Re: [dvd-discuss] DeCSS injunction in California Case reversed

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

I like the use of the word "threaten"....it's harkening back to Holmes' 
"clear and present danger"




Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson@monsters.org>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/01/01 12:41 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        [dvd-discuss] DeCSS injunction in California Case reversed


I just noticed this story on SlashDot.org. A state appeals court has over 
turned the lower courts injuction. There is a URL to the opinion in pdf 
format: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H021153.PDF

A quote from the SlashDot story:
"
The conclusion is nicely summarized with this quote: 'In the case of a 
prior 
restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher [than for an 
ordinary preliminary injunction]: publication must threaten an interest 
more 
fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the Supreme Court has 

never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of 
national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.' "
"
I must whole heartily agree. 

Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson@monsters.org>