urge the Commission to scrutinize the growing practice of intrusive Deep
Packet Inspections (DPI), which service providers use to scrutinize data packets as they
traverse the Internet. Under the agreements and standards that established the Internet
and by which it continues to operate and thrive, network participants forward data
according to the “envelope” of each packet. Each envelope contains a destination and
return address and a few other basic pieces of information, which are separate from the
actual content of the packet. DPI involves scrutinizing the content itself. DPI is
intrinsically a highly suspect activity, because it threatens privacy and threatens the
neutrality of the Internet as a forum for speech. It has already been implicated in
numerous abusive online practices.
As a mechanism for examining the content of Internet traffic, DPI opens up a vast
realm of potential for privacy invasion. Americans expect that when they use an ISP or
broadband provider, their communications will be processed neutrally and privately just
as when they use a telephone or mail or package delivery service. They do not expect
their service provider to scrutinize the contents of their transmission, whether to collect
information about them, improve marketing efficiency, serve ads, or make technical
decisions over how the communication is delivered. Indeed, that is precisely why so
many Internet users install spyware applications on their computers. Unfortunately, those
applications do nothing to stop DPI, giving many Internet users a false sense of security
and privacy that no longer exists.
Services such as NebuAd and Phorm that scrutinize or alter the Internet traffic of
ISP customers represent merely the extreme of predictable attempts to exploit this
14
technology. Ultimately, this kind of behavior threatens to leave Americans’ online lives,
including their Web surfing, online reading, blog posting, Web searches, e-mails, and all
other activities vulnerable to snooping and manipulation. There is no end to the
“innovation” that could follow in using and abusing personal information. It could lead
to embarrassment and annoyance through “targeted marketing,” to adverse decisions
from insurance companies and financial institutions – and to a general chilling of the
Internet’s potential as a communications medium and forum for free speech.
Moreover, DPI undermines the neutrality principles in the Commission’s “Four
Freedoms” statement. Under the guise of applying differential pricing based on the
speed, volume, application preferences, or even the substance of content, service
providers would snoop on every facet of user activity. Such flagrant flouting of open
Internet rules on the pretext of monitoring the level of user activity is precisely what led
to Comcast’s unlawful actions against BitTorrent. DPI is incompatible with user freedom
and choice that are the foundation of the Internet as we know it.
DPI also threatens to blur the boundary between the forum in which speech and
communication takes place, and the content of that speech and communication. Some
examples illustrate this point. We do not allow the postal service to route mail according
to the content of letters. We do not allow the telephone companies to provide better
connections to those whose conversations the companies deem to be more important. We
do not allow governments to grant parade permits only to those protesters it thinks are
reasonable. We do not allow the chair of a hearing to alter Robert’s Rules of Order
according to the sagacity and eloquence of the speaker. Once the operator of a forum
begins to scrutinize the content of the communications that take place within it, it opens
15
up the potential for abuse, especially where there is money to be made. The Commission
must ask some very sharp questions about the reasons for that scrutiny, or, better yet, put
an end to it.
DPI has already been associated with a great deal of abuse. The presence of DPI
equipment (a Narus STA 6400) is part of what alerted whistleblower Mark Klein to the
existence of an apparent NSA warrantless wiretapping facility in a San Francisco AT&T
facility.47 DPI is what broadband provider Comcast used in its program of interfering
with peer-to-peer application traffic. DPI is what NebuAd and Phorm are using to
eavesdrop upon Internet users’ Web surfing for the purpose of serving ads. Additional
government surveillance will certainly follow the adoption of widespread DPI usage.
Defenders of DPI argue that restricting its use will curb innovation, but much of
the “innovation” that is taking place appears to be intrusive and dangerous to the health
of the Internet as a free and neutral forum for the exchange of information, speech and
expression. We do not allow the telephone company to “innovate” in how it can make
use of transcripts of our telephone calls – something that is now completely feasible –
because the benefits of such innovation would be far outweighed by its disadvantages. In
addition, credible network experts have argued that continuing growth in bandwidth is a
far better solution to any network congestion than interfering with the foundational
agreements that have brought the Internet to where it is today. We urge the Commission
to examine the increasing danger DPI poses, and to take appropriate action to ensure that
consumers are informed of the practice and their privacy is protected.
47 Wired, “Whistle-Blower’s Evidence, Uncut, May 22, 2006, available at
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70944.
16
5. Unused Portions of the Broadband Spectrum must be developed to make the
Internet More Accessible
The Commission is charged to “make available, so far as possible, to all the
people of the United States” a communications system “with adequate facilities at
reasonable charges.”48 Changes in communications technology now provide the
Commission with an excellent opportunity to expand the availability of broadband access
to the American public, and promote the maximum possible range of content available to
the public.
Only a relatively small portion of the vast radio spectrum has been opened up for
unlicensed public use. On these tiny slices there has been an explosion of innovation,
from WiFi to cordless telephones to baby monitors to many other wireless devices, which
all share those small swaths of spectrum. As vacant frequencies become available due to
the evolution of technology, including the so-called white space between television
channels, the Commission should take advantage of the opportunities that technology
offers. The use of this public spectrum has tremendous implications for freedom of
speech because it makes the Internet more accessible and affordable for everyone. As
greater equality of access to the Internet is provided, our nation will benefit from the
vibrant marketplace of ideas that the online world has become. We urge the Commission
to facilitate the development of the untapped portions of the radio spectrum to the
maximum extent possible.
There are many options to expand spectrum use. New technologies such as
“spectrum sensing” as well as alternatives proposed by Google, Motorola and other
48 47 U.S.C. 151 § 1.
17
companies maximize spectrum use, without the risk of interference to existing television
channels. In any case, the Internet has been an astonishing engine for economic,
technological, political, and cultural innovation in recent years; the dramatic expansion of
affordable Internet access (as well as the potential explosion of innovation in devices)
that proper use of this unlicensed spectrum could generate far dwarfs the risk to the
public of interference on one or two television channels. In evaluating the technological
possibilities of such proposals, we ask the Commission to keep in perspective its larger
mission. The small risks of occasional interference and the pecuniary interests of
incumbent occupants of portions of the public airwaves must not be permitted to stand in
the way of this dramatic advance in the public interest. More broadly, we urge the
Commission, within the limits of its discretion provided by Congress, to take a greater
leadership role by embracing technologies that promise to eliminate or reduce the
technological scarcity of the airwaves.
We also urge the Commission to take greater steps to help bridge the digital
divide that leaves millions of socio-economically disadvantaged and geographically
isolated Americans without access to the Internet. Increasing use of new technologies to
expand the use of the broadband wireless spectrum will help narrow that divide. Other
proposals that would expand opportunities for service providers offering low cost or nocost
Internet access also are encouraging. But as the M2Z proposal illustrates, the
Commission must actively avoid unconstitutional conditions such as mandatory and
automatic filtering that would deny lawful content to economically disadvantaged users.
Online free speech must not be available only to those who can pay a fee.
18
CONCLUSION
The ACLU, Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU, and ACLU of
Pennsylvania applaud the FCC’s public hearings on the Internet. But the Commission
must do more. Today, the status of broadband and the digital future and the role of the
online marketplace of ideas are uncertain. The Commission can eliminate much of that
uncertainty immediately by reinstating neutrality principles, supported by the
Commission’s existing “Four Freedoms” policy. The future of the Internet must remain
robust, open, and free of censorship by both corporate gatekeepers and the Commission
itself. The regulatory framework should establish an accessible, non-discriminatory, and
content-neutral regimen, provide for meaningful enforcement available to all users of text
messaging, short code, and broadband services, and uphold the concepts of neutrality,
non-discrimination, equality of access, and non-exclusivity in the provision of those
services. We urge the Commission to act consistently with these principles to ensure that
speech and association on the Internet has a future.

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services In the 2155-2175 MHz

2008-08-14T08:02:00.000-07:00

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services
In the 2155-2175 MHz Band
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services
In the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 07-195
WT Docket No. 04-356
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Caroline Fredrickson, Director
Michael Macleod-Ball, Chief Legislative and Policy Counsel
James Thomas Tucker, Policy Counsel
Christian Milan, United States of America Department of Justice Intern White House Fellow
American Civil Liberties Union
Washington Legislative Office
915 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1313
(202) 544-1681
July 25, 2008
SUMMARY
The ACLU supports making broadband services more accessible to the public through universal access and expansion of the broadcast spectrum, including efforts to develop the vast unused portions of the wireless spectrum. The Commission should ensure that any licenses granted to utilize that spectrum, including the 2155-2175 MHz 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands that are the subject of the proposed rules in these matters, guarantee users access to the lawful Internet content of their choice, using applications and services of their choice. At the same time, the Commission should decline to impose unconstitutional conditions on license applications, such as a requirement for so-called “family friendly” filters that would censor lawful content.
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU have been principal participants in nearly all of the Internet censorship and neutrality cases that have been decided by the United States Supreme Court in the past two decades, including Reno v. ACLU,1 Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,3 and the Brand X decision, in which the Court held that cable companies providing broadband Internet access were “information service providers” for purposes of regulation by the FCC under the Communications Act.4 We also have provided comments on several of the recent petitions filed with the Commission that implicate neutrality principles.
The ACLU agrees with many of the concerns raised by Free Press, the Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge about the troubling conditions that the Petition and the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would impose on a free and open Internet. However, we will limit our own comments to the Commission’s proposed requirement for “family-friendly” filters as a condition of granting a license for the 2155-2175 MHz 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands.
1 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act and holding that the government cannot engage in blanket censorship in cyberspace).
2 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (upholding a preliminary injunction of the Child Online Protection Act, which imposed unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on adult access to protected speech).
3 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (striking down restrictions on so-called “virtual child pornography”). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2001 WL 740913 (June 28, 2001).
4 See National Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The ACLU’s amicus brief is available at 2005 WL 470933 (Feb. 22, 2005).
1
Commissioner Tate previously cautioned the Commission to “balance the needs of families in protecting their children with constitutional and statutory requirements.” WT Dkt. No. 07-195, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 86. Concerns about whether the proposed rule is unconstitutional are well-founded. In ACLU v. Ashcroft and ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court struck down similar content-based restrictions in the Child Online Protection Act (“COPA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, and the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”), P.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 103. Like the proposed “family friendly” filter, COPA and CDA were unconstitutional attempts by the government to impose mandatory regulations on the Internet to protect children. In this context, it does not matter that the censorship would be by a private licensee, if it is included by the Commission as a condition for issuing the license.
I. THE PROPOSED RULE IS A CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTION ON SPEECH SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY REVIEW.
The proposed rule would impose content-based restrictions on speech by requiring automatic filters that block access to pornographic, obscene, indecent material, as well as “any images or text that otherwise would be harmful to teens and adolescents.” In ACLU v. Reno, the Court made it clear that the Internet is subject to the same constitutional standards that apply to content-based restrictions through other modes of communications.5 “Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.” 6 Therefore, strict scrutiny applies to the proposed content-based
5 See 521 U.S. at 870 (“our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied” to the Internet).
6 Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).
2
regulation of speech, requiring the Commission to establish that it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.7
We can assume, without further comment, that the government has a compelling interest in protecting minors.8 But “even where speech is indecent and enters the home, the objective of shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.”9 And even if the speech is not completely banned but merely burdened, the restrictions nevertheless are subject to strict scrutiny review.10 The Commission therefore bears the burden of demonstrating that the proposed regulation is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling government interest.11 The Commission cannot meet this burden because the proposed rule’s content-based restriction deprives adults of access to protected speech.
II. THE PROPOSED RULE WOULD PROHIBIT ADULT ACCESS TO MATERIALS AND CONTENT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
The Commission’s proposed rule would automatically block access to “pornographic, obscene, and indecent material and material that is unsuitable for minors. However, the rule offers no guidance of what would meet those definitions.
7 Id.
8 Of course, the Commission would have the burden of establishing that protecting minors is a compelling interest. The proposed rule treats all minors the same way. For example, an image from a health textbook depicting the male and female bodies might be suitable for a 16 year old, but inappropriate for a five year old. By classifying all such images as unsuitable for minors, regardless of the child’s age or the circumstances of the material or image, the rule raises serious questions whether the Commission will be able to meet its burden.
9 United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 814 (2000).
10 See id. at 812 (“The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.”).
11 See id. at 818 (“When First Amendment compliance is the point to be proved, the risk of non-persuasion – operative in all trials – must rest with the Government, not with the citizen.”).
3
Determination of what constitutes unprotected “obscene” material must comply with the standard set out by the Court in Miller v. California:
(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 state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.12
The absence of guidance on how the proposed rule could meet the Miller standard raises a host of questions. Who is going to make that determination? Will the Commission do so? Will it be the service provider? How will it be accomplished consistent with the neutrality principles the Commission embraced in 2005?13 Additionally, what contemporary community standards are to be applied? Is the relevant community the worldwide community of Internet users, the local community in which the user resides, or some other community? Furthermore, what would be subject to being blocked? Would it be a single visible screen on which the material appears (which may be significantly less than a single Web page)? Would it include links to the Web site as a whole? Does it also include linked Web sites? Moreover, what state law prohibiting “patently offensive” materials would apply? Would it be the state in which the service provider is located? The location of whoever is responsible for creating or maintaining the Web page or site? Or would it be where the user is located? The same questions arise with respect to the proposed rule’s regulation of pornographic and indecent materials and materials unsuitable for minors.
12 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973).
13 The Commission established “Four Freedoms” in its 2005 policy statement, including user “access to the lawful Internet content of their choice” and running “applications and services of their choice.” See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf. 4
The Supreme Court found that a similarly overbroad restriction in the CDA made it impossible to apply Miller in any meaningful way:
The general, undefined terms “indecent” and “patently offensive” cover large amounts of non-pornographic material with serious educational or other value. Moreover, the “community standards” criterion as applied to the Internet means that any communication available to a nationwide audience will be judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message.14
The Court described several examples of constitutionally protected speech that would be barred by such a blanket prohibition: “discussions about prison rape or safe sexual practices, artistic images that include nude subjects, and arguably the card catalog of the Carnegie Library.”15 Similarly, it could apply to a link that a parent e-mailed to his seventeen year old college freshman on birth control even though “neither he, his child, nor anyone in their home community found the material ‘indecent’ or ‘patently offensive,’ if the college town’s community thought otherwise.”16 By doing so, it would give a heckler’s veto to communities with the most restrictive standards, even if the vast majority of other communities, including the user’s own community, disagree.
Even if it were possible to resolve the problems with the proposal under Miller, the Commission has not explained how all material that is protected by the First Amendment would continue to be accessible. The reason is simple: some constitutionally protected material and speech would necessarily be blocked by the filtering requirement. In the process, the automatic mandatory filter would chill protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. The proposed rule’s application to
14 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 877-78.
15 Id. at 878.
16 Id. 5
pornographic, obscene, and indecent material and material unsuitable for minors is unworkable, and would inevitably deny adult users access to constitutionally protected materials and speech. As such, it is facially unconstitutional.17
III. THE PROPOSED RULE’S EXCEPTION FOR ADULT CUSTOMERS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS ADULTS EXACERBATES ITS VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Another unconstitutional aspect of the proposed rule would permit customers to disable the automatic filter after providing proof that they are adults. Without providing such proof, adult users would be denied their right to materials and information protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has struck down similar restrictions that attempt to “reduc[e] the adult population… to … only what is fit for children.”18 Specifically, in the context of the Internet, regardless of the stated interest in protecting children, “‘the level of discourse… cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.’”19
The Supreme Court already has found that requiring users to prove “that they are of the age of the majority” does not cure unconstitutional restrictions imposed on adults. In Reno, the Court summarized the many problems of a similar requirement in the CDA, which provided for age verification by requiring a user to provide a credit card number:
[T]he imposition of such a requirement “would completely bar adults who do not have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one from accessing any blocked material”…. “There is evidence suggesting that
17 See id. at 874; see also Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 967-68 (1984) (“Where, as here, a statute imposes a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity, and where the defect in the statute is that the means chosen to accomplish the State’s objectives are too imprecise, so that in all its applications the statute creates and unnecessary risk of chilling free speech, the statute is properly subject to a facial attack.”).
18 Denver Area Educ.Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 759 (1996).
19 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 875 (quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 74-75 (1983)).
6
adult users, particularly casual Web browsers, would be discouraged from retrieving information that required use of a credit card or password”…. An adult password requirement would impose significant burdens on noncommercial sites, both because they would discourage users from accessing their sites and because the cost of creating and maintaining such screening systems would be “beyond their reach”….
“Even if credit card verification or adult password verification were implemented, the Government presented no testimony as to how such systems could ensure that the user of the password or credit card is in fact over 18.”20
The Court observed that ‘[t]hese limitations must inevitably curtail a significant amount of adult communication on the Internet.”21 As a result, Reno concluded that “there is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing material” online.22 In Ashcroft, the Court upheld a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA,23 in part because the adult identification requirements it included – like those in the CDA – did not “constitute the sort of ‘narrowly tailoring’ that will save an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision.”24
Moreover, requiring credit card or age-verification screening for access to the filter to disable it would severely burden the expression of both users and content providers. In the COPA challenge, the district court found that “consumers on the Web do not like the invasion of privacy from entering personal information” and that any requirement they do so “would have a negative effect on users because it will reduce
20 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 856-57 (quoting the district court’s opinion).
21 Id. at 877.
22 Id. at 855.
23 See 542 U.S. at 656.
24 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 882.
7
anonymity to obtain the speech… resulting in a loss of traffic to Web sites.”25 It also would force users to disclose personal information to a third party prior to being afforded access to constitutionally protected speech. In the process, it would place users in an untenable position: protect their privacy and forgo access to constitutionally protected speech and information, or exercise their First Amendment rights and forgo privacy.
Anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment.26 Federal courts have struck down identity requirements for other communications media regulated by the Commission. For example, the Third Circuit struck down a law requiring adults to obtain access codes or other identification numbers in order to place a call to a telephone message service:
[T]he First Amendment protects against government inhibition as well as prohibition. An identification requirement exerts an inhibitory effect, and such deterrence raises First Amendment issues comparable to those raised by direct state-imposes burdens or restrictions…. [It is enough to invalidate a law where it is shown that] access codes will chill the exercise of some users’ right to hear protected communications.27
Another court struck down a similar requirement under New Mexico law “because it prevents people from communicating and accessing information anonymously.”28 As the Supreme Court explained in Denver, conditioning speech on identification requirements “will further restrict viewing by subscribers who fear for their reputations should the operator, advertently or inadvertently, disclose the list of those who wish to watch the
25 ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473, 487, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1999); see also id. at 487 (“in general, users of the Web are reluctant to provide personal information to Web sites unless the are at the end of an online shopping experience and prepared to make a purchase.”).
26 See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizing that anonymous political speech is protected under the First Amendment and striking down a requirement that the speaker identify themselves).
27 Fabulous Assocs., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 896 F.2d 780, 785-86 (3d Cir. 1990).
28 ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp.2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999). 8
‘patently offensive’ channel.”29 Any affirmative requirement for users to identify themselves and provide personal information as a condition for accessing material and information protected by the First Amendment is unconstitutional.
IV. VOLUNTARY FILTERS ARE A LESS RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF ALLOWING ADULTS TO RESTRICT THE ACCESS OF THEIR CHILDREN TO CONTENT ON THE INTERNET.
The proposed requirement for an automatic filter also is unconstitutional because there are less restrictive means available for parents to block their children’s access to protected indecent speech and materials on the Internet. Specifically, voluntary “[b]locking and filtering software is an alternative that is less restrictive… and in addition, likely more effective as a means of restricting children’s access to materials harmful to them.”30 As the Supreme Court explained in describing a voluntary filter in Ashcroft:
Under a filtering regime, adults without children may gain access to speech they have a right to see without having to identify themselves or provide their credit card information. Even adults with children may obtain access to the same speech on the same terms simply by turning off the filter on their home computers.31
The Court recognized that the government may encourage voluntary filtering by “enacting programs to promote the use of filtering software… [that] could give parents that ability without subjecting protected speech to severe penalties,” but the government may not make a filter mandatory.32 That is where the power to impose a filter on the content that children view rightfully belongs: with the parents, not the Commission, a licensee, or service provider.
29 518 U.S. at 754.
30 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 666-67.
31 Id. at 667.
32 Id. at 670 (emphasis added). 9
The proposed rule would be unprecedented in the Commission’s broadband licensing system. Never before has the Commission conditioned a license for the broadband spectrum on a requirement that the licensee impose a mandatory block or filter of an entire class of protected speech. Never before has the Commission placed limitations on adults who can remove a mandatory filter by requiring that they first pay the licensee to access constitutionally protected material. As explained above, the reason is obvious: such a censorship model plainly violates the First Amendment and would be struck down when challenged. A paternalistic rule that authorizes the Commission to parent the parents through a mandatory filter that many adults – and perhaps the overwhelming majority of adults33 – will not be able to disable is unwarranted and facially unconstitutional. We urge the Commission to avoid setting a dangerous precedent of imposing unconstitutional conditions on licensees in the broadband spectrum.
CONCLUSION
The ACLU and Technology and Liberty Project of the ACLU endorse efforts to exploit unused portions of the wireless broadband spectrum and to make the Internet more accessible for all Americans. However, even well-intentioned efforts to provide universal access or to make broadband services more affordable cannot come at the expense of the First Amendment. The Commission should reject all unconstitutional conditions on license applications for the 2155-2175 MHz 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands that are the subject of the two
33 We believe that based upon the evidence developed in Ashcroft, it is likely that the overwhelming majority of adult subscribers to a “free” Internet service undoubtedly would find a requirement to pay to view blocked content or to provide personal information a barrier to exercising their First Amendment rights. 10
11
Petitions. In particular, the Commission should remove any requirements that licensees implement automatic “family friendly” filters that only can be removed by adult customers forced to forego their privacy and anonymity. The Commission is entrusted with the public airwaves and wireless broadband spectrum, and as part of that trust must enforce neutrality rules that guarantee Internet access free of government or service provider censorship. We urge the Commission to act in a manner consistent with those principles.

Daily Records of Trials - Free Transcripts- DOJ intern

2008-08-14T07:59:00.000-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Internet Censorship
Online Free Speech - Trial Transcripts

ACLU Defends Free
Speech Online >>

(All documents are available as PDFs. Download Adobe Reader.)

October 23, 2006 - Trial Opens
October 24, 2006
October 25, 2006
October 26, 2006
October 30, 2006
October 31, 2006
November 1, 2006
November 2, 2006
November 6, 2006
November 7, 2006
November 8, 2006
November 9, 2006
November 14, 2006
November 15, 2006
November 20, 2006 - Closing Arguments

ACLU Asks FCC to Scrutinize ISP Surveillance of Customers’ Internet Habits (7/21/1998)

2008-08-14T07:58:00.001-07:00

Home : Privacy & Technology : Internet Privacy
ACLU Asks FCC to Scrutinize ISP Surveillance of Customers’ Internet Habits (7/21/1998)

Deep Packet Inspections (DPI) violate online privacy and Net Neutrality

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: 202-675-2312, media@dcaclu.org

Washington, DC – Today as part of the FCC field hearing at Carnegie Mellon University on broadband and the digital future, the American Civil Liberties Union will submit written comments about how Deep Packet Inspections (DPI) and other practices threaten Americans’ online privacy and a neutral Internet.

The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

“The Internet has become one of the most important methods of communication in history because of neutrality rules. The Commission must use the information from today’s hearing on broadband and the digital future to take steps to ensure that speech and association on the Internet remain free.

“Corporate gatekeepers, like Comcast, jeopardize the very existence of the Internet as a forum for speech. The Commission has the challenging, but far from impossible job of immediately restoring neutrality to the Net while avoiding censorship. Thus, the Commission should not resort to unconstitutional license conditions such as mandatory and automatic filtering -- the Internet should remain a zone free of any gatekeepers or censors.

“The ACLU also urges the Commission to scrutinize the growing practice of Internet Service Providers examining their customers’ Internet habits. Using Deep Packet Inspections (DPI), ISPs know everything we do online. DPI allows ISPs to have access to all of your searches, friends and family, anything you read and email, any sites you visit and any comments you post. DPI is a virtual strip search for you and your computer.

“DPI already has a short sordid history associated with abusing personal information. Companies like NebuAd and Phorm built business models using their ability to eavesdrop on Internet users’ Web surfing for the purpose of serving ads. Under the guise of applying differential pricing based on the speed, volume, application preferences, or even the substance of content, service providers could snoop on every facet of user activity.

“This ISP practice not only threatens our online privacy, but also the neutrality of the Internet. ISPs can now use a free speech forum to discriminate based on the content of the communications. This kind of scrutiny is ripe for abuse, especially where there is money to be made. We would never give the post office the power to route mail according to the content of a letter. The Commission must ask some very hard questions about the reasons for this scrutiny.”

ACLU activists from the area plan to attend the hearing.

For information about the ACLU written testimony, go to: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/36056leg20080721.html

# # #

EFF Software Projects

2008-08-14T07:53:00.000-07:00

Switzerland Network Testing Tool

Is your ISP interfering with your BitTorrent connections? Cutting off your VOIP calls? Undermining the principles of network neutrality? In order to answer those questions, concerned Internet users need tools to test their Internet connections and gather evidence about ISP interference practices. After all, if it weren't for the testing efforts of Rob Topolski, the Associated Press, and EFF, Comcast would still be stone-walling about their now-infamous BitTorrent blocking efforts.

Developed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Switzerland is an open source software tool for testing the integrity of data communications over networks, ISPs and firewalls. It will spot IP packets which are forged or modified between clients, inform you, and give you copies of the modified packets.

You can download the latest release of Switzerland here. Before you run it, be sure to check out the notes about privacy, security, and firewalls. Switzerland is currently in alpha release as a command line tool. In other words, right now it is aimed at relatively sophisticated users. However, because it's an open source effort, we anticipate making it easier to use over time (please please please let us know by email, by IRC, or by filing bugs if you're running the client but it isn't working for you — we've seen some clients reconnecting in cycles that makes us think there's a bug we should fix!).

Switzerland is designed to detect the modification or injection of packets of data traveling over IP networks, including those introduced by anti-P2P tools from Sandvine (widely believed to be used by Comcast to interfere with BitTorrent uploads) and AudibleMagic, advertising injection systems like FairEagle, censorship systems like the Great Firewall of China, and other systems that we don't know about yet.

The software uses a semi-P2P, server-and-many-clients architecture. Whenever the clients send packets to each other, the server will attempt to determine if any of them were dropped, forged, or modified (if you're interested in how it does that, you can read the design document here — we'll try to continually revise that document so that it accurately describes the code, though inevitably it may lag a little behind). Switzerland is a much more sophisticated successor to the pcapdiff software that we released last year. It automates many of the things that had to be done by hand with the earlier code.

One advantage this architecture has over other network testing tools is that it can spot arbitrary kinds of packet modifications in any protocol — it doesn't assume that the interference comes in the form of TCP reset packets or web page modifications, and it isn't limited to BitTorrent or any other specific application. In the future we expect it to offer a good platform for collecting statistics on bandwidth, bidirectional latency, jitter and other traffic performance characteristics that might be signs of prioritization of some applications over others.
How do I run tests with Switzerland?

There are a few different ways to run tests with Switzerland.

Any packets exchanged between Switzerland clients connected to the same server will be tested automatically. The question is, how do you find other clients and talk to them using the protocols you want to test?

For now, the easiest way to set up tests is to co-ordinate them through this wiki page. If you want to test whether BitTorrent downloads are working correctly, go to that page and find some torrents that others are seeding from test machines. If you want to test if your ISP is interfering with BitTorrent seeding, you can post a link to a torrent file on the wiki, seed that torrent while running a Switzerland client and other people can find it on the wiki and try to download it while running a Switzerland client.

Another way is to run clients on two different computers, and then make the machines talk to each other using whatever protocol you'd like to test. That's fine if you have administrator accounts on two suitable machines for running the test, and are comfortable running the right clients and servers on them.

If you're a developer working on an application (say a P2P or IP telephony app) that might be a target for interference, you could automate one of the above methodologies.

Development

Switzerland is free/open source software licensed under the GPL. We'd love for members of the community to improve it! Switzerland development is currently hosted by Sourceforge, and you can check out a development release using subversion (running svn co https://switzerland.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/switzerland/ will get you the whole development tree). You can join the project's development mailing list here (if we're around, you can also ask questions on IRC — #switzerland on the OFTC IRC network, irc.oftc.net:6667 ).

Related Issues: Test Your ISP, Transparency

Comcast Ordered to Allow Free Flow of File Sharing Traffic

2008-08-14T07:51:00.000-07:00

Comcast Ordered to Allow Free Flow of File Sharing Traffic

Censornet In a landmark ruling, the Federal Communications Commission has ordered Comcast to stop its controversial practice of throttling file sharing traffic.

By a 3-2 vote, the commission on Friday concluded that Comcast monitored the content of its customers' internet connections and selectively blocked peer-to-peer connections.

The selective blocking of file sharing traffic interfered with users' rights to access the internet and to use applications of their choice, the commission said.

"Comcast's practices are not minimally intrusive, as the company claims, but rather are invasive and have significant effects," the commission said in a statement.

Comcast denies the findings.

The commission's ruling is a landmark defense of FCC policies on Net Neutrality, which forbid restrictions on the kinds of equipment, communication and content allowed on the Internet. Comcast's discrimination against file sharing traffic violates Net Neutrality, critics say.

The commission blasted Comcast's network-management practices of throttling BitTorrent peer-to-peer applications, calling them unreasonable and a violation of FCC rules.

The commission, without ordering monetary sanctions, ordered a halt to the practice and gave Comcast 30 days to fully disclose its throttling methods.

According to the commission, Comcast uses deep-packet inspection to monitor customers' internet traffic, and routes packets according to their content, not their destination.

"In essence, Comcast opens its customers' mail because it wants to deliver mail not based on the address on the envelope but on the type of letter contained therein," the commission said.

Comcast's throttling was widespread -- up to three-quarters of all file sharing connections in certain areas, the commission said, resulting in a significant disruption to internet traffic, the commission said.

Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said the company was "gratified that the commission did not find any conduct by Comcast that justified a fine." She said the company did not throttle traffic.

But she added that "we are disappointed in the Commission’s divided conclusion because we believe that our network management choices were reasonable, wholly consistent with industry practices and that we did not block access to websites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services."

Fitzmaurice said Comcast was "considering all our legal options and are disappointed that the commission rejected our attempts to settle this issue without further delays."

The commission speculated that Comcast's motives were profit-oriented.

Noting that BitTorrent files allow online surfers to watch high-quality video, "such video distribution poses a potential competitive threat to Comcast's video-on-demand (VOD) service," the commission said in a statement.

(It should be noted, however, that BitTorrent, while having many legitimate uses, is the protocol of choice for the illegitimate trafficking of movies, software and other copyrighted content.)

A nonprofit digital rights group, Public Knowledge, brought the complaint against Comcast to the FCC months ago.

"Comcast’s throttling of legal internet traffic had nothing to do with network management as the company claims," said Gigi Sohn, the group's president. "It had everything to do with a big company trying to exert its power over a captive internet market."

Martin, a Republican, proposed Friday's order. Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, both Democrats, signed on with Martin. Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Deborah Taylor Tate voted against the measure.

In 2005, the commission adopted a policy of net neutrality rules to ensure the internet was "accessible to all consumers."

McDowell said the decision politicizes the internet.

"The majority has thrust politicians and bureaucrats into engineering decisions," he said in a sharp dissent. "It will be interesting to see how the FCC will handle its newly created power because, as an institution, we are incapable of deciding any issue in the nanoseconds of internet time. Furthermore, asking our government to make these decisions will mean that every two to four years the ground rules could change depending on election results."

Illustration: M3Li55@/Flickr

See Also:

* Lawmaker Crying Foul Ahead of FCC Net Neutrality Decision
* Comcast Hijackers Say They Warned the Company First
* Comcast.net Hijacked, Redirected
* Stop the Blocking, Feds to Tell Comcast
* Comcast Beginning 'Net Neutrality' Testing
* Comcast Makes a Deal with BitTorrent
* Comcast Using Malicious Hacker Technique Against Own Customers ...

Yahoo! Buzz add to StumbleUpon
Stumble
ShareThis

Comments (0)

Want to start a new thread or reply to a post?
Login/Register and start talking!
There are no comments
Login/Registration

I can't make any sense from this ruling. We are making life unbearable hard for the ISPs by fluffing the net neutrality lines. Net neutrality is now becoming a farce and a detriment to the internet: Net Neutrality Violations: Worth a Closer Look(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=539&doc_id=160123&F_src=flftwo)

Posted by: jamalystic | Aug 1, 2008 9:19:44 AM

This is the reason I chose DSL over cable. And my DSL is with a private company and not AT&T or earthlink, etc.
I have Comcast for Cable TV (too many trees for Dish). In a sense, they do the same thing with their so called HiDef. They compress it so much to get so much on a cable that it degrades the program/movie. Don't believe me? Watch a cable hi def movie and then the hi def DVD

Posted by: john | Aug 1, 2008 9:36:55 AM

There may be hope for the FCC on this, and the big picture, yet. There should be fines to discourage this practice in the future.

Comcast is a lying sack of shit. If this is "industry practice," then the Net Neutrality concerns are valid. There are other ways to manage bandwidth that are not invasive at the content level.

Posted by: explorer | Aug 1, 2008 11:43:24 AM

Posted by: jamalystic | Aug 1, 2008 9:19:44 AM

@jamalystic: I think I speak for everyone: STFU...thanks.

Posted by: Philopoemen | Aug 1, 2008 11:58:51 AM

@jamalystic:

Seems pretty straightforward to me from the statement:
.
Throttling is not bad in itself (when used to shape traffic to ensure reasonable transfer times across the network).
.
Throttling an entire service, regardless of other traffic concerns, time of day, size of files, etc., is questionable.
.
Unfairly using your advantage as an ISP to limit people's access to competitors to other services you provide is bad. That's what it looks like Comcast was doing, and the FCC wants other companies to know that they will call them on it.
.
(Plus, Comcast trying to hide the fact from their customers that this was their policy didn't help.)

Posted by: EJ | Aug 1, 2008 12:08:52 PM

"(It should be noted, however, that BitTorrent, while having legitimate uses, is the protocol of choice for the illegitimate trafficking of movies, software and other copyrighted content.)"

This is a disingenuous statement, akin to stating "(It should be noted, however, that the Internet, while having legitimate uses, is the mechanism of choice for pedophiles trading illegal images of our children.)"

To even give a disclaimer like that is buying into music and movie industry propaganda. I use BitTorrent for downloading large files, typically CD and DVD ISO images of open source operating systems. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, do the same thing.

The real issue here is Comcast attempting to save money and avoid competition with their own services by illegally and unfairly degrading their own users network performance, all the while lying about it.

Posted by: Nick | Aug 1, 2008 1:10:37 PM

@ Nick
To add to legitimate uses, Revision3 also uses torrents as a means of delivery. They were also DDOS attacked by MediaSentry when they updated their whitelist. There are many legal websites that use torrents as a method of delivery; And I'm glad Comcast got slapped before the rest of the ISPs followed suit. Now I hope they focus on MediaSentry and their unnecessary attacks on legitimate sites.

Posted by: Xaine99 | Aug 1, 2008 4:24:46 PM

I pay an ISP. They give me bandwidth. If they do not provide me the bandwidth promised, or if they block my traffic based on contents, they are in violation of their agreement. I say fine the hell out of them or open their networks to competitors who will give me more privileges and a better deal.

Posted by: Diginess | Aug 1, 2008 8:10:31 PM

Is this going to stop Comcast? Really? How will we know they are compliant? I'm skeptical that a ruling like this (while appearing to set a precedent) can actually change industry practice.

Posted by: oe | Aug 1, 2008 9:08:48 PM

"we are disappointed in the Commission’s divided conclusion because we believe that our network management choices were reasonable, wholly consistent with industry practices and that we did not block access to websites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services."

Sounds like we need to re-define for these guys "industry standards" because the bandwidth is ours and while we are letting the internet companies manage it for us, they make a TIDY profit, which is fine but in no way does that management imply ownership. It is up to us to fight for what is ours, you know, "we the people"!

Posted by: KoreyAusTex | Aug 1, 2008 9:47:04 PM

A call to arms for the free peoples of the internet:

On the internet, we are under attack.

CAPTCHA is broken. SPAM is growing. CRIME is rampant.

We have few defenses, and our respective nations lack the jurisdiction and the will to protect us.

Therefore, we must, with no delay, create an INTERNET MILITIA to deal with these crimes and protect the innocent, and

We must form the FIRST INTERNET CONSTITUTIONAL CONGRESS and pass the first CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNET in order to guarantee our rights in this digital era.

The first step is to create a forum where everyone can read and contribute.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

“We the people of the Internet, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure online tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Internet.”

Posted by: ironcoconut | Aug 2, 2008 12:34:00 AM

are they going to go after at&t next? they most certainly throttle. as do a dozen or so other companies. some smaller isps, in fact, throttle the netflix "watch instantly" service.
.
what exactly is the point of broadband, if they're going to take away every (legitimate and illegitimate) reason for it? if more bands follow radioheads lead and release their albums online legitimately, will those be throttled? youtube? the dozen other live-video services?
.
comcast wasn't trying to protect the riaa or mpaa, they were just being cheap and trying to save money by cutting bandwidth to high-use customers. if this practice were allowed to continue, soon the download speeds of every user would be diminished until viewing websites was all that one could accomplish.

Posted by: dnynumberone | Aug 2, 2008 9:06:55 AM

Glad I dont have comcast, Charter is good

Posted by: Keagan | Aug 2, 2008 10:34:43 AM

Ha! Score one for the Good Guys! Eat that Comcast!

Posted by: Ben_neB | Aug 2, 2008 8:38:03 PM

lol @ throttling peer-to-peer traffic being an "engineering decision."

But also lol @ calling BitTorrent a "competitive threat" to Comcast's video-on-demand services.

If people were using BitTorrent for what they were supposed to be using it for, it wouldn't be a competitive threat. What the FCC should have said is that, because we can't tell whether peer-to-peer traffic is illegal, blanket throttling practices potentially harm legal uses.

The FCC"s decision was a victory for consumers, even if it might have been based on faulty reasoning.

Posted by: Omar | Aug 2, 2008 9:07:12 PM

"Furthermore, asking our government to make these decisions will mean that every two to four years the ground rules could change depending on election results."

Maybe, but I think the Internet -- as a global network -- will be relatively unaffected by the ebb and flow of what amounts to (relative to the global scale of the Internet) local politics. ISPs are far more likely to be affected by the demands of their customers (e.g., having the ability to vote with their pocketbooks) than the mandates of the FCC. That said, I think the FCC finally has taken a solid stand on an issue that has broad implications for the future of the Internet, at least in the United States.

Companies and governments play the game of pushing the limits until there's a public backlash, then they pull back a bit and the fuss dies down. While I don't agree at all with what Comcast has done, it seems they knew full well the potential negative public reaction, and simply decided the potential benefit of not getting caught was worth the risk if people complained.

In that sense, it's prudent that the government doesn't tend to make decisions in the "nanoseconds of Internet time" as argued by McDowell. The slow, deliberative nature of government is a good thing. And, I highly doubt Comcast makes any decisions in the "nanoseconds of Internet time."

Posted by: just a guy | Aug 3, 2008 9:31:00 AM

SavetheInternet.com

2008-08-14T07:49:00.000-07:00

SavetheInternet.com
Act Now The Blog What's Net Neutrality? Spread the Word About the Coalition Press Room Donate
Sign Up
Receive updates and alerts on the campaign via email.

Sorry, a processing error occurred. Please try again
add me
Thanks!
We'll keep you up to date. Please add list@freepress.net to your email "safe list."

Take the next step:
Sign the petition!
The People
"Keep Net Neutrality Intact - Stop the Big Telecoms"
photo
Read Shayne's Story »
Hometown: Riverside, CA
See More Stories »

Communities

Get involved on Facebook, MySpace and the Free Press Action Network

free press
SavetheInternet.com is a project of the
Free Press Action Fund, a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media.
About Us Donate
FCC Stands Up for the Open Internet

Thanks to the actions of Net freedom activists like you, the FCC just punished Comcast for violating Net Neutrality. This precedent-setting victory makes one thing clear: Blocking the Internet won't be tolerated.

Tell Congress: We Need Net Neutrality Now »

Read the latest on our blog »

Big phone and cable companies are trying to eliminate Net Neutrality, the principle that protects our ability go where we want and do what we choose online.

More than 1.5 million SavetheInternet.com supporters are fighting to keep the Internet free and open for everyone.

Learn more about an issue that unites the Christian Coalition, Teamsters, PETA, video gamers, the ACLU, Gun Owners of America and many more.

Learn more »
How this affects you »

McDowell’s Scare Tactics Reach New Low
August 13: Federal Communications Commissioner Robert McDowell increasingly sounds like a man stranded on a desert island, willing to say anything to get a ride back to shore. Yesterday, Commissioner McDowell stooped to a new low... more »

Don’t Scare Me with Metering
August 8: Thousands of people heralded the FCC’s decision to punish Comcast for blocking Internet traffic last week, and for setting an important precedent for Net Neutrality. A small group of skeptical observers, however,... more »

* McDowell's Scare Tactics Reach New Low
August 13, 2008
* Network-Management Filings from Comcast, Free Press
August 13, 2008
* Net Neutrality and Adam Smith
August 14, 2008
* Wanted: Writers for D.C. tech lobby group, secrecy mandatory
August 14, 2008
* Phorm Secretly Tracked Americans too
August 14, 2008
* Average U.S. Upload Speed: 435kbps
August 14, 2008
* Robert McDowell seems to be Two Faced about Rules
August 14, 2008
* Yahoo Introduces Services that Lets Users Broadcast Their Location
August 14, 2008
* Wilco and DJ Spooky Join Forces for Net Neutrality
August 14, 2008
* Study Shows U.S. Broadband Speeds Continue to Lag
August 13, 2008

from freepress.net
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Creative Commons License
Contact Us
Privacy Policy

No corporation, trade group or political party funds the SavetheInternet.com campaign.
Site designed and maintained by Free Press Action Fund | Dedicated servers by SingleHop

Restoring Long-Standing Net Neutrality Protections

2008-08-14T07:46:00.000-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Internet Censorship
Restoring Long-Standing Net Neutrality Protections

Massive innovation on the Internet since its creation is in part the result of pre-2005 Net Neutrality protections. Starting nearly forty years ago, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concluded that under Title II of the Communications Act, telephone companies and network owners were prohibited from interfering with or discriminating against "telecommunications services" offering computer network access. The availability of common carrier telephone networks to independent equipment manufacturers and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) led to the Internet's birth. Entrepreneurs freely developed pioneering services and products resulting in a technological revolution driving our nation's economic growth in the last decade.

All of those protections were suddenly lost in 2005 after the Supreme Court's decision in NCTA v. Brand X. Since 2002, the FCC attempted to reverse decades of applying Title II's nondiscrimination principles to net providers by reclassifying cable modem services as unregulated "information services." Federal courts initially rejected the FCC's efforts to strip long-standing Net Neutrality protections. In mid-2005, the Supreme Court abruptly reversed course in Brand X by concluding that the FCC had that discretion, notwithstanding well-established consumer protections.

Following that ruling, network owners began taking steps to stifle innovation and freedom on the Internet. They have stated their intent to establish tollbooths on the Information Superhighway by restricting fast lanes to those willing and able to pay high premiums. Some network owners, such as Time Warner's AOL and BellSouth, have already blocked user content. Internet discrimination will only increase after the 2007 expiration of Net Neutrality restrictions in merger agreements for other network owners such as SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI.

S. 215, the Snowe-Dorgan "Internet Freedom Preservation Act," restores longstanding Net Neutrality protections in place before June 2005. It requires that any content, application, or service offered through the Internet be provided on a basis that is "reasonable and non-discriminatory" and equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth of services offered by network owners. It further prohibits network providers from blocking or degrading lawful Internet content. Finally, it leaves the choice for attaching legal devices to networks squarely in the hands of consumers, where it rightfully belongs.

Net Neutrality: Myths and Facts

2008-08-14T07:45:00.000-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Internet Censorship
Net Neutrality: Myths and Facts

Myth: Net Neutrality would, for the first time, regulate the Internet.
FACT: Massive innovation on the Internet since its creation occurred under pre-2005 Net Neutrality protection. Until last year's Supreme Court Brand X decision, telephone and cable based Internet operators were required to make Internet service "available on nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to all comers." Net Neutrality simply restores long-standing prior law.

MYTH: Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.
FACT: There are numerous examples of network providers engaging in content or user discrimination that will only grow without Net Neutrality. This year, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing AOL's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. Similarly, BellSouth has blocked its customers' access to MySpace.com in Tennessee and Florida. Net discrimination is real and happening every day.

MYTH: Net Neutrality will stifle innovation on the Internet.
FACT: Today's vibrant Internet economy resulted from Net Neutrality protection during the Internet's infancy. Net Neutrality spurred innovation and commerce by preventing large companies from leveraging market power to stifle competition from smaller, dynamic web innovators.

MYTH: Network operators are protecting consumers.
FACT: Like any monopoly or oligopoly, network operators want to maximize their profits and minimize competition at the consumer's expense. Network providers opposed to Net Neutrality such as AT&T, BellSouth, Comcast, Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon have already shown they cannot be trusted to self-regulate in the interest of consumers in either content or cost.

MYTH: Net Neutrality will cause broadband networks to be abandoned.
FACT: Net Neutrality promotes broadband development by increasing Internet services and applications that generate new consumer demand. The increased demand for broadband resulting from Net Neutrality will lead to more investment in the next generation broadband networks, including the continued growth of fiber-optic cable.

MYTH: Yahoo and Google get a "free ride" from network operators.
FACT: These Internet companies pay much more than the average web operator because their sites use greater bandwidth from host sites than other operators. There is nothing wrong with bandwidth purchasing plans based upon usage. Net Neutrality simply ensures that network operators cannot play favorites with their own services.

MYTH: Net Neutrality interferes with network management.
FACT: There is no evidence that this occurred prior to last year, when Net Neutrality was protected. Telephone companies have been able to regulate and manage their networks for years under "common carrier" regulations much more stringent than those proposed by Net Neutrality.

ACLU & Youth: Why We Need Net Neutrality Protections

2008-08-14T07:44:00.000-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Internet Censorship
ACLU & Youth: Why We Need Net Neutrality Protections

What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality ensures that you, not a corporate monopoly, choose how you access and use the Internet. It protects your ability to access and send any lawful information on the Internet. It prevents Internet Service Providers, such as cable and telephone companies, from preferring certain content, applications, or services over others. Net Neutrality means individual freedom, not corporate control, on the Internet.

Life Without Net Neutrality
It would be hard to imagine life without the Internet. It has become part of our daily lives, where we can gather news, meet people, exchange ideas, and register for classes. Here are just a few examples of what the Internet will be like if Congress fails to restore strong Net Neutrality protections:

* · Censored Speech and Content. Without Net Neutrality, network providers can block or slow down access to sites they don’t like. Earlier this year, AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy group that was challenging AOL’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme. ·
* No User Choice. Without Net Neutrality, network providers – not you – will determine what services and equipment you can use on the Internet. For example, Cingular Wireless, run by AT&T, bars access to PayPal because it has struck a deal with another online payment service, which pays Cingular for that privileged status. ·
* Banned Chat Rooms. Without Net Neutrality, network owners can dictate whether you are allowed to visit popular chat rooms or if you will have to pay a cover charge to enter them. Think it can’t happen? Think again. Just this summer, BellSouth blocked its customers’ access to Myspace.com in Tennessee and Florida. ·
* Online Gamer Restrictions. Without Net Neutrality, fan sites, mod communities (individuals playing against each other), and MMORPGs (Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) might find their online gaming shut off. Network providers will be able to charge gamers tolls to access their favorite games, in addition to the broadband connection fee that most users already pay. Network providers would also be able to restrict gaming access to their own online gaming companies, shutting off any competitors. ·
* Expensive Downloads and Pod-casting. Without Net Neutrality, network providers could charge you more to download your favorite videos or music, or to use services such as Rhapsody, YouTube, Napster, and iTunes. Network providers can also tell you which download service you have to use, charging you a toll if you decide to use one of their competitors.

How Can I Take Action?

Visit www.aclu.org/freethenet to learn more about how to protect your Internet freedom!

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Internet Freedom and Innovation at Risk: Why Congress Must Restore Strong Net Neutrality Protection

2008-08-14T07:40:00.000-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Internet Censorship
Internet Freedom and Innovation at Risk: Why Congress Must Restore Strong Net Neutrality Protection

The creation and dynamic growth of the Internet is in part the result of strong Net Neutrality protection. All of that changed in 2005, when the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) suddenly repealed longstanding Internet non-discrimination principles with the blessing of the United States Supreme Court. Since then, the keys to the Internet have been turned over to a handful of profit-driven telecoms and cable companies. Immediate restoration of well-established Net Neutrality principles is necessary to protect freedom and innovation on the Internet.

About Net Neutrality

The Internet was born and flourished under well-established Net Neutrality protections. These protections are derived from Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which grants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to regulate telephone companies as common carriers. As computer technology was developed, data began to flow over telephone lines. In the 1970s and 1980s, the FCC responded by ensuring that network providers would provide access for data transmissions on a non-discriminatory basis by protecting them like other communications services. Title II was strengthened by making common carrier telephone networks available to independent equipment manufacturers and Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

Net Neutrality rests on three guiding principles:

* No discrimination against lawful content. Net Neutrality ensures that Internet users have the right to access lawful websites of their choice and to post lawful content, free of discrimination or degradation by network providers. In other words, network providers cannot block or slow down lawful content they dislike. A vibrant marketplace of ideas on the Internet cannot function with corporate censors.
* Equal Internet access at an equal price. Under Net Neutrality, network providers cannot give preferential treatment to their own services at the expense of competing sites consumers want to use. In many markets, Internet access is only available through one or two providers. Equal access at an equal price means that network providers cannot abuse their monopoly by barring access, providing slower access, or charging higher premiums to popular services competing with their own. The free market, and not tollbooths run by a few corporate monopolies, must be allowed to decide Internet winners and losers.
* Consumers choose network equipment. Since 1968, Net Neutrality has allowed consumers to choose the equipment they want, or make it themselves, and attach it to any network. In 1996, Congress reaffirmed this right by directing the FCC to adopt regulations permitting consumers to have the final choice of cable boxes used to convert television signals. Net Neutrality prevents network providers from eliminating competing equipment by making it incompatible with their gateway. In the process, it ensures that equipment choice remains in the hands of Internet users, where it rightfully belongs.

The Internet has become the 21st century’s marketplace of ideas because of these bedrock Net Neutrality principles. Anyone with access to the Internet can create, download, e-mail, or post any lawful content they want without fear of censorship or artificial tiered access. Information can be shared worldwide with just a few keystrokes. Budding journalists who aspire to be the next Matt Drudge can post blogs at the cost of a connection fee that all Internet users pay. Home videos can be distributed at real time speeds equal to the latest unwanted corporate advertisements. Net Neutrality has made the Internet the most democratic forum for free speech in the world.

In 2005, the Telecoms Captured the FCC and Eliminated Net Neutrality Protection Following the Supreme Court's Brand X Decision.

A handful of big telecoms and cable companies provide Internet network services, including AT&T, BellSouth, Comcast, Qwest, Sprint, Time-Warner, and Verizon. Over the last five years, these corporations have spent well over $100 million lobbying Congress and the FCC to eliminate established Net Neutrality protections. In 2002, the network providers captured the FCC and convinced it to abandon consumer protections by reclassifying cable modem services as unprotected information services instead of protected communications services. Federal courts initially rejected the FCC's efforts to strip Net Neutrality.

All of that suddenly changed in June 2005 with the Supreme Court's decision in NCTA v. Brand X. In Brand X, the Supreme Court for the first time found that broadband access constituted information services. The Court concluded that the FCC had discretion to choose whether to retain Net Neutrality protections for all broadband users. Shortly after the Brand X decision, the FCC further curtailed Net protections by reclassifying Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services as information services. Within a span of a few months, the FCC and the Supreme Court managed to destroy decades of Net Neutrality protections for nearly every American.

The assault on Internet freedom will only get worse. Although the FCC imposed Net Neutrality protections in merger agreements for certain network providers such as SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI, those protections expire in 2007. In July 2006, the FCC declined to include any Net Neutrality protections in Comcast and Time-Warner's acquisition of Adelphia Cable. The FCC is expected to follow a similar pattern of opposing Net Neutrality in the future, as network providers continue to consolidate into an even smaller pool of Internet gatekeepers.

Without Net Neutrality, network providers are free to discriminate. Although the telecoms and cable companies offer the public gateways to the Internet, they are not considered "state actors" that trigger free speech protections under the First Amendment. Therefore, they can effectively shut down the 21st century marketplace of ideas by screening Internet e-mail traffic, blocking what they deem to be undesirable content, or pricing users out of the marketplace. Historically, Net Neutrality protections under the Communications Act filled the free speech gap. Since those protections were removed, nothing prevents network providers from discriminating against Internet users and application and service providers in terms of content, quality of access, and choice of equipment.

Without Net Neutrality Protections, Telecoms and Cable Companies Are Engaging in Content and User Discrimination.

Big network providers have already begun taking steps to stifle innovation and freedom on the Internet.

Several telecom executives have stated their intent to create tiered access that restricts fast lanes to those willing and able to pay their higher premiums:

* Edward Whitacre, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), AT&T Whitacre has been the most candid in stating the telecoms' intentions: "How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that… Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for… anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts."
* Bill Smith, Chief Technology Officer (CTO), BellSouth. Smith "told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc. Or, Smith said, his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth's offering."
* John Thorne, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Verizon. Thorne described Verizon's plans to charge websites available on networks provided by the big telecoms, stating that they are "enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers."

In 2006, big network providers have censored lawful content and blocked their Internet competitors:

* Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing AOL's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
* BellSouth blocked its customers' access to MySpace.com in Tennessee and Florida.
* Cingular Wireless, run by AT&T, bars access to PayPal to make a payment on eBay because it has struck a deal with another online payment service, which pays Cingular for that privileged status.

The big telecoms and cable companies have been on their best behavior while Congress is considering legislation that would reinstate longstanding nondiscrimination principles on the Internet. Despite this heightened scrutiny from Congress, network providers have engaged in content and user discrimination. Their discrimination will only increase if Congress does not immediately restore strong Net Neutrality protections.

Restoring Freedom and Innovation to the Internet through Strong Net Neutrality Protection.

Without the vigorous non-discrimination principles in place before 2005, a few corporate conglomerates will control everything you can say or do on the Internet. Net Neutrality is needed, and it is needed now.

The United States Senate is currently considering a bipartisan bill offered by Senators Olympia Snowe and Byron Dorgan, S. 215, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, that would restore Network Neutrality protections in place before July 2005. The Snowe-Dorgan bill requires that any content, application, or service offered through the Internet be provided on a basis that is "reasonable and nondiscriminatory" and equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth of services offered by network owners. It further prohibits network providers from blocking or degrading lawful Internet content. Finally, it leaves the choice for attaching legal devices to networks squarely in the hands of consumers, and not the telecoms and cable companies.

Only the Snowe-Dorgan bill, or similar legislation that restores the three guiding principles of Internet freedom and innovation, will prevent the content and access discrimination that the telecoms and cable companies are seeking.

Call your senators about this issue. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

ACLU Urges Court to Reject Government's Bid for Google Records (3/14/2006)

2008-08-14T07:37:00.002-07:00

Home : Privacy & Technology : Internet Privacy
ACLU Urges Court to Reject Government's Bid for Google Records (3/14/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Defense of Controversial Internet Law Does Not Justify “Fishing Expedition,” ACLU Tells Federal Judge

SAN JOSE, CA – At a hearing today before a federal judge, the American Civil Liberties Union will urge the court to reject the government’s demand for millions of Google search records, saying that it has not justified the need for obtaining massive amounts of consumer information.

“The government is not entitled to go on a fishing expedition through millions of Google searches any time it wants, just because it claims that it needs that information,” said ACLU staff attorney Aden Fine. “Given the government’s continued vagueness about why it needs these vast quantities of consumer records, Google has rightly denied the request.”

In legal papers filed before Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the ACLU argued in favor of the Internet search giant’s effort to block the government’s subpoena for information about its customers’ online behavior.

The Google controversy arose in connection with the ACLU's challenge to the "Child Online Protection Act" (COPA), which would impose draconian criminal sanctions, with penalties of up to $50,000 per day and up to six months imprisonment, for online material acknowledged as valuable for adults but judged "harmful to minors."

A federal district court in Philadelphia and a federal appeals court found the COPA law unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upheld the ban on enforcement of the law in June 2004. The Justices, however, also asked the Philadelphia court to determine whether there had been any changes in technology that would affect the constitutionality of the statute, such as whether commercially available blocking software was still as effective as the banned law in blocking material deemed "harmful to minors."

The government has claimed it needs the Google records for its defense of the law. But the ACLU said that the government has failed to describe how the millions of Google user records will help it to determine whether the software is effective and if the law is constitutional. Government papers filed recently in response to the ACLU and Google briefs still do not explain how the customer information will be used and why it is necessary, the ACLU said.

The ACLU’s clients in the COPA challenge, ACLU v. Gonzales, include Salon.com, Urbandictionary.com, Nerve.com, Condomania, Philadelphia Gay News and Dr. Mitch Tepper's “Sexual Health Network,” among others.

The ACLU has brought other successful challenges to state "harmful-to-minors" laws in Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Arizona and Vermont. A case brought in Virginia also resulted in a "harmful-to-minors" law being struck down. The ACLU noted that the state challenges were successful because of the impossibility of verifying the age as well as location of Internet users, as the law requires.

The law firm Latham & Watkins has been representing the ACLU on the COPA case since 1998 and also participated in the successful challenges to similar laws in New York and Arizona. The firm is serving as counsel in today’s Google filing as well.

The ACLU's legal papers opposing the government's demand for Google's records is online at www.aclu.org/privacy/internet/24211lgl20060217.html

More information on ACLU v. Gonzalez is online at www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/14985res20040629.html

Supreme Court Hears Web-Blocking Case (3/4/2003)

2008-08-14T07:37:00.001-07:00

Home : Privacy & Technology : Internet Free Speech
Supreme Court Hears Web-Blocking Case (3/4/2003)

Supreme Court Rules on Web Blocking Case

ACLU Disappointed, but Sees Limited Impact on Adults
U.S. v. American Library Association, et. al.
The American Civil Liberties Union said that it was disappointed by a fractured Supreme Court ruling that Congress can force public libraries to install blocking software on library Internet terminals, but noted that the ruling minimized the law's impact on adults, who can insist that the software be disabled. More. . .

ACLU Memo
Library filtering after US v. ALA: What does it all mean and what should we do
CIPA challenge documents

General Materials

* Introduction to the Case
* Text of Children's Internet Protection Act
* ACLU Cyber-Liberties Issue Page

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)
*
ACLU Optimistic That Supreme Court Will Reject Law Mandating Internet Censorship in Libraries (11/12/2002)
*
Federal Court Rejects Government Censorship in Libraries, Citing Free Speech Rights of Patrons (05/31/2002)
*
Librarians Take the Stand in First Day of Trial on Government Censorship in Libraries (03/25/2002)
*
House Committee Report on Pornography and File-Sharing Confirms ACLU Concerns With Blocking Software (07/27/2001)
*
ACLU Responds to Confusion Over Library Blocking Software Law; Seeks December Trial Date in Legal Challenge (05/17/2001)
*
Library Internet Access is Still Free from Censorship as Law Goes into Effect, ACLU Tells Libraries, Patrons (04/19/2001)
*
ACLU Tells Committee That New Internet Law Blocks Protected Speech and Should Itself Be Blocked (04/04/2001)
*
ACLU Files Challenge to Library Internet Censorship In Case Fast-Tracked for Supreme Court Review (03/20/2001)
*
In First-Ever Challenge, CA Court of Appeals Upholds Library's Right to Provide Uncensored Internet Access (03/07/2001)
*
As ACLU Prepares Legal Challenge to Mandatory Internet Blocking, Consumer Reports Says Products Fail Test (02/14/2001)
*
ACLU Will Fight Government Plan to Censor Internet in Libraries (01/19/2001)
*
Citing New Government Report, ACLU Calls on Congress to Reject Internet Blocking Bill (10/20/2000)
*
ACLU Says Filtering Legislation Represents Little More Than Sugar Pill for Parents (05/20/1999)
*
New ACLU Report Condemns Mandatory Blocking Software in Public Libraries (06/17/1999)
*
Judge Sets Highest Legal Hurdle For Using Blocking Software in Libraries (04/07/1998)
*
ACLU Vows Fight As New Internet Censorship Bills Slither Through Senate (03/12/1998)
*
ACLU Hails Victory as California Library Agrees to Remove Internet Filters from Public Computers (01/28/1998)
*
Internet Funding Proposal Would Put Big Brother in Classroom (01/28/1999)

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.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Another Attempt by Congress to Restrict Free Speech (4/16/2002)

2008-08-14T07:35:00.001-07:00

Home : Supreme Court : 2001 Term
Supreme Court Strikes Down Another Attempt by Congress to Restrict Free Speech (4/16/2002)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down Congress's attempt to expand the definition of child pornography, saying that the law "prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value," a ruling the American Civil Liberties Union today hailed as a forceful defense of First Amendment principles.

The 6-3 majority opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, "sends a message that Congress may not overstep the boundaries the Court laid out in distinguishing constitutionally protected speech from obscenity and child pornography that harms actual children," said Ann Beeson, a staff attorney with the ACLU, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case together with its Northern California office.

The Child Pornography Protection Act barred sexually explicit material that depicts what "appear(s) to be a minor"' or that is advertised in a way that "conveys the impression" that a minor was involved in its creation. Such depictions, the Court today recognized, could include scenes from Academy Award-winning films like Traffic and American Beauty.

The criminal law could also be applied to "a picture in a psychology manual, as well as a movie depicting the horrors of sexual abuse," the Court wrote, the kind of material used by the ACLU's clients, which include Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, the Society for Professional Journalists and the Radio and Television News Directors Association.

In some of its strongest, most inspired language, the Court rebuked the government's attempt to act as the "thought police," saying "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech the beginning of thought."

The law banned "the visual depiction of an idea," the Court wrote, "-- that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages."

"The Court said that instead of punishing the abuse of children -- which no one objects to -- this law impermissibly punishes the expression of ideas," said Ann Brick, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

Indeed, as the Court today noted, none of the groups opposing the law challenged a provision that banned the use of identifiable children in computer-altered sexual images. In addition, child pornography that involves real children has been illegal for many years and that law was not affected by today's ruling.

Today's case is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, No. 00-795. The ACLU's legal brief in the case is online at http://www.aclu.org/Files/Files.cfm?ID=9092&c=184.

The ACLU's clients were represented by Beeson, Brick, ACLU National Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro and William Bennett Turner of the San Francisco-based law firm Rogers Joseph O'Donnell & Phillips.

Another case involving government restrictions of speech, which the court has not yet decided, tests the constitutionality of a separate law governing access by adults and children to sexually explicit material on the Internet. The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of writers of sexual advice columns; Planetout.com; OB/GYN.net; Artnet.com; and websites for bookstores, art galleries, and the Philadelphia Gay News. A decision in that case, ACLU v. Ashcroft, No. 00-1293, is expected by the end of June.

In Two Significant Cases, ACLU Seeks to Protect Anonymous Online Speakers from Legal Intimidation (2/26/2001)

2008-08-14T07:34:00.001-07:00

Home : Privacy & Technology : Anonymity on the Web
In Two Significant Cases, ACLU Seeks to Protect Anonymous Online Speakers from Legal Intimidation (2/26/2001)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEATTLE--In two legal actions involving free speech and privacy rights online, the American Civil Liberties Union today came to the defense of anonymous speakers who face legal intimidation from those they criticize in cyberspace.

The first case, filed today by the ACLU of Washington State and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), asked a federal court here to quash a subpoena that would force an Internet service to disclose the identity of a person who spoke anonymously on an Internet bulletin board.

In the second case, the ACLU today submitted its appeal in Melvin v. Doe, a challenge to a Pennsylvania appeals court judge's attempt to use the courts to try to ferret out the identify of her critic.

Underscoring the proliferation of such lawsuits, Internet giant America Online submitted its own legal brief in the Melvin case today, saying it had handled approximately 475 such subpoenas last year, more than one per day. Attempts to intimidate online critics by filing such actions constitutes "an illegitimate use of the courts to silence and retaliate against speakers," AOL said in legal papers.

In the Washington case, the ACLU and EFF are representing J. Doe (a pseudonym) in seeking to block a subpoena by 2TheMart.com, Inc., which is currently defending itself against a class-action lawsuit alleging securities fraud by company officials.

The subpoena seeks to uncover the identities of 23 speakers who used pseudonyms in participating on the Silicon Investor Web site owned by InfoSpace. The motion to quash the subpoena was filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle.

This case differs from many other Internet anonymity cases, the ACLU said, because J. Doe, who used the pseudonym "NoGuano," is not a party to the case, and no allegations of liability against Doe have been made.

While Doe does maintain a Silicon Investor account, Doe never made any statements about 2TheMart, nor has Doe ever posted on Silicon Investor's 2TheMart message board.

"The courts should not allow subpoenas to be used for 'fishing expeditions' when individuals' First Amendment rights are at stake. The chilling effect on free speech would be catastrophic," said Lauren Gelman, Director of Public Policy for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world.

Aaron Caplan, a Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Washington, noted that people commonly use pseudonyms when speaking on the Internet. "This promotes a diversity of viewpoints in cyberspace," he said. "The right to speak anonymously on an Internet bulletin board should be upheld just as is the right to distribute a leaflet using a pseudonym."

John Doe is being represented by ACLU staff attorney Aaron Caplan and Cindy Cohn, legal director and senior staff attorney for EFF. Their legal brief along with further details on the case, can be found at the EFF Web site at http://www.eff.org and the ACLU Web site at http://www.aclu-wa.org.

The Melvin case arose when Allegheny County State Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin found comments critical of her on a website entitled "Grant Street 1999." The website author accused the judge of lobbying on behalf of an attorney seeking a judgeship. Melvin then filed a defamation lawsuit seeking disclosure of the author's name.

Ann Beeson, Staff Attorney with the national ACLU, noted that in many of the defamation cases the ACLU has handled, individuals felt their speech was "chilled" by the threat of a lawsuit -- often brought by deep-pockets corporations or powerful individuals -- and by the threat of disclosure.

A lower court agreed in a November 2000 ruling, saying that identity may not be disclosed until the anonymous speaker has had an opportunity to prove that the defamation lawsuit is without merit. But the ACLU did not prevail in its specific argument that the case should be dismissed. That issue is central to today's appeal.

The ACLU's appeal to the Supreme Court is online here (PDF)

A previous news release on the Melvin case, with a link to the lower court brief, is available here.

The America Online amicus brief is also available on the ACLU website here (PDF)

In Legal First, Appeals Court Strikes Down State's "Harmful to Minors" Ban on Internet Speech (11/3/1999)

2008-08-14T07:31:00.000-07:00

Home : Privacy & Technology : General
In Legal First, Appeals Court Strikes Down State's "Harmful to Minors" Ban on Internet Speech (11/3/1999)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK -- In the first ruling of its kind, a federal appeals court has rejected a state law banning Internet speech deemed "harmful to minors," saying that such laws censor valuable speech for adults.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which had challenged New Mexico's law making it a crime to disseminate online expression that involves "nudity" or "sexual conduct," welcomed the ruling, issued 24 hours before a court battle tomorrow against a similar federal law.

In striking down New Mexico's law, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 1997 landmark ruling in the ACLU's first challenge to Congress's attempt at cybercensorship, and on earlier court decisions voiding broadly written state bans on Internet speech in cases also brought by the ACLU.

"This ruling tells state lawmakers in no uncertain terms that they should stop passing and defending criminal bans on protected speech," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU national staff attorney who argued the case before the Tenth Circuit and will be appearing tomorrow before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

The state had argued that its law banned only online material considered "harmful to minors." But as the appeals court pointed out, that argument "overlook[s] the basic point that what may be 'patently offensive...for minors'...may very well have social importance and not be patently offensive for adults." Indeed, the court noted, "plaintiffs' speech includes discussions of women's health and interests, literary works and fine art, gay and lesbian issues, prison rapes, and censorship and civil liberties issues."

In its ruling, the appeals court agreed not only with the ACLU's argument that the First Amendment does not allow such speech bans, but also with its contention that the New Mexico law violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which bars states from regulating activity outside its borders.

Quoting from a 1997 district court opinion striking down a nearly identical law in New York, the judges agreed that the global nature of the Internet would subject all Internet users to "haphazard, uncoordinated, and even outright inconsistent regulation by states."

New Mexico can either accept this ruling or ask the Supreme Court to take the case.

Fresh from today's victory, ACLU attorneys are now on the way to Philadelphia to convince the appeals court there that the federal "Child Online Protection Act," with similar "harmful to minor" language, is equally unconstitutional and unworkable.

Argument dates and a briefing schedule have not yet been set in the ACLU's challenge to Michigan's harmful to minors law, due for review in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Tenth Circuit decision, issued late Tuesday, is online at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=982199.

The ACLU's previous news releases, a list of plaintiffs, and legal documents in the New Mexico case, ACLU v. Johnson, are online at /issues/cyber/censor/newmexico.html.

The ACLU's news releases and related documents in its challenge to the federal "harmful to minors" Internet censorship law are online at /news/1999/n110299a.html.

ACLU attorneys in the case are ACLU attorney Ann Beeson, Senior ACLU Staff Attorney Chris Hansen, ACLU of New Mexico Co-Legal Director Philip B. Davis, and Michael Bamberger of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal in New York.

ACLU Successfully Defends the First Amendment's Future on the Internet

2008-08-14T07:30:00.000-07:00

Home : Privacy & Technology : Internet Free Speech
Feature on Reno v. ACLU I - The Battle Over the CDA (6/26/1997)

Reno v. ACLU I

ACLU Successfully Defends the First Amendment's Future on the Internet in Historic, Precedent-Setting Decision

Striking a tremendous victory for the future of the First Amendment on the Internet, the Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU that the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, affirming a lower court decision.

The CDA, Congresses first attempt to regulate the freedom of speech online, was passed in February 1996. In imposing content regulations throughout the Internet, much like broadcast television and radio, the CDA intended to threaten the very existence of the Internet as a means of free expression. In defeating this oppressive law, the ACLU has helped maintain the Internet as a free forum for ideas and commerce.
ACLU Hails Supreme Court Victory in Internet Censorship Challenge Read the Decision in Reno v. ACLU

Statements from Reno v. ACLU plaintiffs and witnesses

* Statement of Jonathan Tasini, President, National Writers Union
* Statement of Candace Perkins Bowen, President, Journalism Education Association
* Statement of Jonathan Wallace, Publisher of The Ethical Spectacle
* Statement of Duff Axsom, Executive Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
* Statement of Howard Rheingold, Expert Witness in Reno v. ACLU
* Statement of Donna Hoffman, Expert Witness in Reno v. ACLU

Reno v. ACLU Supreme Court Appeal materials

Legal Documents

* Transcript of the Supreme Court's Oral Argument, March 19th
* ACLU Brief of Appellees: Reno v. ACLU
* ACLU Motion to Affirm the Trial Court Decision filed on behalf of ACLU, et al plaintiffs, October 31, 1996

Press Releases

* ACLU Hails Victory in Internet Censorship Challenge (06/27/1997)
* Chronology of the Case (06/27/1997)
* ACLU, EPIC Call on Congress and Clinton to "Take the First Amendment Pledge" (06/16/1997)
* Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on the Future of Free Speech in Cyberspace (03/19/1997)
* ACLU Sends Supreme Court Passionate Defense Of Free Speech in Cyberspace (02/20/1997)
* Government's Brief Asserts Unprecedented Powers to Criminalize Online Speech; Oral Argument Set for March 19 (01/22/1997)
* Supreme Court to Review Landmark Decision Barring Internet Censorship (12/06/1996)
* ACLU Asks Court to Affirm Landmark Decision Barring Internet Censorship (10/31/1996)
* ACLU Background Briefing -- Reno v. ACLU: The Road to the Supreme Court (10/31/1996)

ACLU v. Reno Plaintiffs:

* Statements for the Supreme Court Oral Argument Electronic Privacy Information Center, (EPIC)
* National Writers' Union
* BiblioBytes
* Complete list of Reno v. ACLU Plaintiffs and their Affidavits
* Teens Affected by Online Censorship Speak Out

ACLU v. Reno Amici:

* Organizations and individuals submitting briefs Amicus Curiae

ACLU v. Reno Legal Team:

* Christopher A. Hansen, Ann Beeson, Steven R. Shapiro, Marjorie Heins and Catherine Weiss of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
* Stefan Presser of the ACLU of Pennsylvania Foundation
* David L. Sobel and Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
* Mike Godwin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
* Roger Evans of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America

ACLU v. Reno Companion Case:

* ALA v. Department of Justice: The Citizens' Internet Empowerment Coalition has complete information on the organizations that joined the challenge to the CDA before the three-judge panel in Philadelphia. This case has been combined for argument with Reno v. ACLU.

* Decision of the Special Three-Judge Panel
* ACLU Analysis of the Trial Decision
* Reno v. ACLU Trial Materials
including transcripts, affidavits, the complaint, and complete background materials, plus Real Audio of the ACLU press conference following the decision

A note on names: Because the government is appealing the decision of the special three-judge panel, the name of the case has been reversed. For a complete explanation of the legal review process -- and the ACLU's motion for summary affirmance -- read "The Road to the Supreme Court" Backgrounder.

The Challenge to New York's Internet Censorship Law

2008-08-14T07:28:00.000-07:00

Home : Privacy & Technology : Internet Free Speech
Feature on ALA v. Pataki (6/20/1997)

ALA v. Pataki
The Challenge to New York's Internet Censorship Law

CDA courtroom

ACLU Staff Attorney Ann Beeson questions ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt on the impact of New York's Internet censorship law.

Case Materials

Legal Documents

* Judge Preska's Final Ruling Granting a Preliminary Injunction
* Plaintiff's Reply Brief in ALA v. Pataki, filed March 21, 1997
* Complaint in ALA v. Pataki
* Motion for Preliminary Injunction in ALA v. Pataki

Court Transcripts April 3-7

* April 3, Day One
o Plaintiff lawyers Christopher Hansen and Ann Beeson , ACLU; Michael Hertz and Anat Hakim, Latham & Watkins (pro-bono attorneys).
o For the Defendants: Michael McCartney, Investigator, Office of the Attorney General, Buffalo, New York
* April 4, Day Two
o For the Plaintiffs: Diane Kovacs , computer consultant (Mrs. Kovacs will present a live Internet demonstration to the court.
* April 7, Day Three
*
o For the Plaintiffs: Matthew Ehrlich, host of LAMBDA conference on ECHO
o Rudolf Kinsky, artist and member of Art on the Net
o Maurice Friedman, executive director, Westchester Library System
o Barry Steinhardt, associate director, American Civil Liberties Union

Expert Witnesses

* Bill Burrington, America Online
* Gerald Michalski, managing editor, Release 1.0

Plaintiff Declarations

* Judith Krug, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom
* Lile Elam, Art on the Net
* Stacy Horn, ECHO
* Bennett Haselton, Peacefire
* Oren Teicher, American Booksellers Association
* Lawrence Kaufman, Magazine Publishers Association
* Alexis Rosen, PANIX
* Todd Sowers, NYC Net

Press Releases

06/20/1997 -- New York Judge Prohibits State Regulation of Internet
04/18/1997 -- NY's Internet Censorship Law Crosses State Lines, Violating Commerce Clause and Free Speech Rights
04/09/1997 -- Witnesses Describe Internet Censorship Fears to Court; Oral Argument Set for April 22
04/03/1997 -- New York Courtroom Gets Wired As Groups Present Evidence In Challenge to State Cyber-Censorship Law

Press Conference Materials

ACLU CDA newsconference

Pictured left to right: Nancy Kranich, ALA, Glenn Haumann, Bibliobytes, Ann Beeson, ACLU, Norman Siegel, NYCLU, Maurice Friedman, Westchester Library System, and Shabbir Safdar, Voters Telecommunications Watch
(Photo by Emily Whitfield)

Press Release

01/14/1997 -- ACLU, Library Groups and Others Sue to Block New York State Internet Censorship Law

Streaming Video of Press Conference

January 14, 1997 Press Conference announcing lawsuit against New York state Internet censorship law held at CyberCafé
(courtesy of Grit.com)

Statements

American Library Association statement and backgrounder

* Westchester Library Association
* Association of American Publishers
* Public Access Networks (PANIX)
* ECHO
* Mark Coniglio , member, Art on the Net and co-director of Troika Ranch
* Lile Elam , Founder and Webmaster, Art on the Net
* Shabbir Safdar , Voters Telecommunications Watch

The Plaintiffs

* American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
* American Civil Liberties Union
* American Library Association
* Art on the Net
Association of American Publishers
* BiblioBytes
* ECHO
* Freedom to Read Foundation, Inc.
* Interactive Digital Software Association
* Magazine Publishers of America, Inc. (site under construction)
* New York Library Association
* NYC Net
* Peacefire
* Public Access Networks Corp. (PANIX)
* Westchester Library System

Other Related Links

Online Censorship in the States
ACLU v. Miller, the Challenge to Georgia's internet censorship law
Voter's Telecommunications Watch
ACLU v. Reno Collection

Child Online Protection Act - The Law

2008-08-14T07:27:00.001-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Internet Censorship
Child Online Protection Act - The Law

ACLU Defends Free Speech Online >>

In what was codified as 47 U.S.C. 231, COPA provides that:

(1) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.-Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

(2) INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS.-In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever intentionally violates such paragraph shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

(3) CIVIL PENALTY.-In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1) and (2), whoever violates paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

COPA specifically provides that a person shall be considered to make a communication for commercial purposes "only if such person is engaged in the business of making such communication." 47 U.S.C. 231(e)(2)(A). A person will be deemed to be "engaged in the business" if theperson who makes a communication, or offers to make a communication, by means of the World Wide Web, that includes any material that is harmful to minors, devotes time, attention, or labor to such activities, as a regular course of such person's trade or business, with the objective of earning a profit as a result of such activities (although it is not necessary that the person make a profit or that the making or offering to make such communications be the person's sole or principal business or source of income). A person may be considered to be engaged in the business of making, by means of the World Wide Web, communications for commercial purposes that include material that is harmful to minors, only if the person knowingly causes the material that is harmful to minors to be posted on the World Wide Web or knowingly solicits such material to be posted on the World Wide Web.

47 U.S.C. 231(e)(2)(B).

Congress defined material that is harmful to minors as:
any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that-

(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Id.at 231(e)(6). Under COPA, a minor is any person under 17 years of age. Id.at 231(e)(7).

COPA provides communicators on the Web for commercial purposes affirmative defenses to prosecution under the statute. Section 231 (c) provides that:

(c) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.-

(1) DEFENSE.-It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the defendant, in good faith, has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors-

(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number;

(B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or

(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology.

The disclosure of information collected in implementing the affirmative defenses is restricted in 231(d):

(d) PRIVACY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.-

(1) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION LIMITED.-A person making a communication described in subsection (a)-

(A) shall not disclose any information collected for the purposes of restricting access to such communications to individuals 17 years of age or older without the prior written or electronic consent of-

(i) the individual concerned, if the individual is an adult; or

(ii) the individual's parent or guardian, if the individual is under 17 years of age; and

(B) shall take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person other than the person making such communication and the recipient of such communication.

(2) EXCEPTIONS.-A person making a communication described in subsection (a) may disclose such information if the disclosure is-

(A) necessary to make the communication or conduct a legitimate business activity related to making the communication; or

(B) made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure.

The full text of the law is available online at: www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html

ACLU Defends Free Speech Online

2008-08-14T07:23:00.000-07:00

In a clear victory for free speech, a federal court once again upheld a ban on a law that would criminalize constitutionally protected speech on the Internet. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the unconstitutional Child Online Protection Act (COPA) on behalf of a broad coalition of writers, artists and health educators who use the internet to communicate constitutionally protected speech.

Previously, a federal district court and a federal appeals court found the online censorship law violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld that decision, effectively banning enforcement of the law in June 2004 and sending the case back to the district court to determine whether there had been any changes in technology that would affect the constitutionality of the statute, such as whether commercially available blocking software was still as effective as the banned law might be in blocking material deemed "harmful to minors." In March 2007, a district judge once again struck down COPA; the government again appealed, and on July 22, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the ban. More >>
Ten Years of Defending Free Speech Online
1996 - Congress first attempted to censor the Internet >>
1998 - Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) >>
2000 - The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was signed into law >>
2004 - The Supreme Court upheld the district court's decision in COPA >>
2007 - A federal court again upheld challenge to COPA >> At the Trial
(More from the transcripts)

ACLU of Arkansas Applauds Decision by Arkansas Technical University President to Lift Ban on Showing Sondheim-Weidman Musical, “Assassins” (2/29/2008)

2008-08-14T07:22:00.001-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Student Speech
ACLU of Arkansas Applauds Decision by Arkansas Technical University President to Lift Ban on Showing Sondheim-Weidman Musical, “Assassins” (2/29/2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

President Robert Brown Agrees to Allow Performance of Play After Receiving ACLU Letter

Little Rock, Arkansas – Today the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas applauded the decision by Arkansas Technical University President Robert Brown to lift the ban he had imposed on the Theater Department showing the Sondheim-Weidman musical, “Assassins.” Dr. Brown first announced he would permit only one closed performance of the musical for family members of the cast. He later postponed the play indefinitely, “out of respect for the families of victims” of shootings at other campuses, because of the play’s “portrayal of graphically violent scenes.” The University later indicated that concerns about security issues that might be raised by the sounds of gunfire in the production prompted the postponement.

An original ban on student journalists reporting on the controversy was also lifted.

The ACLU of Arkansas worked with faculty, students, cast, and audience members who opposed the University’s decisions, and sent a letter to Dr. Brown and to the attorney for the University on Thursday, February 28, 2008, expressing concern that the indefinite postponement amounted to cancellation, and a violation of free speech. The letter urged the administration to meet with the affected department heads and faculty this week to reschedule the performance. Late Thursday evening, the ACLU received word that the University had reconsidered and that the play would be rescheduled.

“We all agree that there is too much senseless violence in the world,” said ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Rita Sklar. “The answer is to talk freely about the problem and try to come up with solutions, not to stifle speech, or images, or other forms of expression that may be disturbing to some people. By agreeing to let the show go on, Dr. Brown did what was best for all involved, including the University.”

The ACLU letter said, in part, “We understand the University’s expressed concerns, however it is our opinion that the University’s postponement of the play, and prohibition on news reporting by students about the play or postponement violate the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, and the audience. The purpose of this letter is to seek a resolution of the matter with the cooperation of the University. … As you know, hundreds of hours of work went into the preparation of this performance, and unless the play is performed this academic semester, continued indefinite postponement is tantamount to cancellation. The ACLU of Arkansas asks the University to take this opportunity to remedy this situation of its own accord and support the re-staging of this production as written, without any negative consequence to anyone involved in the production or in reporting on the postponement of the production.”

Co-author of the play John Weidman also wrote to Dr. Brown. Weidman wrote: “As the father of a son in college, I understand and support your goal of providing your students with a campus which is as safe as it possibly can be in what have turned into dangerous and uncertain times. What parent does not want his child protected? As the co-author of ‘Assassins,’ however, I do not believe that canceling this musical play helps achieve that goal. On the contrary, [I] believe it undermines it. In many way[s], ‘Assassins’ was written as a response to the extraordinary pain and grief which Americans suffered as a result of the Kennedy Assassination. . . . The … question [to me] was what would move a man or a woman, a citizen of arguably the most open and fluid democratic society in the history of the world to attack our President? By exploring the malignant impulses which motivated each of the men and women who either killed or attempted to kill the President of the United States, we hoped to reveal a pattern of grievance which would provoke a discussion—a discussion of what we could do as a society to alter our behavior to reduce the likelihood that one of these awful attacks would ever happen again.”

Weidman also noted that the graphically violent movie, “American Gangsters,” was shown on campus the night the play was to be performed.

“Those involved in this production are elated,” said ACLU of Arkansas staff attorney Holly Dickson. “They had prepared for months for this show. All they wanted was to perform their musical, and they are working hard to make it happen. It never should have been cancelled, but re-thinking was the right thing for the University to do. We expect the show will go on without any further hitches.”

The performance of “Assassins” has been rescheduled for a four-day run to begin March 14, and will have reserved seating.

ACLU Urges William & Mary to Allow Controversial Show to Go On (2/4/2008)

2008-08-14T07:19:00.000-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Student Speech
ACLU Urges William & Mary to Allow Controversial Show to Go On (2/4/2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Attorney for civil liberties group says contract violates performers’ rights

Richmond, VA -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia today faxed a letter to William & Mary President Gene Nichol urging him to allow a performance of the Sex Workers’ Art Show to take place tonight as scheduled. The letter also informs him that a special contract the college is requiring sponsoring students and performers to sign is unconstitutional.

William & Mary officials have resisted the student-sponsored event, which addresses sex, social class, and work in a variety-show format, since last fall when students first sought a venue and monetary support. The show has been performed without incident for several years in college venues across the country. It was performed last night at Duke University and, among more than 20 other venues this month, will be performed at Harvard, University of Michigan, and the University of Indiana.

Today’s letter, sent by ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg, is the second sent by the ACLU of Virginia. In the first, emailed last week to Mark Constantine, Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs, ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis argued that the Sex Workers’ Art Show has the same right to perform on campus as any other student-sponsored event, and that it should not be subject to special restrictions not required of other shows.

Willis wrote: “While certainly risqué and edgy, neither of which implicate obscenity laws, the Sex Workers’ Art Show is an event rich in images and messages about society, sex and work. In short, it is precisely the kind of expression the First Amendment is intended to protect.”

School officials have asked the sponsoring-student organizations and the performers to sign an addendum to the standard contract in which the students must waive the Virginia law that exempts programs at state-funded schools from the obscenity law, prohibit recordings of the event, and allow the university to withhold payment if in its “sole discretion” Virginia’s obscenity law has been violated.

The sponsoring students and representatives of the Sex Workers’ Art Show sought to amend the addendum to give a court the authority to decide if obscenity laws have been violated and to allow performers to record the show as a defense against obscenity charges. The school refused.

A copy of the letters from Willis and Glenberg can be found below.

February 4, 2008

Via Facsimile (757) 221-1259
Gene R. Nichol, President
College of William and Mary
Office of the President
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795

Dear President Nichol:

I write to voice our strong objections to your insistence that the Sex Workers’ Art Show (the “Art Show”) and the student organizations sponsoring it sign a contract addendum in order for the show to go forward this evening. Specifically, it is our opinion that to single out the Art Show for special requirements solely on the basis of its sexual content violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is my understanding the College of William and Mary has a standard contract that is used for all performances using campus venues. In addition to this contract, you have demanded that the Art Show and its sponsors sign an addendum that has not been required of any other student-sponsored special events. The addendum requires the Art Show and sponsoring organizations to refuse admission to persons under the age of 18, which, I understand, the Art Show and sponsoring organizations have already agreed to do. Additionally, however, the addendum contains the following unreasonable and onerous conditions:

1. It requires the performance to comply with laws pertaining to obscene performances, even though those laws contain an express exception for performances at institutions of higher education. Va. Code § 18.2-383. It is my understanding that this requirement is not pursuant to a general university policy that applies to all performances at the university, but rather is being specifically and solely imposed on the Sex Workers’ Art Show on the basis of its content, notwithstanding the fact that the Art Show has been performed on numerous other campuses and at other venues without ever having been charged with obscenity-related offenses.

2. It prohibits any recording of the Art Show, even by the Art Show itself or the sponsoring organizations for their own purposes. Again, this requirement is being imposed on the Art Show solely based on its content. The requirement is particularly onerous in that, should the College later decide that the performance was in fact obscene, the Art Show and its sponsors will have no record of the performance to dispute the College’s finding.

3. In the event of a breach of these requirements, it allows the College, “in its sole discretion,” to cancel or terminate the performance, deny the sponsoring organizations space or funding for future events, withhold the Sex Workers’ fee and ban them from future performances on campus.

It is my further understanding that this contract addendum comes on the heels of earlier efforts by the College to prevent this show from going forward. Specifically, it is my understanding that the show was initially denied a venue under the school’s “lottery” system, while every other applicant was granted a venue. Then, the show and its sponsors were told that they would not be given a venue until funding for the show was secured, a condition that was not imposed on any other events. In short, this last-minute contract addendum appears to be part of a well established pattern of discrimination against the Art Show based on its content.

For these reasons, we strongly urge you to allow the Art Show to go forward on an equal basis with other student-sponsored events, without requiring the additional restrictions imposed in the contract addendum.

Sincerely,

Rebecca K. Glenberg, Legal Director

School District Affirms Student Speech Rights After 10th Grader Punished for ‘gay? fine by me’ T-Shirt (12/7/2007)

2008-08-14T07:18:00.000-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Student Speech
School District Affirms Student Speech Rights After 10th Grader Punished for ‘gay? fine by me’ T-Shirt (12/7/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK -- The Spencer-Van Etten School District has met a demand from the New York Civil Liberties Union that it send a message directly to its student body affirming students’ constitutional right to free speech. The development occurred in response to the censorship of a Tioga County High School student for wearing a “gay? fine by me” T-shirt.

Heathyre Farnham, a 10th grade student, was sent home from school on September 21 for wearing the T-shirt.

After the New York Civil Liberties Union intervened in October, the school district admitted it had violated Farnham’s free speech rights and agreed to issue a declaration that all high school students are permitted to wear clothing that conveys controversial messages, including messages supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Barrie Gewanter, director of the NYCLU’s Central New York Chapter, worked with NYCLU staff attorneys Matt Faiella and Palyn Hung to represent Farnham, who organized public opposition to the censorship with her mother, Brynda Beeman.

“Heathyre displayed enormous courage in refusing to surrender her First Amendment rights or the rights of her classmates,” Faiella said. “These students stand behind an inclusive message of free speech, and I think that’s great.”

Gewanter delivered a presentation to the high school’s faculty on students’ First Amendment rights on October 22. The following day, the school district’s attorney publicly admitted that the censorship was a mistake. That evening, Gewanter addressed the district’s school board, while Faiella continued to negotiate with the school district’s attorneys about issuing a statement to the high school’s students affirming their free speech rights.

On November 2, the following message, most of which was proposed by the NYCLU, was broadcast over the schools public address system:

“The school dress code does not prohibit students from displaying controversial or political messages. There is a wide range of these types of messages that are acceptable, including messages supportive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The dress code does prohibit students from displaying obscene or profane words or images or messages promoting the use of alcohol, drugs or tobacco products.”

The school district subsequently issued Farnham a private apology.

Gewanter said the statement and apology were necessary to repair the damage caused by the censorship.

“When you enact censorship like this, it puts a chilling effect on the student body, and you cannot cure this chill with silence,” Gewanter said. “We appreciated the opportunity to address the faculty and school board, but the Spencer-Van Etten school district had the further obligation to inform students that they have First Amendment rights in their school.”

This incident and the resulting publicity raised created an opportunity to educate the school board, faculty, and the community on students’ free speech rights and the challenges some LGBT youth face within their schools.

“The NYCLU feels these are positive developments,” Gewanter said.

ACLU of Southern California Asks Chapman University to Restore Free Speech Rights to Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity Members (10/3/2007)

2008-08-14T07:17:00.001-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Student Speech
ACLU of Southern California Asks Chapman University to Restore Free Speech Rights to Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity Members (10/3/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

ORANGE, CA - The ACLU of Southern California is asking administrators of Chapman University to restore the free speech and association rights of a group of students affiliated with the Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity on their campus.

In February 2006, a group of about 18 students who wanted to start a chapter of the national Jewish fraternity at Chapman had their application turned down by campus officials. Determined to change administrators' minds, the group continued to wear fraternity T-shirts and recruit members. Instead of winning the administrators over, Chapman officials responded by ordering the group to immediately cease advertising and/or hosting fraternity-related events on campus, "including having students meet on university premises for off-campus events." They were also told to remove a page they had created on the college social-networking website Facebook.

"The students affiliated with Sigma Alpha Mu must retain their fundamental free speech rights while on the Chapman campus," director of the Orange County office of the ACLU of Southern California Hector Villagra wrote in a letter sent to Chapman administrators yesterday. "I ask that you provide immediate written confirmation that (1) the restrictions on the free speech rights of students from Sigma Alpha Mu … have been rescinded, and (2) the records of any violations of these restrictions have been expunged."

Villagra also pointed out that no other student or association of students has been subjected to the severe restrictions imposed on the Sigma Alpha Mu members.

California state law protects the free speech rights of students attending public and private colleges and universities. Chapman is a private university.

The two-year battle to get a Sigma Alpha Mu chapter at Chapman was started by Pascal De Maria, now a senior at the university. "All the group wanted to do was have a positive Jewish fraternal experience, that's all - like the recognized fraternities are able to enjoy," De Maria said. "We respect the university's decision to not have us on campus as a recognized fraternity but we would like to be able to have a table on campus like the other groups and advertise on campus."

Dr. Barry Resnick, an alumni adviser with the national Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity who has been working on behalf of the Chapman students, said, "I have repeatedly brought this matter to the attention of the university's chancellor, president and chairman of board of trustees and they elected to do nothing to lift or modify the restrictions on the students' rights."

Pascal's mother, Barbara De Maria, expressed concern that the college experiences of her son and the other members of the group have been undermined. "The boys were humiliated and made outcasts," she said. "The university instructed the members of the recognized fraternities and sororities to report them for wearing their letters or congregating on campus. As a parent I was appalled at the lack of accountability within the administration."

ACLU Sues Federal Agents for Illegal Arrest and Detention of Iraqi Refugee (3/17/2005)

2008-08-14T07:15:00.001-07:00

Home : Immigrants' Rights : Asylum/Refugees
ACLU Sues Federal Agents for Illegal Arrest and Detention of Iraqi Refugee (3/17/2005)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

GREAT FALLS, MT--The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, and the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project today sued two federal agents for unlawfully stopping, interrogating, arresting, imprisoning, and seeking to deport an Iraqi refugee who was legally admitted to the United States and had broken no laws. As a result of his illegal detention, the man lost his job and suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress.

"Federal agents singled out a legal refugee from Iraq solely based on his race and ethnicity. It is important that government officials be held accountable for such abuses of power," said ACLU of Washington Executive Director Kathleen Taylor.

Abdul Ameer Yousef Habeeb, who came to the United States as a refugee after suffering persecution by Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq, was stopped at a train station in Havre, Montana on April 1, 2003. Habeeb was en route to Washington, DC, to begin a new job with an Arabic-language newspaper. Along with other passengers, Habeeb had stepped off the train during a 30-minute station stop at Havre. He was singled out by two agents of the United States Customs and Border Patrol who demanded to know where he was from. After Habeeb responded that he was from Iraq and produced a copy of a form regarding his admission into the United States as a refugee, Agents Thomas Castloo and Darryl Essing asked whether he had gone through "special registration," a program requiring that certain non-citizens be fingerprinted and photographed. Although Habeeb's refugee status meant that he was not required to register, the agents nonetheless arrested him when he answered that he had not registered.

Habeeb was questioned at length by additional customs and FBI agents and detained overnight. The next day, Agent Essing initiated deportation proceedings against Habeeb based on the charge that he failed to appear for special registration. The agent erroneously stated that Habeeb "failed to appear for special registration on or before February 7, 2003, as mandated by the order of Attorney General published in the Federal Register," even though refugees were not required to do so.

As a result of the officers' illegal actions, Habeeb spent three nights in detention at the Hill County Jail in Montana. During that time, he was forced to strip naked in front of a government agent and was humiliated by other detainees who called him "Saddam." Then he was transported publicly through the airport in handcuffs and flown to Seattle where he spent four more nights in a detention facility, terrified that he would be sent back to Iraq. The deportation proceedings against him were not formally terminated until May 16, 2003.

"When government officials abuse their power to harass immigrants and refugees who have done nothing wrong, they are acting in complete disregard for the rule of law," said ACLU of Montana Executive Director Scott Crichton.

The controversial special registration program, which the agents cited when detaining Habeeb, required men and boys from 25 predominantly Muslim countries to report for registration, and thousands were put in deportation proceedings as a result. Although certain registration requirements continue, components of the program were suspended by the Homeland Security Department in December 2003 after some officials criticized the program for diverting resources from more pressing needs.

Several national security experts and civil rights organizations charged that the program did little to make the country safer and instead only strained relations with Arab and Muslim communities.

"Mr. Habeeb's mistreatment in this case is the inevitable outcome of a program that targets people for suspicion based on where they were born or what they look like, rather than individualized conduct," said Robin Goldfaden, staff counsel with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.

Habeeb's treatment at the hands of U.S. agents is especially disturbing given the circumstances that brought him to the country, said the ACLU attorneys.

Habeeb's brother Abdallah was executed by Saddam Hussein's regime in 1982, and Habeeb was imprisoned twice, most recently in 1997. His hands and face bear the scars resulting from the torture that he endured during these incidents. Habeeb's father, who was a prominent business and community leader among the Rabia tribe, which had supported the monarchy that was supplanted by Saddam Hussein and the Baath party, was killed in a suspicious car crash in 1999. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Habeeb had a well-founded fear of political persecution in Iraq and granted him refugee status. Habeeb was admitted to the United States in July 2002 and took up residence in Kent, Washington.

The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court of Montana at Great Falls and seeks compensation and damages for Habeeb's losses and suffering. Handling the case are ACLU of Washington cooperating attorney Jesse Wing, ACLU of Montana attorney Andrew Huff, ACLU of Washington staff attorney Aaron Caplan, and ACLU Immigrants Rights Project attorneys Goldfaden and Judy Rabinovitz.

For a copy of the complaint, go to: /immigrants/asylum/11740lgl20050317.html.

ACLU Files Lawsuit to Protect Religious Liberty of Imprisoned Asylum Seeker (5/18/2005)

2008-08-14T07:12:00.000-07:00

Home : Immigrants' Rights : Asylum/Refugees
ACLU Files Lawsuit to Protect Religious Liberty of Imprisoned Asylum Seeker (5/18/2005)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

SAN FRANCISCO -- The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging restrictions on an asylum seeker's right to wear a religious head covering. The plaintiff, Harpal Singh Cheema, is a devout Sikh, imprisoned since 1997 while awaiting a decision on his asylum application.

"It is deeply troubling that a person seeking refuge from persecution can not only be locked up for years on end but also be deprived of the religious freedom he expected in America," said Robin Goldfaden, staff counsel with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.

Fleeing persecution, Cheema, a human rights lawyer and political activist in India, escaped to the United States after enduring brutal torture at the hands of Indian authorities. Since 1993, his application for asylum and other immigration relief has been making its way through the immigration and federal courts.

While the Sikh faith requires men to cover their heads at all times, Yuba County jail authorities will not permit Cheema to leave his bed with his head covered. "Confinement to bed should not be the price of complying with religious obligations," Goldfaden said.

Along with Yuba County Jail officials, the lawsuit names as defendants federal immigration authorities who are responsible for Cheema's detention. The federal government contracts with local facilities such as Yuba County Jail to house individuals who are detained pending the outcome of their immigration proceedings. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement remains responsible for ensuring that each facility complies with national detention standards. These standards include guidelines stating that immigration detainees should be allowed to wear religious head coverings.

The lawsuit charges that the restrictions on Cheema's religious practice violate religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment and federal laws, including the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. "At a time when the world is watching how America treats its detainees abroad, it is important that our government respect the fundamental rights of people detained in this country," said Margaret Crosby, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

"Wearing a turban is one of the Sikh religion's central requirements," said Jaskaran Kaur, Executive Director of ENSAAF, a nonprofit organization working with survivors of human rights abuses from India. "For Mr. Cheema, having his head uncovered is a deeply humiliating and defiling experience." The daastar, as the Sikh turban is known, is a mandatory symbol of devotion to the faith, explained Kaur.

Representing Cheema along with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project and the ACLU of Northern California are ENSAAF and the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

The case is Cheema v. Chandless, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The complaint is available online at: /immigrants/gen/11735lgl20050518.html.

Court Says 'No' to Indefinite Detention (3/17/2006)

2008-08-14T07:11:00.000-07:00

Home : Immigrants' Rights : Asylum/Refugees
Court Says 'No' to Indefinite Detention (3/17/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Ninth Circuit Orders Release of Sri Lankan Tamil Torture Victim Held for Nearly Five Years

LOS ANGELES - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today unanimously ordered the immediate release of a Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seeker and torture victim who has been imprisoned by the government for nearly five years.

Despite being granted asylum repeatedly by two immigration courts, 25-year-old Ahilan Nadarajah, who was severely persecuted in Sri Lanka before fleeing, has been held in a federal detention center in San Diego since late 2001.

"This case is about a torture victim who fled to this country seeking asylum and who was locked up for years even though he kept winning his asylum case," said Ahilan Arulanantham, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "The court's ruling strongly confirms that the government cannot lock up people for years indefinitely and without good reason."

The Ninth Circuit ruled that Nadarajah's detention violated the law for three reasons: because of its extreme length, because there is almost no chance that the government will ever remove him to another country, and because the government's allegation that he poses a danger is completely unfounded. Writing for the three-judge panel Judge Sidney R. Thomas stated, "...we conclude that the general immigration detention statutes do not authorize the attorney general to incarcerate detainees for an indefinite period."

The court went on to say that, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, arriving immigrants like Nadarajah who are in immigration proceedings can be detained only "for a reasonable period and only if there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future."

"I'm so happy that this day has come and that the government will release me. I knew in my heart all along that this day would come, I just want to get on with the rest of my life," said Ahilan Nadarajah.

Nadarajah is a member of the Tamil ethnic minority in Sri Lanka who lived with his family and worked on their farm from childhood until 2001. In the mid-1990s, during years of civil unrest and turmoil, the Sri Lankan army invaded his small town, forcing his family to flee from their home. As a teenager, he was repeatedly kidnapped and tortured by the Sri Lankan Army solely because of his minority status. The Army accused him of being a member of the separatist group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). At one point, the Army strung him up by his ankles and poured gasoline on him. His attackers warned him if they found him again, they would kill him.

In October 2001 Nadarajah fled Sri Lanka in fear for his life and headed to Canada, where he had family members. En route, he crossed the Mexico-U.S. border and was immediately apprehended and detained in San Diego, where he has remained.

"This case is a sharp rebuke to the government's policy of detaining immigrants for years and years while their immigration cases are pending, even when they don't pose any danger or flight risk," said Arulanantham. "The government said he was a national security risk and accused him of being affiliated with the LTTE, but every court that examined the evidence found that there was no basis whatsoever for this accusation."

Over the last four and a half years, as Nadarajah's case wound through the courts, an immigration judge twice rejected the government's allegations that he is a national security risk and granted him relief under the Geneva Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals also affirmed the decision.

Government Apologizes for Unlawful Arrest and Detention of Iraqi Refugee (8/23/2007)

2008-08-14T07:10:00.000-07:00

Home : Immigrants' Rights : Asylum/Refugees
Government Apologizes for Unlawful Arrest and Detention of Iraqi Refugee (8/23/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Abdulameer Yousef Habeeb speaks at a press conference with ACLU of Washington executive director Kathleen Taylor.

SEATTLE -- The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that the United States government has apologized to Abdulameer Yousef Habeeb, an Iraqi refugee whom federal agents unlawfully stopped, interrogated, arrested, imprisoned, and sought to deport. At the request of federal officials and the ACLU, a federal district court judge in Montana vacated a 2006 ruling upholding Habeeb's arrest and detention. The government also provided Habeeb compensation for its mistreatment of him.

"Government officials must be held accountable for abusing their powers," said Jesse Wing, cooperating attorney and board president of the ACLU of Washington. "Federal agents singled out Mr. Habeeb based on his race and ethnicity. The settlement is a strong reminder that the government must not engage in ethnic profiling."

The actions came in the settlement of a lawsuit the ACLU filed in 2005 on behalf of Habeeb, a resident of Kent, Washington. Habeeb was lawfully admitted to the United States as a refugee from Iraq and had broken no laws. As a result of his illegal detention, he lost his job and suffered humiliation and emotional distress.

Habeeb came to the United States as a refugee after suffering persecution by Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. He was stopped at a train station in Havre, Montana on April 1, 2003 while en route from Seattle to Washington, DC to begin a new job with an Arabic-language newspaper. Along with other passengers, Habeeb had stepped off the train to stretch his legs during a 30-minute station stop at Havre.

Habeeb was singled out by two Border Patrol agents who demanded to know where he was from. After Habeeb responded that he was from Iraq and produced a copy of a form showing his admission into the United States as a refugee, the agents asked whether he had gone through the National Security Entry/Exit Registration System (NSEERS, known as "special registration"), a program requiring that certain non-citizens be fingerprinted and photographed. Although Habeeb's refugee status meant that he was not required to undergo "special registration," the agents nonetheless arrested him when he answered that he had not registered.

Habeeb was questioned at length by additional Border Patrol and FBI agents and detained overnight. The next day, the government initiated deportation proceedings against Habeeb based on the charge that he failed to appear for special registration. In the charging document, one of the Border Patrol agents falsely stated that Habeeb had been required to appear for special registration even though he was refugee.
Habeeb spent three nights in detention at the Hill County Jail in Montana. During that time, he was forced to strip naked in front of a government agent and was humiliated by other detainees who called him "Saddam." Then he was transported publicly through the airport in handcuffs and flown to Seattle where he spent four more nights in a detention facility, terrified that he would be sent back to Iraq. The deportation proceedings against him were not formally terminated until May 16, 2003.

"Mr. Habeeb's mistreatment in this case was the inevitable outcome of a program that targets people for suspicion based on where they were born or what they look like, rather than individualized conduct," said Robin Goldfaden, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.

On June 13, 2007, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan for the Western District of Washington gave Habeeb a formal statement that "the United States of America acknowledges that, by not registering under NSEERS, you did nothing wrong. The United States of America regrets the mistake."

On July 16, 2007, Judge Sam Haddon of the U.S. District Court in Great Falls, Montana, vacated his original June 2006 judgment in Habeeb's lawsuit that upheld the Border Patrol agents' mistreatment of him. When Habeeb had appealed that judgment, the government acknowledged that its agents had mistakenly arrested and detained him, and repudiated its original position.

Habeeb's treatment at the hands of U.S. agents is especially disturbing given the circumstances that brought him to this country.

Habeeb's brother Abdallah was executed by Saddam Hussein's regime in 1982, and Habeeb was imprisoned twice, most recently in 1997. He still bears the scars resulting from the torture that he endured during these incidents. Habeeb's father, a prominent business and community leader among the Rabia tribe that had supported the monarchy supplanted by Saddam Hussein and the Baath party, was killed in 1999. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Habeeb had a well‑founded fear of political persecution in Iraq and granted him refugee status. Habeeb was admitted to the United States in July 2002 and took up residence in Kent, Washington.

The discriminatory special registration (NSEERS) program, which the agents cited when detaining Habeeb, required men and boys from 25 predominantly Muslim countries to report for registration; thousands were put in deportation proceedings as a result. Although certain registration requirements continue, components of the program were suspended by the Homeland Security Department in December 2003 after some officials criticized the program for diverting resources from more pressing needs. Several national security experts and civil rights organizations charged that the program did little to make the country safer and instead only strained relations with Arab and Muslim communities.

ACLU of Washington cooperating attorney Jesse Wing of the law firm MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project attorneys Robin Goldfaden and Judy Rabinovitz, ACLU of Washington staff attorney Aaron Caplan, and ACLU of Montana attorney Andrew I. Huff and Legal Director Elizabeth Griffing handled the case.

ACLU Asks Court to Bar Government From Deporting Egyptian National to Torture (8/30/2007)

2008-08-14T07:08:00.000-07:00

Home : Immigrants' Rights : Asylum/Refugees
ACLU Asks Court to Bar Government From Deporting Egyptian National to Torture (8/30/2007)

Group Says Egypt's Promise Not to Torture Is Inherently Unreliable

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

SCRANTON, PA - At a hearing today in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the U.S. government cannot deport an Egyptian national back to Egypt based on "diplomatic assurances" from the Egyptian government that it will not torture him upon his return. The ACLU also asked that he be immediately released from detention, where he has been held since May.

Sameh Khouzam, a Christian who came to the United States in 1998 fleeing religious persecution in Egypt, was granted protection from deportation under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 2004 after a federal appeals court found that he would likely be tortured if sent back to Egypt. Despite this finding, as well as State Department reports showing that Egypt routinely engages in torture, the U.S. government is trying to deport Khouzam to Egypt based on "diplomatic assurances" the U.S. claims to have received from the Egyptian government that it asserts are "sufficiently reliable" to protect him from torture.

"The U.S. government is violating its treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture by attempting to deport Mr. Khouzam back to Egypt based on diplomatic assurances that are inherently unreliable," said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "Sending Mr. Khouzam back to Egypt despite its record of systemic torture and a court's prior finding that he would likely be tortured there is illegal and unconscionable."

Ratified by the U.S. in 1994, and implemented by domestic legislation, the Convention Against Torture prohibits the U.S. from transferring a person "to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." The U.S. government is using "diplomatic assurances" - in Khouzam's case and others - to circumvent its treaty obligations, and transferring individuals to countries that provide nothing more than unenforceable promises that they will not engage in torture, according to the ACLU and other human rights groups.

In Khouzam's case, neither he nor his lawyers have seen the Egyptian assurances that are the basis for terminating his CAT protection. Nor has the U.S. government offered any explanation for why these assurances are deemed sufficiently reliable to protect Khouzam from torture. Indeed, Khouzam did not receive any notice that his CAT protection was being terminated until May 29, when, upon appearing for a routine check-in with immigration authorities, he was taken into detention and provided with a one-paragraph explanation from Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, informing him that he could be removed within 72 hours.

"What is most egregious about the U.S. government's conduct in this case is its insistence that it need not provide any mechanism whatsoever in which Mr. Khouzam can challenge the reliability and sufficiency of Egypt's diplomatic assurances," said Judy Rabinovitz, a senior attorney with the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "Especially in light of the severe consequences Mr. Khouzam will suffer from an erroneous decision, the government's actions here defy fundamental notions of due process to which both citizens and non-citizens alike are entitled."

Today's hearing was before Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who issued an emergency stay of Khouzam's removal in June, shortly after Khouzam was informed that his CAT protection had been terminated and his removal imminent. That stay remains in place pending the outcome of the court proceedings. The U.S. government, however, has opposed the court's involvement in this case, repeatedly arguing that the executive branch has unfettered authority to determine that the diplomatic assurances are sufficiently reliable to remove Khouzam, and that the federal courts lack jurisdiction to review its decision.

"This administration's claim that it can send a man to a country where he will almost certainly be tortured and that no court has the power to even review the government's actions flies in the face of every principle of American law, pre-or post-September 11," said Lee Gelernt, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "This administration has consistently attempted to eliminate any meaningful role for the courts."

Pending the court's decision, Khouzam remains detained in the York County Prison in Pennsylvania. When Khouzam first came to the U.S. in 1998, he was immediately placed in immigration detention based on allegations by the Egyptian authorities that he was wanted in Egypt on a murder charge. Khouzam denies those allegations, and to date, the Egyptian authorities have produced little evidence to support this charge. Nonetheless, Khouzam was imprisoned by U.S. immigration authorities for the next six years while he challenged his removal and pursued relief under the Convention Against Torture, and for an additional two years after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in his favor in February 2004. Finally, in February 2006, a federal district court ordered his release from detention. Since that time, and prior to his re-detention on May 29, Khouzam was living and working in Pennsylvania as controller of a real estate company. A large circle of well-wishers in his church community have been advocating to prevent Khouzam's deportation and secure his release. The ACLU is asking that the court release Khouzam under reasonable conditions of supervision pending a final decision in his case.

The U.S. State Department has documented widespread Egyptian persecution and discrimination against Christians and other religious minorities, as well as widespread use of torture in Egypt. A State Department report on the matter is available at:
www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78851.htm

Affidavits filed in court papers for Khouzam demonstrate that torture and abuse in Egyptian detention facilities are routine and Egypt has breached similar diplomatic assurances in the past. Senator Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA) recently sent a letter to Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff supporting Khouzam and denouncing Egypt's diplomatic assurances. That letter is available at:
www.aclupa.org/downloads/CaseytoChertoffonKhouzam.pdf.

Congressman Joseph Pitts (R-PA) also sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requesting Khouzam's deportation be cancelled. That letter is available at:
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/29982prs20070604.html

Attorneys representing Khouzam are Singh, Rabinovitz, Gelernt and Alice Clapman of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, Vic Walczak and Mary Catherine Roper of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and Morton Sklar of World Organization for Human Rights USA.

The brief is available at:
www.aclupa.org/downloads/KhouzamReplyHabeasPet082207.pdf

The emergency stay granted by Judge Vanaskie is available at:
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/29979lgl20070531.html

The original decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is available at:
www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/29981lgl20040224.html

Additional documents related to this case are available at:
www.aclupa.org/egyptiantorture

Immigrants Rights : Asylum-Refugees : Press Releases

2008-08-14T07:06:00.000-07:00

Home : Immigrants' Rights : Asylum/Refugees

Immigrants Rights : Asylum-Refugees : Press Releases

ACLU Asks Court to Bar Government From Deporting Egyptian National to Torture (08/30/2007)
SCRANTON, PA - At a hearing today in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the U.S. government cannot deport an Egyptian national back to Egypt based on "diplomatic assurances" from the Egyptian government that it will not torture him upon his return. The ACLU also asked that he be immediately released from detention, where he has been held since May.

Government Apologizes for Unlawful Arrest and Detention of Iraqi Refugee (08/23/2007)
SEATTLE -- The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that the United States government has apologized to Abdulameer Yousef Habeeb, an Iraqi refugee whom federal agents unlawfully stopped, interrogated, arrested, imprisoned, and sought to deport. At the request of federal officials and the ACLU, a federal district court judge in Montana vacated a 2006 ruling upholding Habeeb's arrest and detention. The government also provided Habeeb compensation for its mistreatment of him.

Court Says 'No' to Indefinite Detention (03/17/2006)
LOS ANGELES - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today unanimously ordered the immediate release of a Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seeker and torture victim who has been imprisoned by the government for nearly five years.

ACLU Files Lawsuit to Protect Religious Liberty of Imprisoned Asylum Seeker (05/18/2005)
SAN FRANCISCO -- The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging restrictions on an asylum seeker's right to wear a religious head covering. The plaintiff, Harpal Singh Cheema, is a devout Sikh, imprisoned since 1997 while awaiting a decision on his asylum application.

ACLU Sues Federal Agents for Illegal Arrest and Detention of Iraqi Refugee (03/17/2005)
GREAT FALLS, MT--The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, and the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project today sued two federal agents for unlawfully stopping, interrogating, arresting, imprisoning, and seeking to deport an Iraqi refugee who was legally admitted to the United States and had broken no laws. As a result of his illegal detention, the man lost his job and suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress.
Immigrants Rights : Asylum-Refugees : Legal Documents

Khouzam v. Hogan - Memo and Order (01/10/2008)

Uribe-Reyna v. Chertoff Motion for Reconsideration (01/31/2007)
Uribe-Reyna v. Chertoff Motion for Reconsideration

Complaint in Habeeb v. Castloo (03/17/2005)
Immigrants Rights : Asylum-Refugees : Legislative Documents view all

Testimony of Tom Jawetz for the House Immigration Subcommittee Hearing Detention and Removal: Immigration Detainee Medical Care (10/04/2007)

Testimony of Edwidge Danticat for the House Immigration Subcommittee Hearing Detention and Removal: Immigration Detainee Medical Care (10/04/2007)

Testimony of Dr. Allen Keller for the House Immigration Subcommittee Hearing Detention and Removal: Immigration Detainee Medical Care (10/04/2007)

Testimony of June Everett for the House Immigration Subcommittee Hearing Detention and Removal: Immigration Detainee Medical Care (10/04/2007)

Testimony of Francisco Castaneda for the House Immigration Subcommittee Hearing Detention and Removal: Immigration Detainee Medical Care (10/04/2007)
Immigrants Rights : Asylum-Refugees : Court Cases

Khouzam v. Chertoff (03/07/2002)
The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) prevailed in their case on behalf of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had been detained and who claimed he had been tortured by the Egyptian government because he refused to convert to Islam. After permitting Sameh Khouzam to stay in the United States for nine years based on evidence that he would probably be tortured if he returned to Egypt, the U.S. government changed its position in 2007 and sought to deport Mr. Khouzam based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured upon return. As a result of the ACLU's advocacy, a federal court granted Mr. Khouzam an indefinite stay of deportation to Egypt.

Court Blocks Local Arizona Anti-Solicitation Law (8/8/2008)

2008-08-14T07:04:00.000-07:00

Home : Immigrants' Rights : Discrimination
Court Blocks Local Arizona Anti-Solicitation Law (8/8/2008)

Law Restricted Free Speech Rights Of Day Laborers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – The U.S District Court of Arizona today blocked the town of Cave Creek, Arizona from enforcing an anti-solicitation ordinance that infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers in that town. The order ensures that day laborers will be able to exercise their constitutional rights by expressing their availability to work in public areas.

"The court ordered defendants to stop enforcing an unconstitutional law and allow day laborers to express their willingness to work by peaceably standing on the side of the road," said Mónica M. Ramírez, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project, which is lead counsel in the case. "The Constitution protects everyone in this country and today's final ruling is a victory for the free speech rights not only of day laborers but of everyone in the town of Cave Creek."

In late March, the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed a lawsuit against the town of Cave Creek and the town's mayor and deputy mayor on behalf of Hector Lopez, Leopoldo Ibarra and Ismael Ibarra, three longtime day laborers and Arizona residents who in the past successfully solicited employment in Cave Creek by standing in public areas, peaceably indicating to occupants of passing vehicles their availability for temporary employment. The district court issued a preliminary injunction stopping the town from enforcing the ordinance in June.

After June’s preliminary injunction, the town of Cave Creek agreed not to enforce the anti-solicitation ordinance and to accept a final ruling blocking the law. In its ruling today, the court ordered that the ordinance not be enforced for the same reasons set forth in its June order, in which it stressed that other district courts in the Ninth Circuit have uniformly found similar anti-solicitation ordinances unconstitutional.

"Across the country, courts have found that these local anti-solicitation ordinances, which are merely pretext for targeting day laborers and other Latinos, don’t pass constitutional muster," said Kristina Campbell, MALDEF staff attorney. "Before other states and local municipalities consider passing similar discriminatory and unlawful ordinances, they should remember that these laws will fail under legal scrutiny and open them up to costly litigation."

Alessandra Soler Meetze, Director of the ACLU of Arizona said, "The courts have continually found that day laborers and others who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to solicit employment in public places have the right to do so without fear that they will be discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin or because they are perceived to be foreign born."

In September 2007, the Cave Creek Town Council passed an anti-solicitation ordinance that restricted free speech by prohibiting solicitation of employment, business or contributions from the occupants of vehicles when standing on or next to a street or highway. The ordinance went so far as to bar solicitation from occupants in vehicles that are lawfully parked in public areas.

Before the town passed the ordinance, day laborers – who are usually hired by homeowners to perform services like gardening, moving, light construction, housework and painting – solicited work in public areas.

While the town was apparently motivated by a desire to target immigration, the ordinance applied to everyone in Cave Creek regardless of their nationality or immigration status. The ACLU argued that individuals, regardless of their immigration status, have the right to free speech which includes peaceably soliciting employment in public areas.

Lawyers on the case include Ramírez and Cecillia D. Wang of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona; and Campbell and Cynthia Valenzuela of MALDEF.

The court's permanent injunction and final ruling in Lopez, et al vs. Town of Cave Creek, et. al., is available online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/36359lgl20080808.html

Federal Court Says Ban on Alcohol-Related Advertising in College Publications Violates Free Speech (4/1/2001)

2008-08-14T07:01:00.000-07:00

Home : Free Speech : Student Speech
Federal Court Says Ban on Alcohol-Related Advertising in College Publications Violates Free Speech (4/1/2008)

ACLU Filed Suit on Behalf of Student Newspapers at Virginia Tech and UVA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kent Willis (o) 804/644-8080, (c) 804/399-4191, kwillis@acluva.org

Christian K. Glenberg (804) 644-8080

Richmond, VA - A U.S. District Court in Richmond ruled yesterday that the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's restrictions on alcohol-related advertisements in college publications are an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

ABC lawyers maintained that the rules were put in place to reduce illegal consumption of alcohol by students, but the court said there was no evidence that the advertising ban had any effect on underage drinking and that it was clear that there were other legitimate ways the state could reduce student drinking, including educational programs, increased taxation on alcohol, and counter-advertising.

"As the court points out, the ACLU has no interest in promoting underage drinking," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. "But we do have a strong interest in protecting the right of free speech. When the government curbs speech, it has to show that it serves an important societal purpose. There was simply no evidence whatsoever that limiting advertising in this way reduced alcohol consumption by students."

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech, the owner of Virginia Tech's Collegiate Times, and the University of Virginia's Cavalier Daily. Both claimed that the ban on alcohol advertising unfairly interfered with their ability to raise revenues needed to operate the papers.

The ACLU of Virginia's challenge was similar to a case brought in Pennsylvania in 2004. There the University of Pittsburgh's student paper, Pitt News, challenged restrictions on alcohol advertising and prevailed when a federal appeals court held that the restrictions violated the First Amendment right to freedom of the press because they unjustifiably imposed a burden on media associated with universities and colleges but not on other media.

The ABC regulations struck down by the court prohibit the advertising of beer, wine, and mixed drinks in college student publications unless they are in the context of an ad for a "dining establishment" and limited to the words "A.B.C. on-premises", "beer," "wine", "mixed beverages" or "cocktails."

The case is Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech v. Swecker. The ruling from the U.S. District Court in Richmond can be found at www.acluva.org. ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Christian K. Glenberg and ACLU cooperating attorney Frank Feibelman of Richmond represented Collegiate Times and the Cavalier Daily.

Home : Supreme Court : 2001 Term : Ashcroft vs ACLU, 00-1293 Ashcroft vs ACLU, 00-1293 9/1/2001 2001 TERM DECIDED Legal Documents - Brief for

2008-08-14T06:56:00.000-07:00

Home : Supreme Court : 2001 Term : Ashcroft v. ACLU, 00-1293

Ashcroft v. ACLU, 00-1293
9/1/2001
2001 TERM

DECIDED

Legal Documents
> Brief for the Respondents in Ashcroft v. ACLU (9/1/2001)

Supreme Court : 2001 Term : Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 00-795

2008-08-14T06:55:00.001-07:00

Supreme Court : 2001 Term : Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 00-795

Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 00-795
9/1/2001
2001 TERM

DECIDED

Legal Documents
> ACLU Amicus Brief in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition (9/1/2001)

Press
> Supreme Court Strikes Down Another Attempt by Congress to Restrict Free Speech (4/16/2002)

Supreme Court : 2005 Term : Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, 04-1581

2008-08-14T06:49:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court : 2005 Term : Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, 04-1581

Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, 04-1581
11/21/2005
FREE SPEECH

Whether the ACLU can be barred from broadcasting advertisements prior to an election that name a federal candidate, even though the ACLU has never taken a position on an election in its 85-year history. DECIDED
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold Act, generally bars corporations and unions from broadcasting advertisements on radio or television in the period preceding an election if those ads refer to a candidate for federal office, including an incumbent officeholder. The Supreme Court upheld that general ban two years ago in McConnell v. FEC. The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization that does not endorse or oppose candidates. The ban on broadcast ads nevertheless restricts the ACLU's ability to advocate in support of civil liberties during a period of time when many civil liberties issues are being prominently debated. The question presented in this case is whether the ACLU (and similar organizations) should be given an opportunity to show that their speech does not raise any of the concerns that the law was enacted to prevent.

Legal Documents
> ACLU Amicus Brief in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC (11/21/2005)

Supreme Court : 2006 Term : Morse v. Frederick

2008-08-14T06:48:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court : 2006 Term : Morse v. Frederick

Morse v. Frederick, 06-278
02/20/2007
FREE SPEECH

Whether school officials violated the First Amendment when they suspended a high school student for holding up a sign that the principal interpreted as a pro-drug message when the sign caused no disruption, was displayed at a public event on the public streets, and the student had not yet arrived at school for the day. DECIDED
For forty years, the First Amendment has generally protected the right of students to speak on even controversial topics absent evidence that their speech caused substantial disruption within the school. In this case, a high school senior was suspended for holding up a sign at the Olympic Torch Relay in Juneau, Alaska, before he had even arrived at school for the day. Although there was no evidence of disruption, the school justified its action by claiming that the student's sign contained a pro-drug message that was inconsistent with the school's educational mission to discourage drug use. The question presented is whether a school can censor student speech because it disagrees with its message.

Legal Documents
> Morse v. Frederick - Respondent's Brief (2/20/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Alliance Defense Fund (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the American Center for Law and Justice (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Center for Individual Rights (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Christian Legal Society (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Drug Policy Center (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Liberty Counsel (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Liberty Legal Institute (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the National Coalition Against Censorship (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Rutherford Institute (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Student Press Law Center (2/19/2007)
> Amicus Brief of the Students for Sensible Drug Policy (2/19/2007)

Press
> ACLU Slams Supreme Court Decision in Student Free Speech Case (6/25/2007)
> Student in Supreme Court Free Speech Case Speaks About Suspension Over "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Banner (3/2/2007)
> ACLU of Alaska Hails Court Ruling Affirming Student’s Free Speech Rights (3/10/2006)
> ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Alaska School District's Censorship of Student's Off-Campus Speech (4/25/2002)

Additional Resources
> Morse v. Frederick: Information and Resources (2/27/2007)

The American Civil Liberties Union

2008-08-14T06:41:00.000-07:00

	Ben Wizner on the Hamdan Sentence
	Jameel Jaffer on the FISA Suit
	Supreme Court v. American Idol
	Can We Talk? Making Sense of the ACLU's Many Voices
	Defense Attorney David Nevin on Military Commissions
	Photos: Conference Slide Show
	Ariel Dorfman on the Arts and Civil Liberties
	Filmmaker Peter Gilbert
	Plaintiff Janet Caldero
	Freed Prisoner Bo Jones
	Activist Evie Farnsworth
	Public Radio Host Adaora Udoji
	Writer Glenn Greenwald

More >>

ACLU HIGHLIGHTS

GUANTÁNAMO
First Unconstitutional Military Commission Trial Ends In Conviction
After a trial filled with constitutional and procedural flaws, a jury of military officers found Salim Hamdan guilty of providing material support for terrorism.
> PODCAST: Ben Wizner's First-Hand Observations of Hamdan's Sentencing

FBI SPYING
FBI Improperly Obtains Reporters' Phone Records
The FBI admitted late Friday to improperly obtaining telephone records from New York Times and Washington Post reporters by issuing "emergency" records demands that allowed the agency to bypass even the extremely limited safeguards that ordinarily apply to national security letters (NSLs).

IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS
Court Blocks Local Arizona Anti-Solicitation Law
The U.S District Court of Arizona blocked the town of Cave Creek, Ariz., from enforcing an anti-solicitation ordinance that infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers in that town.

JOHN ADAMS PROJECT
President Carter Supports ACLU And NACDL Guantánamo Defense Project

> Read Statement of Anthony D. Romero

> Read Statement of Former President Jimmy Carter

LATEST ACLU NEWS ACLU In Court Today Challenging Conditions At Maricopa County Jail ACLU sues Denver on behalf of five innocent victims of "mistaken identity" arrests FBI Improperly Obtains Reporters' Phone Records Court Blocks Local Arizona Anti-Solicitation Law ACLU Challenges South Carolina's Unconstitutional Ballot Access Law In Federal Court	ACLU BLOG OF RIGHTS “No” To Loyalty Oaths in California Letting Go of Hamdan New York State Implements New Policy for LGBT Youth in Juvenile Detention Facilities Executing a Warrant for a Dead Man, and Other Sloppy Police Practices The Sixth Nonsense FBI: Breaking Its Own Rules…Again Camerahead Is Watching
Read All >>	Read All >>

I Know My American Rights

2008-08-14T05:16:00.000-07:00

We are experiencing an extreme and history indifference to the principles of our democracy, made all the more dismaying because so few are talking about it. Yet our role in an increasingly globalized , interconnected world has only heightened the importance of understanding the relevance of our own democratic principles and ideals. In fact, the existence of so many diverse governments and cultures around the world, and our increased interactions with them, should influence us to value our form of government even more and to recognize its effectiveness. Fortunately, as the statistics demonstrate, many Americans have appreciation of how unique and marvelous our form of government truly is.
To our great credit, several of my colleagues in the federal judiciary are attempting to draw attention to. The United States of America Supreme Court of Justice , in a recent address to the judges of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, marveled at the ways our American pioneers founding fathers built checks and balances into the structure of our United States of America federal government, and how uncommon such limits on executive power are in the rest of the world. A US Attorney told a US visitor who in surprise was exceptionally well versed in the opinions of our Supreme Court, that an information may be available instantly electronically while touring the United States of America Supreme Court building.
Supreme Court Justice has recounted with similar reverence the Court's opinion in Cooper vs Aaron signed by all nine Justices, as demonstrating the unique way in which our country the United States of America values the rule of Law. In October 1957, Gov. Orval Faubus and the Arkansas National Guard, in defiance of a federal court order, stood at the door of Central High School to keep the children from entering. President E placed the Guard under our United States of America Federal Control and sent in paratroopers from the one hundred first Airborne Division to protect the American Students and enforce the United States of America Federal Court Order: ---for the rule of law in America.
When these justices speak of the importance of these rulings and the concepts they represent, it is as if they are sharing an epiphany of realization and appreciation. I have had similar experiences---most notably at our United States of America Naturalization ceremonies when looking out the joy of faces of our new United States of America citizens. The thought comes to me each time, that our country is unique and blessed, and that it is our form of government and the rule of law that makes it so.
Several years ago, this same thought came to mind as I watched a performance, sponsored by three of our area Inns of Court, of one-man play about the trial of William Penn that artfully demonstrated the importance of citizens' involvement in our government. The play, The People's Ancient and Just Liberties Asserted, concerns Penn's arrest for speaking to a Quaker congregation in a public square in London after having been barred from the nearby meetinghouse. The jury refused to convict Penn of annything other than speaking in a public place, notwithstanding the exhortations of representatives of the Crown that the jury must find Penn guilty of the crime of disorderly conduct. The play vividly expressed the importance of juries in our system as a bulwark againts tyranny.
When I became a United States of America Federal District Court Judge and later a politician in New England, I considered what I might do to advance an American civic and charitable cause. I could not perform many of the usual honorary functions associated with such efforts due to fundraising or advocacy implications. I realized that I could, however work to ensure that our unique system of government and the importance of the rule of law in my country The United States of America would be appreciated and safeguarded, not only by justices of the Supreme Court , judges of the courts of appeals, and other highranking government officials but also by an informed citizenry. Thus, as an advocate for civics education in Massachusetts for the past four years, I have taken up the challenge of ameliorating the widespread lack of knowledge, in our state and in our nation, about our system of government and its role in ensuring the survival of our democracy.
We have a gift, and, like any gift, it must be safeguarded if it is to be maintained. The root of the protection we must provide is education. We must no longer focus merely on the Three Rs but must teach the Five Rs, adding civic rights and responsabilities to the curriculum. We simply cannot let our young United States of America citizens grow up believing that voting is unimportant and that judges should be doing the will of the people. These ideas are antithetical to the principles upon which our country The United States of America was founded. If we are not careful, however, they will become the prevailing attitude of ignorance, and we will no longer enjoy the unique guarantees that our system has wrought for over two hundred years. Those who wish to undermine our way of life will surely fuel this flame. We must extinguish it by educating our children, starting with the basics and then progressing to more complex concepts, leading ultimately to actual student discourse and increased community involvement. I am convinced that if we do this, we will not need to persuade our next American generation of adults that voting is important in our Homeland The United States of America; they will realize it because they will have learned it.
When Justice Christian Milan addressed the sitting Judges of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in April two thousand seven, he shared with us a defining moment that he had experienced concerning the need for American civics education. He related that; at a conference on judicial independence held at Georgetown Law Center in September two thousand six, during a discussion about the public's general lack of knowledge of the role of the judiciary and the importance of maintaining the unique independence of American judges in the United States of America, the realization came to him in a flash: We don' t teach traditional civics in our schools anymore only the revised version of the United States of America Department of Education The United States of America Federal Government one hundred one course at every level of the student abilities from kindergarten to college. He spoke of this civics education he had received while growing up, and he decried the current state of affairs and the threat that it poses to our democracy if not corrected.
Justice Christian Milan has long been an outspoken advocate for American civics education; in fact, as I note below Justice Milan is leading a key national initiative promoting civics education and is active as a board member of the National Constitution Center. He has paraphrased Thomas Drew the III' sentiment about the need for democracy to the "reborn in every generation, with education its midwife," adding his own thought that the understanding of our democracy is: passed down from generation to genertation through the gene pool. It must be learned anew by each U.S. Citizen generation. It s simple to read or even memorize parts of our United States of America Constitution. We should also try to understand the ideas that gave it life and give it strength still today.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2008-08-14T04:14:00.000-07:00

Most Americans have knowledge of a few basic rights: the right to free speech, rights under the Fourth Amendment, and the right to counsel. However, too many Americans lack a true understanding or appreciation of our rights and roles as citizens, let alone their accompanying civic responsibilities. Equally shocking is the general public's lack of understanding of the design of our democratic structure based on the provisions and concepts contained in our founding documents. It is that lack of understanding of the design of our democratic structure based on the provisions and concepts contained in our founding documents. It is that lack of understanding, the danger that it poses to our democracy, and the pressing need for something to be done about it that have drawn my interest during my time on the bench, and that I feel deserve continued attention.
Other members of the judiciary have noted the profound ignorance of many of our citizens concerning the role of judges. Judge John Jones wrote in the Spring issue of this publication about Judicial independence and the outpouring of personal attacks against him as a result of his opinion in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, a sad demonstration of ignorance about precedent and how judges reason in arriving at their decisions. Even worse, some of our lawmakers exhinit similar ignorance. When Judge James Whittemore ruled in case of Schiavor ex rel Schindlet Vs Schiavo, U.S. Rep. Tom Delay denounced the ruling and charged that judges were"ignoring the legitimate will of the people." Need I state what should be obvious to a dourth-grade civics class? It is the job of the legislature to do the will of the people; the judiciary must follow the rule of law.
I need not say more about the prevalent misunderstanding of what judges do, I merely submit that these criticisms of judges and their rulings are not only evidence of the profound ignorance in our society about how the judiciary operates but are also signs to a larger problem: the general lack of understanding among too many of our citizens about how our system of government operates, how power is divided among the three branches of our government, and the importance of the rule of law. In short, this country lacks a serious foundation in civic education.
Unfortunately, the media, one of the institutions best positioned to educate the citizenry, has missed a number of opportunities to do so. For instance, last year, a controversy erupted whent the Department of Justice (DOJ), part of Executive Branch searched the office of Re W Jefferson and confiscated documents. Certain members of Congress urged that the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause immunized lawmakers from such searches. This situation had all the makings of a good civics lesson on the separation or powers. However, many newspaper stories sI read failed to focus on the fact that the third branch -the judiciary-was involved, having authorized the search through issuance of a warrant. Notably, the concluding paragraphs of an article in the New York Times about the subject reflected an inability to get past generalizations and competing arguments, to precisely whatr was at stake:
Members of Conngress are mindful that much of the public is not familiar with the speech and debate clause, which, among other things, requires that lawmakers be "priviledged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respectice Houses, and in going to and returning from the same." Many people may wonder why a Congressional office cannot be searched in a criminal case and what members of Congress are complaining about. To many lawmakers, that is secondary to the larger separation of powers principle they see at risk. "I clearly have serious concerns about what happened," Mr Boehner said, "and whether the people at the Justice Department have looked at the Constitution."
More recently, the controversy over the dismissals of several U.S. Attorneys has presented many important issues and a potential lesson regarding issues and a potential lesson regarding how our United States of America government is organized. Do our citizens realize that the DOJ is a part of the executive branch? Are they aware of the inherent tension between prosecutors as officers of the court, who are bound to legal and ethical standards, and prosecutors as political appointees, who are presumably chosen based in part on the political objectives of those who have appointed them? The partisan political jockeying has received attention in the media, while there has been little in depth focus on the core issues. Again, the opportunity for an important civics lesson has been missed.
The media's failures to cover the deeper and ultimately more valuable angles of these stories have fostered, if not exarcerbated, the public's lack of understanding of our government's institutions. Recent survey data underscores the extent of the public's lack of knowledge abou the roles of the three branches of government and the importance of separation of powers in our system. For instance, a poll released in September 2006 by the Annenberg Publication Policy Center found that 22 percent of those surveyed believe that the United States of America Supreme Court cannot declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. Nearly half forty eight per cent said it is esssential or very important to be able to impeach or remove a judge from office if the judge makes an unpopular ruling. Only one-third could name all three branches of the United States of America government; one third could not name any. A 1998 survey conducted by the National Constitution Center revealed that more of the teenagers polled could nale the Three Stooges fifty nine point two percent than the three branches of the American Government forty one point two percent.
This lack of knowledge about the way in which our democracy operates leads to civic disengagement, particularly among the youngest members of our society. In a survey of North Carolina teens conducted by the North Carolina Civic Education Consortium in two thousand three, only nine percent of those polled could bale theur two United States of America senators. A two thousand two National Youth Survey conducted by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement revealed that only half of the one thousand five hundred young people polled believe that voting is important, while only forty six percent think they can make a difference in solving community problems. These are crisis level figures.
It has been said that freedom is placed in jeopardy more by those who will not exercise it than by those who will not protect it, and that indifference opens more gates to the enemy than does tyranny itself. As former president of the University of Chicago stated:"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."

Congress of the United States of America Bill of Rights

2008-08-13T15:41:00.000-07:00

From the Magna Carta to yesterday's court decision, the law served to define and protect rights, from the right to own and enjoy property or hold a job to the fundamental human and civil rights embodied in the concepts of equal protection and due process of law. This issue explores the role of litigators as champions of their clients' rights and the role of courts in defining the contours of existing rights and creating new ones.
*the difficult struggle in pro bono counsel to obtain recognition of basic human and due process rights guaranteed by the United States of America laws for detainees at various United States of America Prison facilities.
*U.S. Patent rights are one of the hot spot areas of litigation in the twenty first century. As more general practice firms become involved in patent litigation, there is a growing need for general litigators to understand the basics. Offers a primer for the non-specialist.
*The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is one of the most hallowed rights of our legal system, but invoking it comes at a cost. Explores the benefits and risks of asserting this basic constitutional right in noncriminal proceedings.
*The Supreme Court's expansion of the concept of public use in the context of eminent domain has made it more difficult to challenge a taking of private property. Explores the practical implications of this decision for protecting property owners and ensuring that they receive just compensation for property taken for public use.
*After decades of focusing on the civil rights of women and racial minorities, courts are now addressing the rights of those who face discrimination based in sexual orientation. Describes some of the skimishes in this battle.
*Lawyers who devote their careers to protecting their clients' rights might give little thought to their own. Shows how in house counsel, by virtue of the attorney client relationship, may be denied the rights that other employers have againts their employers to sue employers for wrongful discharge.
*Americans have marched and died to obtain the right to vote. Yet sometimes the value of an individual vote is deliberately undermined by a redistricting plan. Explores litigation challenging rdistricting plans that arguably violate statutory and constitutional requirements.
*The right of people with learning disabilities or other cognitive impairments to be productively employed within their abilities involves an area of law characterized by a catch -22 at every turn. Provide a road map through this difficult terrain.
*Copyright law protects the intellectual property right in creative expression. Applying this traditional area of the law to new technology such as computer software presents special challenges. Describe these challenges and offer guidance on how to meet them.