As noted here on April 2, we've put on our Web site several of the docs of the Peter Junger suit against the Secretary of State: http://jya.com/pdj.htm One gives parts of Peter's article "Computers and the Law" which includes machine-readable code, code which is prohibited by the EAR from being placed on the Internet without a license (it is this "prior restraint" that Peter is challenging): http://jya.com/pdj003b.htm When Peter saw that I had put the article and code on my site, he telephoned immediately to say that the article should not have been sent to me along with the other material. He asked that it be removed because electronic publication could harm his case and put me at risk of prosecution. After discussion I declined to remove it, and thanked him for his advice. Yesterday, Richard Vasvari, one of Peter's three attorneys, called to politely ask that I remove the doc. And further explained how its electronic publication could harm the case and put me at risk. He said that he had notified Anthony Coppolino, DoJ, that the document was on the Web, as he was obliged to do by procedural rules. That they had discussed the ramifications. He did not say what DoJ intended to do. And, that he was obliged as an attorney to advise me to retain an attorney for my defense against prosecution for placing the doc on the Web. During this discussion with Mr. Vasvari I checked the access log for the prohibited doc and saw that DoJ had accessed it as well as several other files on me and my org. I told Mr. Vasvari this and he again advised me to remove the doc. Again, I declined. After chewing on this restraint of my publication by the attorneys, I decided to delete only the machine-readable code from Peter's article, leaving the text which explains why the electronic publication of the code is the crux of Peter's First Amendment case. On the assumption that his prior restraint claim is more important than mine. Take at look and let me know what you think. Should I have deleted the code or left it in the public domain where it belongs? Am I right to comply with the attorneys' first claim on prior restraint? Meanwhile, anyone worldwide who want the article with the code intact, send me an email for instructions on how to get it. Use the subject: Restraint