Florence v. Shurtleff

Last updated

Florence v. Shurtleff
District-Utah.png
Court U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
ArguedApril 12, 2012
DecidedMay 15, 2012
Holding
Individuals cannot be prosecuted for posting constitutionally protected content for adults on general-access websites. They are not required by the Utah law to label such content.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Dee Benson
Laws applied
First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Florence v. Shurtleff, Civil No. 2:05CV000485 (D. Utah 2012), was a case in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued an order stating that individuals could not be prosecuted for posting adult content that was constitutionally protected on general access websites, nor could they be civilly liable for failing to prevent access to adult content, so long as the material is identifiable by filtering software. The order was the result of a 2005 lawsuit, The King's English v. Shurtleff, brought by Utah bookstores, artists, Internet Service Providers and the other organizations challenging the constitutionality of certain portions of a Utah law intended to protect minors from adult content.

Contents

Background

Facts

In March 2005, House Bill 260, amending and adding to the Utah Harmful to Minors Act, was passed by the Utah legislature and signed into law by Governor Jon Huntsman. The bill sought to "address pornographic material and material harmful to minors." Among other provisions, the bill required the Utah Attorney General to maintain an "adult content registry" of internet websites that contained material deemed "harmful to minors." The bill correspondingly required Internet service providers ("ISPs") to block access or provide filtering software for these websites. It also stated that Utah ISPs must properly label or block their content, with criminal and civil penalties on those who failed to do so. [1]

In response to the Bill, an umbrella of organizations including Utah based bookstores, Internet Service Providers, the ACLU of Utah, Media Coalition and the Center for Democracy & Technology filed a federal lawsuit on June 9, 2005. The suit challenged the constitutionality of the bill under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Commerce Clause. [2] This lawsuit was originally known as The King's English v. Shurtleff for a Utah bookshop named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. [3]

Procedural Posture

U.S. District Court Judge Dee Benson granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the law on August 25, 2006. [4]

In response to the State of Utah's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, Judge Benson ruled on plaintiff's legal standing on November 29, 2007, finding that while the majority of the plaintiffs had standing, The King's English bookstore and other similar organizations did not. [5] The judge denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and the case was subsequently captioned as "Nathan Florence v. Shurtleff," now named for Florence, who was a Utah painter who depicted nudes in some of his works. [3] [6]

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on June 8, 2011, seeking to enforce the injunction against HB 260 on a permanent basis. [3] [7] [8] The State of Utah responded on July 29, 2011, with a combined brief opposing plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and supporting its own motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss for lack of standing. [9]

The judge heard arguments on plaintiff's motion to dismiss on April 12, 2012. [3] [10]

On May 17, 2012, Judge Benson issued an order and declaratory judgment ruling that individuals and service providers could not be prosecuted under Section 1206 of the bill for making constitutionally protected adult content available on general access websites, and could not be subject to civil or criminal penalties under Section 1233 for failing to filter or block access to this content. [3] [11]

Complaint

Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on June 9, 2005, citing concerns of censorship, free speech and violations of the Commerce Clause. [2] The Complaint challenged most of the act, apart from Sections 1 and 3. It specifically identified 5 provisions of the Act, which were challenged on constitutional bases:

  1. Section 5 of the Act, which sought to extend the existing Utah law on materials harmful to minors (Utah Code § 76-10-1206) to Internet content providers and ISPs.
  2. Section 9, or the Mandatory Labeling provision, which stated that Utah-based content providers were required to label their content, and imposed criminal penalties for failing to do so.
  3. Section 2, which mandated the creation of an "adult content registry" by Attorney General Shurtleff, consisting of a list of websites that he identified as containing material "harmful to minors." Section 8, which correspondingly required ISPs to block access to websites that were listed in the registry.
  4. Section 4, which required ISPs to block or restrict access to "pornographic material" as determined by their customers.
  5. Section 7, which broadly required ISPs to restrict access to material "harmful to minors."

The plaintiffs argued that due to the "technical realities" of the Internet, it would be difficult for large ISPs to restrict access for one set of customers, and would instead result in restricting access across the network, and to non-requesting customers as well. [2] The complaint also cited various cases in which courts in Michigan, New York, Arizona, and other states had struck down laws applying criminal penalties for "distributing harmful materials to minors" to the internet as unconstitutional, [12] including the United States Supreme Court case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union which struck down a federal version of the law on First Amendment Grounds. [2] It identified a Pennsylvania state case, Center for Democracy & Technology v. Pappert [3] [13] where the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania struck down a state law requiring ISPs to restrict access to specific websites, on First Amendment and Commerce Clause claims. [2] The complaint also contained declarations from various organizations and individuals, including The King's English bookstore, Nathan Florence and the ACLU of Utah explaining the adverse impact of the law on their business.

Constitutional Claims

Plaintiffs identified 8 causes of action in the complaint:

Under their prayer for relief, plaintiffs sought a preliminary as well as permanent injunction against the State from enforcing the enumerated provisions, due to their constitutional violations, and the fact that under strict scrutiny the infringement of plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not justified by a compelling government purpose. [2]

State's Response

The State of Utah, in response, argued that the law was vital to apprehend sexual predators, citing the use of Internet chatrooms and other websites. It stated that the law was designed to aid its longstanding Internet Crimes Against Children taskforce. [14] It also stated that since the law applied in large part to ISPs, bookstores and individuals did not have standing to challenge the law. The State sought to differentiate HB 260 from the law at issue in Reno v. ACLU, arguing that this law was narrower, as it explicitly identified "harmful websites" through the tagging system in the adult content registry. This process, according to the State, was designed to facilitate ISPs in their blocking and filtering processes, by giving them a defined field. [14]

Defendants stated that the requirement for ISPs to provide their customers with filtering mechanisms for "pornographic materials" was the most effective means of preventing minors from accessing pornography on the internet. Utah further argued that the filtering requirement ensured that the law was narrowly tailored in order to achieve a "compelling government interest."

The State cited cases such as Sable Communications of California v. FCC and Ginsberg v. New York to argue that the law would withstand strict scrutiny, as states had a compelling interest in "protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors" and were therefore permitted to "regulate material that is indecent with respect to minors." [14]

Declaratory Judgment

Judge Dee Benson issued an order and declaratory judgment on May 15, 2012. The judge held that individuals and organizations could not be prosecuted under Section 1206 for posting constitutionally protected content on general access websites, and that they were not subject to criminal and civil penalties under Section 1233 for a failure to label, or restrict access to their material. [11] Around this time, Plaintiffs worked with Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff on the implementation and enforcement of the law. [15]

Impact

The case was hailed as a "crucial victory for free speech," by the Media Coalition, while the ACLU stated that this order "...removes the cloud cast over internet speech that Utah's broadly worded statute had created," and the Center for Democracy and Technology stated that the judgment brought "...Utah law into line with 15 years of legal precedent protecting the constitutional rights of adults to access lawful content online." [16] [17] [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

An Internet filter is software that restricts or controls the content an Internet user is capable to access, especially when utilized to restrict material delivered over the Internet via the Web, Email, or other means. Content-control software determines what content will be available or be blocked.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child Online Protection Act</span> Former U.S. law to protect minors from certain material on the Internet

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law, however, never took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.

Internet censorship in Australia is enforced by both the country's criminal law as well as voluntarily enacted by internet service providers. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has the power to enforce content restrictions on Internet content hosted within Australia, and maintain a blocklist of overseas websites which is then provided for use in filtering software. The restrictions focus primarily on child pornography, sexual violence, and other illegal activities, compiled as a result of a consumer complaints process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Children's Internet Protection Act</span> United States federal law

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is one of a number of bills that the United States Congress proposed to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online.

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency</i>

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 493 F.3d 644, is a case decided July 6, 2007, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the National Security Agency (NSA), because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second Amendment Foundation</span> United States nonprofit organization that supports gun rights

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is a United States nonprofit organization that supports gun rights. Founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb and headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, SAF publishes gun rights magazines and public education materials, funds conferences, provides media contacts, and has assumed a central role in sponsoring lawsuits.

In the United States, internet censorship is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

Internet censorship in the United Kingdom is conducted under a variety of laws, judicial processes, administrative regulations and voluntary arrangements. It is achieved by blocking access to sites as well as the use of laws that criminalise publication or possession of certain types of material. These include English defamation law, the Copyright law of the United Kingdom, regulations against incitement to terrorism and child pornography.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that public school and library usage of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights and that the Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against John Doe and then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name. A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post.

<i>Nitke v. Gonzales</i> American legal case

Nitke v. Gonzalez, 413 F.Supp.2d 262 was a United States District Court for the Southern District of New York case regarding obscene materials published online. The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the obscenity provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). She claimed that it was overbroad when applied in the context of the Internet because certain contents deemed lawful in some communities and unlawful in others will be restricted due to the open access of the Internet. The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the obscenity provision of the CDA. The court concluded that insufficient evidence was presented to show there was substantial variation in community standards, as applied in the "Miller test", and to show how much protected speech would actually be impaired because of these differences. The relief sought was denied, and the court ruled for the defendant. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed this ruling without comment.

<i>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</i>

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case on the controversial issue of adult bookstore zoning in the city of Los Angeles. Zoning laws dictated that no adult bookstores could be within five hundred feet of a public park, or religious establishment, or within 1000 feet of another adult establishment. However, Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc. were two adult stores that operated under one roof. They sued Los Angeles, stating the ordinance violated the First Amendment. The district court concurred with the stores, stating that the 1977 study stating there was a higher crime rate in areas with adult stores, which the law was based upon, did not support a reasonable belief that multiple-use adult establishments produce the secondary effects the city asserted as content-neutral justifications for its restrictions on adult stores. The Court of Appeals upheld this verdict, and found that even if the ordinance were content neutral, the city failed to present evidence upon which it could reasonably rely to demonstrate that its regulation of multiple-use establishments was designed to serve its substantial interest in reducing crime. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. This reversed the decision of the lower court. This case was argued on December 4, 2001; certiorari was granted on March 5, 2001. "City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 00-799, didn't involve the kind of adult material that can be regulated by the government, but rather the extent to which cities can ban "one-stop shopping" sex-related businesses."

<i>Doe v. Shurtleff</i>

Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit case assessing the constitutionality of Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5, a law that requires sex offenders to register their internet identifiers with the state in order to "assist in investigating kidnapping and sex-related crimes, and in apprehending offenders." In this case, a convicted sex offender, appearing anonymously as John Doe, appealed a decisionArchived January 4, 2014, at the Wayback Machine by the United States District Court for the District of Utah to vacate an order enjoining the enforcement of Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5. Even though Doe did not dispute the state's interest in enacting such a statute, he believed that the statute's enforcement ran afoul of his:

<i>Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder</i>

Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.

Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957), was a Supreme Court case that addressed issues of obscenity, free speech, and due process. The case stemmed from the confiscation and destruction of books from a New York City bookstore. The court's determination was that:

A state injunction against distribution of material designated as "obscene" does not violate freedom of speech and press protected by the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ "See H.B. 260, 56th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Utah 2005)" (PDF).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Florence v. Shurtleff, No. 2:05CV000485 (D.Utah 2005)" (PDF).
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Media Coalition Summary". May 19, 2012.
  4. ↑ "Preliminary Injunction" (PDF). August 25, 2006.
  5. ↑ King's English, Inc. v. Shurtleff, 620F.Supp.2d1272 (D. Utah2007).
  6. ↑ "JUDGE PERMITS CHALLENGE TO UTAH HARMFUL TO MINORS ACT TO PROCEED" (PDF). ACLU.org. November 29, 2007.
  7. ↑ "Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment" (PDF). June 8, 2011.
  8. ↑ "Booksellers, Artists, ACLU Seek to Bar Utah Law Restricting Speech on Internet" (PDF). Media Coalition.org. June 8, 2011.
  9. ↑ "Utah's Combined Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of its own Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss on Lack of Standing" (PDF). July 29, 2011.
  10. ↑ Romboy, Dennis (April 12, 2012). "Judge wants lawsuit challenging Utah's anti-pornography law settled". Deseret News.
  11. 1 2 "Final Order" (PDF). May 17, 2012.
  12. ↑ "Court Blocks Michigan Internet Censorship Law". Arts Wire. July 30, 1999. Archived from the original on March 10, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  13. ↑ "Summary and Highlights of the Philadelphia Federal District Court's Decision in Center for Democracy & Technology v. Pappert" (PDF). CDT.org. September 10, 2004.
  14. 1 2 3 "Combined Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment" (PDF). July 29, 2011.
  15. ↑ Media Coalition, Florence v. Shurtleff (May 19, 2012), http://mediacoalition.org/the-kings-english-v-shurtleff-2/
  16. ↑ "Utah Federal Court Protects Free Speech By Restricting Internet Law" (PDF). Media Coalition.org. May 18, 2012.
  17. ↑ "Florence v. Shurtleff Summary". ACLU.org. May 18, 2012. Archived from the original on March 5, 2014. Retrieved March 1, 2014.
  18. ↑ Foy, Paul (May 18, 2012). "Judge sides with free speech advocates in limiting Utah internet law". Standard Examiner. Archived from the original on March 5, 2014. Retrieved March 1, 2014.
  19. ↑ Nitke v. Ashcroft, 253F.Supp.2d587 (S.D.N.Y.2003),archived from the original .
  20. ↑ Dart v. Craigslist, Inc. , 665F.Supp.2d961 (N.D. Ill.2009).
  21. ↑ United States v. American Library Association , 539U.S.194 (2003).
  22. ↑ Woolfolk, John (April 21, 2009). "San Jose council votes down porn filters at public library computers". San Jose Mercury News.
  23. ↑ O'Leary, Amy (May 9, 2012). "When Children See Internet Pornography". New York Times.
  24. ↑ Long, Ray (August 12, 2009). "New law makes sex offenders' use of Internet social networking a felony". Chicago Tribune.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.