Today, a letter went out from Wendy Seltzer - Openlaw/DVD-discuss regarding a rehearing of the 2600 magazine DeCSS case.
From the letter:
"2600 Magazine asked the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse
the
November decision of a three-judge panel because the opinion conflicts
with
Supreme Court precedent in a case of exceptional importance.
"Free speech principles should turn not upon newly minted
distinctions
between pen-and-ink and point-and-click," lawyers from the EFF and
Stanford
Law School Dean Kathleen M. Sullivan argue. Instead, speech on the
Internet demands the same high level of protection as off-line
speech. Further, the linking injunction saps the "lifeblood of the
Internet" without adequate justification.
Newsbytes article:
Petition for rehearing:
EFF press release:
"
The EFF.org link to the case contains pertinent information regarding
the case with emphasis on the "panel decision's incorrect application of the intermediate scrutiny", the "panel's decision conflicting with Reno v. ACLU" and
"the panel's test for enjoining hyperlinks conflicts with Brandenberg and Bartnicki".
![[System|Toolbox]](images/stb-logo.gif){kind=logo}
