---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:36:53 -0800
From: Simon Higgs
To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM
Subject: ACLU Charges Political Censorship,
Challenges CA's Shutdown of Votexchange.com
ACLU Press Release: 11-02-00 -- ACLU Charges Political Censorship,
Challenges CA's Shutdown of Votexchange.com
ACLU Charges Political Censorship, Challenges CA's Shutdown of
Votexchange.com
Thursday, November 2, 2000
LOS ANGELES The ACLU affiliates of Southern California and San Diego
announced today that they will seek a temporary restraining order against
California Secretary of State Bill Jones, who threatened criminal
prosecution
against a voter discussion and strategizing web site called Voteswap 2000.
As a result of a letter Jones sent to Voteswap, that web site and two
others,
including the ACLU client votexchange2000.com, decided to shut down this
week
rather than run the risk of being prosecuted. The ACLU is also filing the
lawsuit on behalf of a prospective voter. The National Voting Rights Project
joins the ACLU as co-counsel in the case.
"Votexchange2000 and other similar web sites have a clear political
message,"
said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California,
"and
that qualifies them for the highest level of protection under the First
Amendment, whether or not Secretary Jones approves of their message or aim."
"Jones's interpretation of this statute is so far-reaching," he added, "that
it could encompass a vast array of voting-related behavior and speech
which we
all recognize as perfectly legitimate, even if we don't practice them
ourselves."
The vote discussion and matching sites sprang up as early as October 1, and
several were launched recently in response to an on-line opinion piece
advocating that voters get together on-line and strategize about how to
accomplish their shared aims. Scores of thousands of potential voters have
visited the sites since they were launched.
Republican Secretary of State Bill Jones cracked down on the innovative
discussion of voting strategies, claiming that sites which host and
facilitate
such discussions violate California's Election Code � 18521, which prohibits
offering payment or any other "valuable consideration" to people so that
they
will or will not vote.
ACLU attorneys say the law is not applicable, or, if construed to be
applicable, that it is not, in that case, Constitutionally sound.
"Discussing and agreeing to a co-operative voting strategy is absolutely
distinct from offering or receiving payment for a vote," said Eliasberg.
"This
is not equivalent to handing someone a five-dollar bill -- it is an
obviously
unenforceable and unverifiable personal pledge to vote in a certain way."
"Jones's interpretation of this law could conceivably qualify any kind of
speech as an inducement," he added. "If I promise to commend a person for
voting in a way I approve of, is that offering an inducement?"
Eliasberg offered the following examples of voting-related behavior and
speech
that Jones's interpretation of the law would make criminal:
Two spouses discuss their vote, realize they disagree on every important
issue, and agree that, since they're cancelling one another out, neither
will
vote.
Two friendly legislators who disagree with one another's positions arrange
not to vote on two separate occasions, when one, then the other, is absent,
thus cancelling out the effect of their absences on the final decisions
made.
; A politician such as Governor George Bush or Vice President Al Gore
offers a
monetary inducement in the form of a tax cut to a voter.
A politician, during tough economic times, promises "a chicken in every pot"
if voters cast their vote for him.
A political columnist urges voters to do exactly what the web sites in
question urge them to do.
"Bill Jones seems to be afraid of the Internet and the powers of expression
and association that it gives to people," said Eliasberg. "That power of
combining immediate association and direct speech is the reason people have
sought to regulate the Internet more strictly than other media. I don't
believe that Jones would have made the same threats if the same content had
been expressed in a more traditional medium such as a newspaper column or a
call-in radio show."
"Jones and other government officials and agencies need to take notice,"
said
Eliasberg. "The ACLU will not allow the Internet to become the First
Amendment
punching bag, to become the one medium in which we allow the government
to act
out its habitual suspicion of public free speech and free association."
Best Regards,
Simon
--
I hope you're taking good notes, because history will be reported differently.
