Homedefault.xml Other Groups and Organizations Freedom to Read Foundation FTRF in Action Time Line 1990-1999

1990

American Library Ass’n v. Thornburgh
In further involvement in this case, begun in 1989, the FTRF opposed the government’s appeal of the district court decision striking down the record-keeping and labeling provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. An appeal was filed by the Foundation limited to the adverse ruling on post-conviction forfeiture provisions. In due course, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FTRF and other plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the forfeiture provisions of the act. It also ruled that the government’s appeal of the district court decision was moot because of the subsequent enactment of the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act, which was intended to correct the constitutional defects highlighted in this litigation.

United States v. Eichman
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a successful First Amendment challenge to a new federal anti-flag burning statute. The Court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of charges brought under the Flag Protection Act of 1989, passed by Congress in response to the Court’s flag desecration decision issued that year.

Rust v. Sullivan
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a challenge to regulations that prohibited organizations receiving federal funds from disseminating materials advocating abortion as a means of family planning. Ultimately, the Court upheld the regulations, finding that they did not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, but simply amounted to the government’s funding of one activity to the exclusion of another. Justice Blackmun filed a dissenting opinion.

Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherter
A lawsuit was filed challenging a Tennessee “harmful to minors” statute similar to that in American Booksellers Ass’n v. Virginia (see 1987). The challenge targeted the statute’s prohibition against display of non-obscene materials “harmful to minors” in any place where minors have lawful access, as well as issues surrounding the knowing exhibition of such materials.

Tennessee v. Marshall
An amicus brief was filed in a constitutional challenge involving the question of whether the Tennessee constitution provided broader free speech guarantees than the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Tennessee Supreme Court eventually ruled that the Free Expression Clause of the Tennessee constitution must be read to have substantially the same requirements with respect to obscenity as the First Amendment.

1991

American Library Ass’n v. Barr
A lawsuit was filed (with the American Library Association and several media groups) challenging the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act. The new act was intended to correct constitutional defects in the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act challenged in the earlier American Library Ass’n v. Thornburgh suit (see 1989 and 1990).

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court addressing only issues involving the “overbreadth doctrine” raised in a constitutional challenge of a St. Paul (MN) ordinance prohibiting the posting or display of symbols and signs that may cause imminent or profound offense to any individual based on race, religion, or gender. The Court eventually struck down the “hate symbol” ordinance. Its reasoning, however, bore little resemblance to established First Amendment doctrine or any of the arguments in the amicus brief.

Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Morristown
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a case brought by a homeless person denied access to the Morristown (NJ) Public Library. The Foundation, which took a position different from that of the public library, proposed a neutral framework of legal principles by which the court, it argued, should determine the rights in question. The court was urged to recognize a First Amendment right to receive information that only may be denied by a public library for good reason; the library, as a limited public forum, may adopt reasonable rules governing use of facilities, supporting its substantial interest in providing access to information for all. Adopting this basic analysis, the appellate court eventually upheld library rules that required patrons to be reading or otherwise using library materials while in the library, prohibited noisy or boisterous activities, and permitted the removal of patrons with offensive bodily hygiene.

1992

Alexander v. United States
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court (in cooperation with the American Library Association and the Association of American Publishers) in a case challenging the use of the forfeiture provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to shut down speech-related businesses convicted of no more than isolated obscenity violations, suppressing future lawful speech. The Court eventually held that the use of RICO did not violate the First Amendment because the forfeiture orders did not expressly forbid, or require the government’s prior approval for, future expressive activities.

Soldier of Fortune Magazine v. Braun
An amicus brief was filed supporting the Soldier of Fortune publisher’s application to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of a decision upholding an award of damages for the magazine’s role in publishing an ad that allegedly led to the hiring of an assassin to commit murder. The Court declined to review the case.

Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc. v. McWherter
In further involvement in this matter, the FTRF opposed the appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court of a Chancery Court decision. The Chancery Court found the law to be unconstitutionally vague only with respect to the meaning of “excessive violence” in the definition of “harmful” materials. The Foundation and other plaintiffs filed an appeal on issues concerning the display and knowing exhibition of materials deemed “harmful to minors.” Ultimately, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the Chancery Court decision. Addressing the display issues, the state high court found that the display provisions could be narrowly construed to apply only to materials “which lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for a reasonable 17-year-old minor.”  

1993

Pampano Books and Video v. Satz
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit supporting the claim by three bookstores in the Fort Lauderdale (FL) area that prosecutors had engaged in a pattern of harassment to close down the businesses, regardless of the lawfulness of the materials they sold. The lower court had refused to enjoin the prosecutors. The issues on appeal concerned the government’s mixed motives in suppressing speech. The amicus brief argued that, if any part of the government’s motive was suppression, its actions were unconstitutional. Ultimately, the appellate court summarily rejected those arguments, and affirmed, without opinion, the lower court decision.

American Library Ass’n v. Reno (formerly American Library Ass’n v. Barr)
Continuing its involvement in this lawsuit, begun in 1989, challenging the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act, the Foundation opposed the government’s appeal of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidating the act.

Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School District
An amicus brief was filed (with People for the American Way) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the appeal in a lawsuit brought by the American Family Association challenging the use of the Impressions textbook series in the Woodland, California, school system. The lower court rejected the conservative religious group’s claim that the series promoted the religion of witchcraft and, therefore, violated the First Amendment. Affirming the lower court decision, the appellate court held squarely that the textbook was not intended to promote witchcraft as a religion, and that an “objective” elementary school child would not view the activities and materials in the series as an endorsement of witchcraft or a disapproval of other religions.

In Re North
The Foundation and the Association of American Publishers wrote to the judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit scheduled to hear an emergency motion by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other organizations seeking to unseal the report of Independent Prosecutor Lawrence Welsh concluding his investigation of the Iran-Contra affair and the role of Oliver North. The FTRF/AAP letter supported the emergency motion, which was granted within hours after the letter was delivered to the judge via one-day mail.

Knox v. United States
An amicus brief was filed (with members of the Media Coalition) in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking the reversal of a decision upholding a federal child pornography conviction. The crime involved the alleged “lascivious exhibition of genitals or pubic area” in videotapes depicting fully clothed female minors.

1994

Case v. Unified School District No. 233
$2,500 was authorized to assist the American Civil Liberties Union to pay for legal fees incurred in opposing the removal of Annie on My Mind from the Olathe school district’s libraries. The school board’s removal order covered not only copies of the books recently donated by Project 21, a gay and lesbian group, but also copies purchased by the district that had been on the shelves of the libraries for many years. The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas eventually ruled that the removal was unconstitutional

Knox v. United States
After the U.S. Solicitor General shifted the government’s position into alignment with some of the Foundation’s contentions on the appeal filed in 1993 of a child pornography conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the lower court. On the redetermination of the matter by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, an amicus brief (with members of the Media Coalition) was filed. Ultimately, the appellate court reaffirmed its original interpretation of the federal child pornography statute, concluding that even depictions of fully clothed minors can be a crime.

National Treasury Employees Union v. United States
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge of the government’s ban on accepting honoraria offered to federal employees for speeches and articles unrelated to their government work. The case explored how financial burdens, as opposed to outright suppression of speech, impacts First Amendment rights, and addressed the government’s contention that the ban on payment to federal employees for speech avoids the appearance of impropriety. The Court eventually ruled that the ban infringed the employees’ free speech rights.

Debbie Denzer dismissal
$2500 was given to the American Civil Liberties Union for expenses incurred in filing a lawsuit to reinstate Denzer after she was fired from her job as a school library aide in Kallispell, Montana. In response to a request from two seventh grade students, Denzer provided two books on witchcraft from her personal home library. Parents of the students deemed the books to be unsuitable for seventh graders and complained to the school district. Denzer eventually received a favorable settlement in the case.

X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in an action interpreting the federal statute criminalizing the “knowing” receipt, distribution, or reproduction of visual depictions of child pornography. The Court was asked to interpret the statute to require actual knowledge that participants or models are minors, rather than a lesser level of knowledge involving mere recklessness. The Court eventually ruled that proof of actual knowledge was required.

1995

American Library Ass’n v. Reno (formerly American Library Ass’n v. Barr)
Continuing an involvement begun in 1989, $3000 was awarded for legal expenses in the case challenging the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act. On the government’s appeal of the federal district court decision invalidating the act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the lower court. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Playboy v. Deters
The prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County, Ohio, was sued by the FTRF (with Playboy Enterprises, Inc., and eleven First Amendment organizations) after he sent a letter to a Barnes & Noble bookstore in Cincinnati stating that several magazines, including the January, 1995, issue of Playboy, were “harmful to juveniles” and should not be displayed. The lawsuit challenged the prosecutor’s action as a “prior restraint” violating the First Amendment and sought an injunction, as well as judicial review, of the Ohio display statute. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio eventually ruled that the prosecuting attorney’s letter was null and void. It ordered the letter withdrawn and assessed costs against the prosecutor. The court refused to review the “harmful to juveniles” statute, however, since a state court had not yet had the opportunity to do so.

Brown and Williamson v. Regents of University of California
An amicus brief was filed in a lawsuit by a tobacco company over documents said to reveal that the tobacco industry knew of a link between smoking and cancer earlier than had been previously understood. Alleging they were stolen, Brown and Williamson sought to recover documents from the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) and to obtain the names of university library users who had access to them. The Foundation’s brief focused on issues concerning the confidentiality of library use. Ultimately, the California Superior Court in San Francisco refused to block the UCSF from making the documents available to the public. The court, however, did not address the confidentiality issues.

Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Center for Protection of Free Expression and the American Association of University Professors) in a lawsuit testing the constitutionality of restrictions placed on classroom speech. The lower court had determined that a professor’s selection of topics for classroom discussion, his choice of language, and his teaching style constituted sexual harassment by creating a hostile learning environment. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed that decision, stating that the college’s “hostile learning environment” policy was too vague as applied to Cohen.

Alliance for Community Media v. Federal Communications Commission
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in a constitutional challenge of provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. The act compelled any cable operator to either ban or segregate on a separate channel all sexually related material that the cable operator “reasonably believes” to be “patently offensive.” A viewer wishing to see programming on the segregated channel was required to notify the cable operator. The Court eventually struck down the requirement that cable operators ban or segregate “patently offensive” materials, as well as one other provision of the act.

1996

American Library Ass’n v. United States Department of Justice
A complaint was filed (with the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association, America Online, People for the American Way, and numerous other organizations) successfully challenging the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Represented by general counsel Bruce Ennis of Jenner & Block, the American Library Association and the FTRF took the lead in developing the factual background for the case. The Communications Decency Act criminalized “indecent” and “patently offensive” communications on the Internet. Based on the First Amendment, the lawsuit urged that the government cannot reduce adult reading material to a level appropriate only for children, and that the vague language of the statute had a chilling effect on speech.

American Library Ass’n v. Pataki
A lawsuit was filed (with the American Library Association, the New York Library Association, and others) challenging a New York statute proscribing online dissemination of materials “harmful to minors.” The lawsuit was based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Commerce Clause, which forbids one state from imposing unreasonable restrictions on the conduct of persons in other states. Ultimately, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York enjoined enforcement of the New York statute on Commerce Clause grounds. Since the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States Department of Justice v. American Library Ass’n—the ALA’s challenge to the Communications Decency Act—was then still awaited, the district court in Pataki declined to address the First Amendment issues.

Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. v. United States
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in a challenge to the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requiring that “indecent” broadcasts be scrambled or blocked so cable viewers can receive no portion of audio or video unless they specifically subscribe to the program. The brief argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and attempted to usurp the role of parents, since lockboxes were the appropriate “least restrictive” means to assure that children were not exposed to restricted programs. An adverse decision of a three-judge panel of the district court was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case for further proceedings. The lower court eventually ruled that the statute was unconstitutional, and on May 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a 5–4 decision.

1997

United States Department of Justice v. American Library Ass’n
The government’s direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of the decision by the three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania striking down the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was successfully opposed. In a 9–0 decision, the high court rendered a landmark decision hailed as “the birth certificate of the Internet.” The Court held that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to the protection the Court gives to books and newspapers.

Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (in cooperation with the Association of American Publishers, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Newspaper Association of America, and other First Amendment groups) asking the appellate court to affirm a lower court decision dismissing the lawsuit by family members of murder victims seeking to hold the publisher of Hit Man liable for the felon’s alleged use of the work to commit the crimes. The appellate court reversed the lower court decision, holding that a jury could find that the book’s content amounted to aiding and abetting of criminal conduct and that it did not, therefore, enjoy blanket First Amendment protection. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the decision. After additional proceedings in the lower court, the publisher unexpectedly agreed to a multi-million dollar settlement of the case on May 21, 1999, presumably at the insistence of its liability insurer.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
Amicus briefs were filed (with various First Amendment groups) both in the lower court and in the appellate court in support of a lawsuit (initially titled Free Speech Coalition v. Reno) challenging the constitutionality of the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996. The act expanded the definition of child pornography to include morphed images that appear to be sexual conduct involving a minor but in fact involved no real child in their creation. The trial court found the act constitutional, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that finding. The Ninth Circuit’s finding of unconstitutionality conflicted with the First Circuit’s ruling on the Act in United States v. Hilton. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned CPPA on the grounds that the law was overbroad (prohibiting otherwise legal, non-obscene images) and unrelated to the legitimate reasoning behind prohibiting child pornography—that it inherently involves child sexual abuse.

Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. City of Oklahoma City
An amicus brief was filed in a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration as to the unconstitutionality of police seizures of video copies of The Tin Drum in Oklahoma City. The police acted after privately obtaining the oral opinion of a state judge that the Oscar-winning film violated Oklahoma law prohibiting depictions of underage sexual conduct. Issued at separate stages in the proceedings, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled that the police actions were unconstitutional and that the film, as a bona fide work of art, did not constitute obscenity or child pornography.

Pitt v. Playgirl, Inc.
An amicus
brief was filed (with various members of The Media Coalition) in a lawsuit by Brad Pitt against Playgirl seeking a permanent injunction of, and damages for, the magazine’s August 1997 issue featuring nude photos of the actor. The brief, which was limited to issues concerning the scope of the injunction, argued that preventing the distribution of the entire magazine was a “prior restraint” violating the First Amendment. Eventually the parties settled the case. The settlement agreement, like the case itself, was filed under seal.

1998

Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska, book removals
The public school districts in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska, removed the book American Indian Myths and Legends from school libraries. In Anchorage, the administration and board went through their adopted procedures and kept the book in libraries, but on a restricted status. In Fairbanks, a new superintendent reinstated the book in 2004 after receiving a final demand letter informing the district of impending litigation. The Freedom to Read Foundation gave a grant to the Alaska Civil Liberties Union in support of their efforts, and FTRF counsel provided legal assistance.

Finley v. National Endowment for the Arts
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court (in cooperation with a wide variety of free speech and arts-related organizations) challenging a statutory requirement that, when deciding whether to award an arts grant, the National Endowment for the Arts must consider whether the artist's work meets "general standards of decency and respect for diverse beliefs of the American people." The brief argued that arts grants are designed to encourage private speech and the First Amendment forbids the government to exercise viewpoint discrimination, preferring one speaker over another, on the basis of a "decency and respect" requirement. Ultimately, the Court found there was no realistic danger that taking "decency and respect" into consideration would preclude or punish the expression of particular views, and that the statutory requirement, therefore, did not inherently interfere with free speech rights.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson
A lawsuit was filed (with the American Civil Liberties Union and numerous individuals and organizations) challenging a New Mexico statute nearly identical to the attempted regulation of the Internet by New York struck down in American Library Ass'n v. Pataki (see 1996). The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the statute. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which upheld the injunction and declared the statute unconstitutional on November 2, 1999. There was no further appeal.

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & afterwords, Inc.
An amicus brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (in cooperation with the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Association of American Publishers, and various media associations) supporting separate motions by Kramerbooks and Barnes & Noble to quash subpoenas seeking bookstore purchase records in the Monica Lewinsky case. The brief argued that revealing what bookstore patrons read had a chilling effect on their exercise of First Amendment rights. The federal district court eventually issued a decision requiring the Independent Counsel to show both a "compelling need for the information sought" and "a sufficient connection between the information sought" and the criminal investigation. As the court made subsequent rulings based on that standard, Lewinsky herself voluntarily turned over materials sought by the prosecutor, and thus concluded the matter.

United States v. Hilton
An amicus brief was filed in federal appellate court supporting an individual's challenge to the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. The court below struck down the act holding that the language defining a "minor" and its use in the definition of "child pornography" was unconstitutionally overbroad because it impacted a "significant amount of adult pornography featuring adults who appear youthful." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, stating that "it is a logical and permissible extension" of leading cases defining child pornography "to allow the regulation of sexual materials that appear to be of children but did not, in fact, involve the use of live children in their production." Subsequently, in 2001, the Supreme Court accepted for review the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, in which the Ninth Circuit found CPPA to be unconstitutional (see 1997).

Byers v. Edmondson
An amicus brief was filed in the Supreme Court of Louisiana opposing a lawsuit seeking to hold director Oliver Stone and various film producers responsible for the acts of criminals allegedly inspired by the movie Natural Born Killers. The brief argued that the exception to the First Amendment for "fighting words" inciting violence did not apply to film, only to live person-to-person speech. The original trial court had dismissed the case, but an appeal court ruled that the plaintiffs had stated a valid cause of action for an intentional tort against the defendants. The Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the appeals court, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case. The Freedom to Read Foundation filed a second amicus brief in favor of U.S. Supreme Court review. In 2001, the case was dismissed for a second time on the grounds that there was no evidence proving that Time Warner Entertainment or Stone had intended to incite violence with the film. In 2002, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.

Ashcroft v. ACLU
An amicus brief was filed (in cooperation with nineteen other members of the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition and Media Coalition) in support of the motion by the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs to enjoin enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The act would have required individuals seeking access to certain Internet sites-ones that possibly contain material deemed "harmful to minors"-to type in a credit card or other adult verification number. The brief argued that this blocking of content was not the "least restrictive means" to effect the government's interest in protecting children from certain material. In 1999, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs are likely to show successfully at trial that COPA imposes an unconstitutional burden on adult speech. The government appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which in 2000 upheld the district court's decision, stating that "harmful to minors" laws are based on community standards that cannot be applied in the Internet context. FTRF joined an amicus brief arguing against COPA. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Third Circuit for reconsideration of the other issues before it, finding that the "community standards" issue on its face did not justify striking the statute. On March 6, 2003, the Third Circuit again found COPA unconstitutional. In an opinion by Judge Garth, the Court found the statute vague and overbroad for a number of reasons. The Justice Department filed a petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc, but the Third Circuit denied the petition. The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari for a second time to consider the constitutionality of COPA. On January 14, 2004, FTRF filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court. Oral Arguments were heard on March 2, 2004. The case was originally ACLU v. Reno.

Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore
A parent sued the Livermore (CA) Public Library after her twelve-year-old son evidently downloaded pornographic images to a disk at the library, printed them at a relative's house, and eventually distributed them to friends. The lawsuit was dismissed, likely because of California's statutory immunization of libraries from such lawsuits. The parent refiled the lawsuit, arguing the library's policy of providing unfiltered access to the Internet violated the constitutional rights of parents and children using the library, but the second lawsuit also was dismissed. This decision was appealed and FTRF joined an amicus brief in support of the city and the library. In 2001, the First Appellate District Court of California upheld the dismissal.

1999

PSINet Inc. v. Chapman
FTRF was a plaintiff in this "mini-CDA" case challenging Virginia's Internet content statute. The Foundation filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Virginia, arguing that the statute violated the Commerce Clause, was overly vague, and restricted constitutional speech without protecting minors effectively or by the least restrictive means. The district court granted a preliminary injunction in August 2000, which was not appealed, and in October 2001, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Virginia appealed to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in February 2003, the court certified two questions of state law to the Virginia Supreme Court, rather than deciding the appeal. In March 2003, the Virginia Supreme Court issued an order accepting the certified questions, but also directing counsel to brief and argue whether the questions are outcome dispositive. In September 2003, the Virginia Supreme Court refused to accept the certification. The Fourth Circuit upheld the permanent injunction in March 2004. The Commonwealth of Virginia filed a motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and a decision on that matter is pending from the Fourth Circuit.

Cyberspace Communications v. Engler
FTRF joined an amicus brief in the appeal of the preliminary injunction against Michigan's Internet content law. The ACLU sued to overturn the law, enacted in June 1999, using arguments similar to those used in other "mini-CDA" cases, including American Library Ass'n v. Pataki and ACLU v. Johnson. The district court judge granted a preliminary injunction, which was appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in an "unpublished" opinion on November 15, 2000. Because the state did not appeal the district court's entry of a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the Michigan law, this case will not go any further.

Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences v. City of New York
New York's mayor Rudolph Giuliani cut city funding to the Brooklyn Museum of Art because he was offended by an exhibit, "Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection," believing it denigrated religion. The museum sued in federal court on First Amendment grounds. The City then sued in state court to evict the museum from its land and building. FTRF joined an amicus brief in support of the museum's request for a preliminary injunction, which was granted on November 3, 1999. The City appealed to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals; FTRF joined an amicus brief. The two sides reached a settlement on March 27, 2000, in which the mayor dropped all efforts to penalize the museum and each side paid its own legal fees. Subsequently, Mayor Giuliani in April 2001, appointed a "decency panel" to review artwork at publicly funded museums.

Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, TX
The Foundation assisted in the preparation of a lawsuit against a City Council resolution allowing removal of books from the children's section to the adult area of the library if requested by 300 petitioners. The resolution was passed in response to controversy over two award-winning children's picture books in the library's children's section, Heather Has Two Mommies, by Leslea Newman, and Daddy's Roommate, by Michael Willhoite. Sixteen adults and three children living in Wichita Falls sued in federal court, arguing that the resolution violated the First Amendment prohibition of content-based speech restriction. U.S. District Court Judge Jerry Buchmeyer ruled the resolution unconstitutional in 2000.

Links to non-ALA sites have been provided because these sites may have information of interest. Neither the American Library Association nor the Freedom to Read Foundation necessarily endorses the views expressed or the facts presented on these sites; and furthermore, ALA and FTRF do not endorse any commercial products that may be advertised or available on these sites.