---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:31:28 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Indiana judge extends gag order to the Net, from TNNN The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/ Gag On This by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) February 10, 1997 The point of moving a trial or selecting a jury from a distant county is, of course, to prevent jurors from being influenced by the local media and opinions of the nearby community. But what if the media are global and the community is virtual? That enigma is causing problems for an Indiana couple on trial for reckless homicide in the November 1995 death of their son from meningitis. Bill and Sarah Planck had hoped to demonstrate their innocence through the Net, and so another son created a web site with documents from a counter-lawsuit filed against the county welfare agencies and sheriff's department, detailing how police threatened and intimidated the family. Now the judge presiding over their criminal trial has ordered the Plancks to pull the plug on the site. Madison County judge Fredrick Spencer told me he extended an existing gag order to the Internet because the tort claim notice could influence jurors. "We went two counties away to get the jury. But people in Randolph County have computers and America Online. So to avoid any possible problem, I ordered them to take it off," Spencer said. Spencer says the order was necessary to preserve the integrity of the trial. "It's only the trial that I'm concerned with," he said. "If I don't do what I can, I risk having to do [the trial] over again." Yet as soon as the Plancks yanked the documents offline on January 27, copies sprouted on the web site of a supporter -- beyond the reach of Judge Spencer. Who's right, Spencer or the Plancks? I posed that question to David Post, a professor at Georgetown Law School. "Gag orders may in a way be a thing of the past," he replied. "It becomes an enforcement dilemma with respect to the Internet. It's a hell of a lot easier to enforce that gag order [locally]. You really only have to keep your eye on a very small number of dissemination vehicles," Post said. "Gag orders are violated on occasion, but by and large you have some confidence that they'll be respected. Obviously you can't anymore." Gag orders stem from the right to an impartial jury. "We think that sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- that can best be accomplished by controlling the kind of information potential jurors might see. The Net deforms the landscape," Post said. Katharine Liell, the Plancks' attorney, was reluctant to discuss the case for fear of violating the gag order -- which covers her as well. "I'm uncertain what I can and can't say due to the vagueness of the gag order," she said. "Gag orders are supposed to be specific in nature, but I don't understand the nature or breadth of this gag order so I'm not comfortable commenting at this time." The legal question at issue in this prosecution is whether the Plancks are guilty of four felony charges, including reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter, in the death of Lance Planck from pneumococcal meningitis. The verdict may depend on the answer to one question: Did the Plancks wait too long to call 911? More than the couple, however, is on trial. The case also reveals how a child protection agency can be used as a weapon to threaten parents and divide a family. The mirrored documents tell a sad story of a poor family who lived in a trailer park and home-schooled their eight children, and their long-standing battle with Madison County social workers. The first salvo came in 1992, when a social worker visited the Planck home to investigate the children's alleged vision problems. Based on that visit, a judge ordered that their eyes be examined. A month later, police invaded the Planck home and forcibly removed the children. The tort notice describes other encouters, including tear gas canisters lobbed into their home and warrantless arrests. "I've known the Plancks for a long time," said Brent Tobin, an electrical engineer who mirrored the web site. "I've lived in the town all my life. I know there's nothing going on there. The deputy prosecutor made them out to be religious weirdos, but they're not." "I put up the web site since I don't feel that the county government should have jurisdiction over the World Wide Web. I think there should be freedom of speech. I feel gag orders are a violation of rights," Tobin said. For his part, Judge Spencer emphasized that his gag order "expires at the end of the case. Free speech is an important right and I'm going to be the last person to have a problem with it." What about the mirror site? Has his order accomplished anything? "The Planck supporters are going to put it on there," Spencer replied. "If you're suggesting that I'm tilting at windmills, perhaps you're right." ###