cr> ApolloMedia Corporation Asks to File Amicus Curiae brief in California Supreme Court
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Clinton D. Fein
President,
ApolloMedia Corporation
Telephone: 415/552-7655
clinton@apollomedia.com
William Bennett Turner
Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell & Quinn
Telephone: 415/956-2828
wturner@rjoq.com
ANNOY.COM PUBLISHER ENTERS NEW FIRST AMENDMENT FRAY.
ApolloMedia Corporation Asks to File Amicus Curiae brief in California
Supreme Court.
April 14, 1998, San Francisco, California -- San Francisco based
multimedia company, ApolloMedia Corporation today filed a request to
be allowed to submit an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court of
California in a First Amendment case being observed nationwide as a
harbinger of speech in the American workplace. ApolloMedia's amicus
marks the first time that Supreme Court determinations pertaining to
the Internet are being applied to speech in the workplace, following
the Court of Appeal's instruction to the government to create a list
of "proposed epithets" or what ApolloMedia calls "Government-Forbidden
Words"
ApolloMedia, publishers of the highly controversial annoy.com web
site, themselves currently involved in litigation with United States
Attorney General Janet Reno over a still-standing provision of the
Communications Decency Act (CDA), has pioneered electronic free speech
issues beginning with a victory over the U.S. Navy in 1995, and an
amicus curiae filing in the landmark Reno v. ACLU Supreme Court
decision last year. ApolloMedia contends that vitally important
decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts
were handed down after the parties filed their briefs in the case in
question, Oscar Aguilar et al. vs. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., et
al.
"In the wake of the issues raised in the Paula Jones sexual
harassment suite, and the emergence of the Internet as an increasingly
fundamental business tool, it is imperative that we weigh speech
issues in the workplace with careful consideration and reasoned
analysis," said Clinton Fein, ApolloMedia president. "We cannot
allow a climate of political correctness, no matter how well intended,
to cloud our commitment to ensuring freedom of speech and expression
that is constitutionally protected."
"Making certain kinds of workplace speech illegal is a difficult
issue," said ApolloMedia attorney, and First Amendment expert,
William Bennett Turner. "The main problem with the lower court's
ruling in this case is not whether the victim of verbal abuse can sue
for damages, but whether the government -- the court -- can issue
orders prohibiting certain disfavored words from being said at all,
regardless of the context in which they're said".
Unusually, ApolloMedia is opposing the position taken by the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in this case. The ACLU filed a brief in
support of the plaintiffs alleging that inappropriate workplace speech
created a hostile work environment. An appellate court required the
trial court to propose a list of "proposed epithets" or
"Government-Forbidden Words" to be enjoined from the workplace.
"We respectfully disagree with the ACLU on this particular issue,"
added Fein. "We are not implying that inappropriate or racist speech
be an acceptable workplace protocol, or encouraging its use, but the
courts should not confuse pure speech with conduct, nor allow
government to determine which words may or may not be uttered,
especially without any regard for context or occasion."
ApolloMedia's own lawsuit was heard by a special three-judge
federal court on October 20, 1997. To date, no decision has been
handed down.
Last June, the Supreme Court declared the CDA's prohibition of
"indecent" speech on the Internet unconstitutional in a separate case
in which ApolloMedia filed an amicus curiae brief. The company's
annoy.com web site has been rife with controversy from the day it
launched, and continues to generate strong reactions around the globe
for its unapologetic and hard-hitting, in-your-face approach to
political and social issues, and its irreverent use of technology,
including extensive coverage and debate in publications such as The
Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
Additional information about the lawsuit and associated documents can
be found at http://annoy.com/case.html
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Andrew Oram - cr-owner@cpsr.org - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS
A CPSR Project -- http://www.cpsr.org -- cpsr@cpsr.org
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/
Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Partial thread listing: