Urofsky v. Gilmore

Last updated
Urofsky v. Gilmore
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Full case nameMelvin I. Urofsky, et al. v. James S. Gilmore, III
DecidedJune 23, 2000 (2000-06-23)
Citation(s)216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000)
Case history
Prior action(s)Urofsky v. Allen, Civil Action No. 97-701-A (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia)
Appealed from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Appealed to Supreme Court of the United States
Subsequent action(s)Supreme Court certiorari denied.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en banc
Keywords
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, freedom of speech, obscenity, sexually explicit

Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000), is a case decided before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which concerned the matter of professors challenging the constitutionality of Virginia law restricting access to sexually explicit material on work computers. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined the professors in the case against the state of Virginia. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit overturned an earlier ruling by the District Court, and upheld the Virginia law.

Contents

The ACLU then requested an en banc hearing of the entire Fourth Circuit, which determined that university instructors do not have a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution to view sexually explicit material on facility computers. The ACLU then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and the ruling by the Fourth Circuit remained in effect.

Background

Six university instructors in Virginia sued contesting a state regulation which prohibited them as state employees from viewing sexually explicit material on work computers. [1] [2] The six professors' research included an academic study of Internet pornography. [3] Professor Melvin Urofsky of Virginia Commonwealth University was the lead plaintiff. They asserted that this prohibition violated their rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] [2]

The legislation challenged was originally passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1996, and then later amended in 1999. [4] The six college instructors argued that the legislation resulted in chilled speech leading to a limited role and decreased capacity for them to teach and perform academic research. [4] The university professors were joined in their case against the state by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). [5] The academic specialties of the professors included poet Algernon Charles Swinburne, and the subject of human sexuality. [5]

One of the plaintiffs was a professor who focused her research in queer studies, women's studies, and gender studies. [6] She told The Virginian-Pilot that she was not sure whether she was able to study the topic of human sexuality online due to the Virginia law. [6] Another professor in the case said he chose not to give his class an assignment studying indecency law on the Internet due to his concern he could not confirm their research online. [6]

Case history

District Court

The representative for the Virginia Attorney General was quoted in The Virginian-Pilot : "This case is not about censorship or regulating the Internet. The issue is about appropriate use of taxpayer funds. The taxpayers of Virginia should not be forced to pay for the use of state computers—on state time—by state employees for downloading pornography off the Internet." [5]

In 1998, a ruling by the District Court in the case invalidated the Virginia law. [5]

Fourth Circuit

Panel ruling

In February 1999 a judgment by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit overturned the District Court ruling, and upheld the law. [5] The ACLU then requested an en banc hearing before the entire Fourth Circuit. [5] [7]

The executive director of the ACLU of Virginia commented on the Fourth Circuit's decision, "In many ways this ushers in a new era in which college professors will have to seek permission for what they do." [6]

En Banc hearing

On October 25, 1999, en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reheard the case before the court. [4]

Decision

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued their decision from the full circuit panel of judges on June 23, 2000. [7] The Fourth Circuit determined that university instructors do not have a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution to view sexually explicit on facility computers. [1] In its ruling, the court upheld Virginia legislation which disallowed state workers from viewing such material on state computers unless it was part of a study project previously sanctioned. [1] The court decided that because these employees were workers for the state, their study was not a form of protected speech. [3] The Fourth Circuit ruled that the legal challenge, "amounts to a claim that academic freedom of professors is not only a professional norm, but also a constitutional right. We disagree." [6]

Supreme Court

In July 2000, the Virginia chapter of the ACLU decided to appeal the decision of the full Fourth Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States. [7] The executive director of the ACLU of Virginia stated to The Virginian-Pilot , "This decision has so thoroughly eviscerated the free-speech rights of public employees that we believe the U.S. Supreme Court will be willing to review this case and reverse the decision. Worst of all is that the 4th Circuit has essentially ruled there is no such thing as academic freedom. The Supreme Court may not go along with that." [7] The Supreme Court refused to hear the case further, and the thus the decision of the Fourth Circuit remained in effect. [1]

Impact

After the District Court struck down the Virginia law but before the case was heard by the first three-judge panel in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Virginia House of Delegates moved to pass legislation which would effectively repeal the law. [8] The proposed bill, HB2343, gained support from the Virginia House of Delegates' Committee on Science and Technology on February 5, 1999. [8] HB2343 was intended to replace the prior Virginia law, and instead provide more lenient rules that necessitated state government groups form appropriate guidelines including harsh sanctions for downloading or watching sexually explicit material in the workplace. [8] The bill moved to the entire Virginia House of Delegates in February 1999. [8] After realizing the judicial system had not completed analyzing the law, the Virginia General Assembly ceased deliberation over whether to repeal the original bill. [5]

Analysis

Writing in the Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, authors Kevin Kinser and Richard Fossey commented: "With the U.S. Supreme Court having declined review of the Fourth Circuit's opinion, the ruling in Urofsky diminishes the significance of academic freedom as a constraint on personnel decisions by academic administrators whose responsibility include the supervision of professors." [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that most sanctions of criminal punishment for consensual, adult non-procreative sexual activity are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. It based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

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>

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.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test, also known as the "substantial disruption" test, is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's interest to prevent disruption infringes upon students' First Amendment rights.

The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, title VII, subtitle N of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210, is part of a United States Act of Congress which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws, part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving free speech in public schools. High school student Matthew Fraser was suspended from school in the Bethel School District in Washington for making a speech including sexual innuendo at a school assembly. The Supreme Court held that his suspension did not violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PROTECT Act of 2003</span> United States law regarding child abuse and violent crimes against children

The PROTECT Act of 2003 is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse as well as investigating and prosecuting violent crimes against children. "PROTECT" is a contrived acronym which stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today".

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Reinhardt</span> American judge

Stephen Roy Reinhardt was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with chambers in Los Angeles, California. He was the last federal appeals court judge in active service to have been appointed to his position by President Jimmy Carter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul V. Niemeyer</span> American judge

Paul Victor Niemeyer is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marjorie Heins</span> American lawyer

Marjorie Heins (b.1946) is a First Amendment lawyer, writer and founder of the Free Expression Policy Project.

Child pornography laws in the United States specify that child pornography is illegal under federal law and in all states and is punishable by up to 20 years' imprisonment or a fine of $5000. The Supreme Court of the United States has found child pornography to be outside the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Federal sentencing guidelines on child pornography differentiate between production, distribution, and purchasing/receiving, and also include variations in severity based on the age of the child involved in the materials, with significant increases in penalties when the offense involves a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 18. U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), is a U.S. Supreme Court case which struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech". The case was brought against the Government by the Free Speech Coalition, a "California trade association for the adult-entertainment industry", along with Bold Type, Inc., a "publisher of a book advocating the nudist lifestyle"; Jim Gingerich, who paints nudes; and Ron Raffaelli, a photographer who specialized in erotic images. By striking down these two provisions, the Court rejected an invitation to increase the amount of speech that would be categorically outside the protection of the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the United States state of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT persons. LGBT rights in the state are a recent occurrence, with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective since July 1, 2020, there is a statewide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws effective since July 1, 2020, now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity. In the United States, discussion of obscenity typically relates to pornography, as well as issues of freedom of speech and of the press, otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. The States have a direct interest in public morality and have responsibility in relation to criminal law matters, including the punishment for the production and sale of obscene materials. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and there are wide differences in such laws. The federal government is involved in the issue indirectly, by making it an offense to distribute obscene pornographic material depicting children through the mail, to broadcast them, as well as in relation to importation of such materials.

<i>Bostic v. Schaefer</i>

Bostic v. Schaefer is a lawsuit filed in federal court in July 2013 that challenged Virginia's refusal to sanction same-sex marriages. The plaintiffs won in U.S. district court in February 2014, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in July 2014. On August 20, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the Fourth Circuit's ruling pending the outcome of further litigation. State officials refused to defend the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kinser, Kevin; Richard Fossey (2001). "Urofsky v. Gilmore: The Fourth Circuit takes a narrow view of academic freedom". Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 15 (1): 51–57. doi:10.1023/A:1011156302685. ISSN   0920-525X. OCLC   41973196.
  2. 1 2 Roscoe, Julie (2000). "Update, Report From the Court: State Bans Employees From Indecent Internet Activity; U.S. Fourth Circuit En Banc Hearing of Urofsky v. Gilmore". Richmond Journal of Law & Technology . 6 (3). ISSN   1091-7322. OCLC   35096908 . Retrieved May 7, 2013.
  3. 1 2 Nuckols, Christina (June 4, 2006). "Ruling could curb reports of misdeeds, experts say". The Virginian-Pilot . Norfolk, Virginia. p. A1.
  4. 1 2 3 Hancock, Michael D. (2000). "Postscript, Why Urofsky v. Gilmore Still Fails to Satisfy". Richmond Journal of Law & Technology . 6 (3). ISSN   1091-7322. OCLC   35096908 . Retrieved May 7, 2013.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Heyser, Holly A. (August 22, 1999). "Capital Digest: Pornography: Ban on sexually explicit material is challenged". The Virginian-Pilot . Norfolk, Virginia. p. B3.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Heyser, Holly A. (June 25, 2000). "Capital Digest: Court decision on Internet limits disappoints some". The Virginian-Pilot . Norfolk, Virginia. p. B2.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Heyser, Holly A. (July 16, 2000). "Capital Digest: College sexual material case gets ACLU appeal". The Virginian-Pilot . Norfolk, Virginia. p. B2.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Heyser, Holly A. (February 6, 1999). "Technology Committee tables bills to require libraries to ban web porn Delegates decide to leave the matter up to local school and library boards". The Virginian-Pilot . Norfolk, Virginia. p. B4.

Further reading

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.