Re: [dvd-discuss] Felten Opp to DoJ Motion to Dismiss

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

--- "Peter D. Junger" <junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu> wrote:
> Speaking and publishing and communicating information are conduct, but that
> conduct is ``pure speech'' and is exactly what is protected by the First
> Amendment.  The Bartnicki case---I don't have time to dig up the cite---has
> a wonderfully convincing statement on this point.  (And that statement
> amounts to a holding by the Supreme Court.)

Bartnicki v. Vopper, No. 991687 (US Supreme Court, May 21, 2001)
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/3rd/992341p.html

Opinion by Stevens for a 6-3 Court.

"The normal method of deterring unlawful conduct is to impose an appropriate
punishment on the person who engages in it. If the sanctions that presently
attach to a violation of 2511(1)(a) do not provide sufficient deterrence,
perhaps those sanctions should be made more severe. But it would be quite
remarkable to hold that speech by a law-abiding possessor of information can be
suppressed in order to deter conduct by a non-law-abiding third party."

"As a general matter, state action to punish the publication of truthful
information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards."



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com