IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. 99-101
_____________
AMERICAN LIFE ACTIVISTS, DANIEL COAST, AND
BRAINSPRING.COM.,
Appellants
v.
PLANNED PARENTING, INC., AND DR. MIKE NICKETTE,
Appellees
________________________________________
ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF AMES
________________________________
JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Moot Court Rules ………………………………………..........................3
Complaint ……………………………………………………………......5
Answer ……………………………………………………………….... 11
Exhibit A ……………………………………………………………… 14
Exhibit B................................................................................................ 16
Decision and Order, U.S. District Court, District of Ames ………….. 18
Defendant’s Notice of Appeal ……………………………………….. 21
INTERNET AND SOCIETY 1999 MOOT COURT RULES
General Rules
Outside Assistance. The competition is a team endeavor. Any team may consult with or receive assistance or suggestions from anyone not on their team.
Similar Materials. Teams shall not consult or use briefs or previous moot court arguments on the same or substantially similar facts.
The Brief
General. Each team will write one brief.
Contents. Each brief must include a cover page, table of contents, table of authorities, questions presented, statement of facts and the signature of counsel. The questions presented should appear on a separate page before the statement of facts.
Length. Each brief will be not longer than thirty (30) pages, excluding the cover page, table of contents, table of authorities, questions presented, and any appendix consisting of verbatim reproduction of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions.
Submission. Two (2) copies of the Appellant's brief are due on Tuesday, November 23, 1999 at 10:00am. Two (2) copies of the Appellee's brief are due on Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 10:00am. All briefs should be placed in the Hark Box of Michal Podell, 3L. If you have a problem accessing a Hark Box, please leave Michal or Jalila a phone message on that same day before the deadline.
Distribution of Briefs. Copies of the Appellant's brief will be placed in Appellee's Hark Box by noon on Tuesday, November 23, 1999. Copies of the Appellee's brief will be placed in Appellant's Hark Boxes by noon on Wednesday, November 24, 1999. In addition, electronic copies will be e-mailed.
Teamwork with MIT Students. Both the Appellees and the Appellants will collaborate with 2 MIT students in preparation for the MIT presentation, which will occur prior to oral arguments.
Oral Arguments
Date. The oral arguments will take place on December 1, 1999 in the Ames Courtroom.
Length. Each side will be allocated thirty (30) minutes. Appellants may reserve some of this time for rebuttal. Only one attorney may argue during the rebuttal time. The judges, in their discretion, may permit the arguments to continue beyond the allowed time.
Citation. Counsel may cite and discuss at oral argument any case or publication, except those deemed "off-limits," regardless or whether such case or publication is cited in the Record or in any of the briefs prepared by the teams. Cases mentioned but not cited earlier should be highlighted as such if they are introduced at oral argument.
Judging panel. There will be six judges including Professor Zittrain, Professor Abelson, two technology experts or professors, and two practicing lawyers, judges or law professors.
The Record
Questions. All questions concerning the record should be submitted as soon as possible in writing or by email to both Michal Podell (mpodell@law.) and Jalila Jefferson (jjeffers@law.).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Civil Docket No. 99-101
DISTRICT OF AMES
_______________________
)
Planned Parenting, and )
Dr. Mike Nickette, Plaintiffs )
)
v. )
)
American Life Activists, Daniel Coast, )
and Brainspring.com, Defendants )
)
_______________________
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, Planned Parenting, and Dr. Mike Nickette by and through counsel, and complains as follows:
PARTIES
1 The Plaintiff, Planned Parenting Inc., ("Planned Parenting"), is an Ames corporation, with its principal place of business in Ames City, Ames.
2 The Plaintiff, Dr. Mike Nickette, is an individual residing in Ames City, Ames.
3 The Defendant, American Life Activists ("ALA"), is an Ames organization, with its principal place of business in Ames City, Ames.
4 The Defendant, Daniel Coast, is an individual residing in Ames City, Ames.
5 The Defendant, Brainspring.com, is an Ames corporation with its principal place of business in Ames City, Ames.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6 Planned Parenting provides reproductive health services to women in the State of Ames and throughout the United States. Its employees include doctors, nurses, administrators, trained counselors, and security personnel.
7 Among the many health services it provides, Planned Parenting performs legal abortions.
8 Dr. Mike Nickette is the medical director of Planned Parenting as well as a practicing doctor who provides abortions.
9 ALA is a coalition of people and organizations that was formed in 1994 during a split in the pro-life movement over the use of force.
10 ALA founders refused to commit to non-violence against doctors and providers of abortions. Because they advocated the use of "force" and justifiable homicide, they were no longer allowed to be leaders of Operation Help and therefore agreed to form a new organization that became ALA.
11 Daniel Coast is the president and national director of ALA.
12 Daniel Coast has never disapproved of or disassociated with the goals or activities of ALA.
13 The Nuremberg Files were unveiled in hard copy form by ALA at ALA’s January 1996 event in Ames City, and were subsequently posted on the Internet.
14 The Nuremberg Files list the names and contain personal information on abortion providers, clinic employees and clinic owners, law enforcement officials involved in securing access to abortion services, judges, politicians, and abortion rights supporters. The website invites any viewer to update and add additional names of individuals or additional personal information about any person already listed.
15 The personal information contained in the Nuremberg Files ranges from home addresses, phone numbers, pictures, children’s names, spouse’s names, and children’s schools, to individuals’ social security numbers and car license plate numbers.
16 The names of doctors and clinic workers and security personnel who have been killed during attacks on abortion clinics are listed in the Nuremberg Files with strikes through their names. Those wounded are shaded in gray.
17 The Nuremberg Files have icons which consist of red blood dripping down the page, and daggers.
18 The names of several doctors and employees of Planned Parenting appear in the Nuremberg Files.
19 Information about Dr. Mike Nickette is contained in the Nuremberg Files.
20 Information about Dr. David Gunn is contained in the Nuremberg Files. On March 10, 1993, Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed outside the clinic where he performed abortions. His name on the Nuremberg Files appears with a strike through it.
21 Information about Dr. George Patterson is contained in the Nuremberg Files. On August 21, 1993, Dr. George Patterson, an abortion provider, was shot and killed. His name on the Nuremberg Files appears with a strike through it.
22 Information about Dr. John Britton is contained in the Nuremberg Files. On July 29, 1994, Dr. John Britton was shot and killed, along with his security escort, while entering an abortion clinic. His name on the Nuremberg Files appears with a strike through it.
23 The Plaintiffs were aware of these murders.
24 The FBI contacted the Plaintiffs and their employees and agents listed in the Nuremberg files to notify them that they appear in the files and advised them to take safety precautions.
25 ALA’s name appears on the Nuremberg Files Internet website in its initial format.
26 The Nuremberg Files website makes it clear that any information kept by ALA will be kept away from legal authorities. The website declares: "the evidence collected will be forwarded to several secure locations so that pro-abortion forces will not be able to destroy the evidence and prevent its future use." This statement remained on later versions of the website.
27 ALA’s position on violence against abortion providers is clear. In the words of ALA leader Daniel Coast, "if someone was to condemn any violence against abortion, they probably wouldn’t have felt comfortable working with us."
28 ALA and Daniel Coast are aware of the recent murders and violence against abortion doctors and providers.
29 Brainspring.com is an Internet Service Provider, ("ISP"), that allows its users to post websites free of charge in exchange for allowing the ISP’s own advertising banners to be displayed on users’ websites.
30 Brainspring.com is the host for the ALA’s Nuremburg Files.
31 Plaintiffs as well as the FBI contacted Brainspring.com to alert them that one of their sites, the Nuremberg Files, presented a potential danger or threat to the people listed on it.
32 Brainspring.com took no action and made no reply after being contacted by the Plaintiffs and the FBI.
CAUSE OF ACTION
COUNT ONE - THREATS OF FORCE AND VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO BUILDING ENTRANCES ACT
33 Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in Paragraphs one through thirty two as though fully set forth herein.
34 The Nuremberg Files constitute and communicate a true threat to assault, kill or do bodily harm to the Plaintiffs and their agents, officers and employees.
35 Defendants ALA and Daniel Coast specifically released the Nuremberg Files into a known atmosphere of violence against abortion providers.
36 The Defendants ALA and Daniel Coast specifically intended to threaten the Plaintiffs and specifically intended to interfere with or intimidate the Plaintiffs from engaging in legal medical practices and procedures. They specifically created an atmosphere on the Internet where any viewer could conspire with the Defendants by volunteering additional personal information about the Plaintiffs. Defendants also specifically created and published their threats on a public national and international forum where the Plaintiffs, their families, friends and clients would be able to view them.
37 The Freedom of Access To Building Entrances Act, ("FABE"), 10 U.S.C. §284, states that in an action brought by a person aggrieved by threats of force, "the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary, permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys…"
38 As a result of Defendants ALA’s and Daniel Coast’s actions, Plaintiffs have suffered daily the threat of physical violence against themselves and their families. They have been forced to live their personal and professional lives in fear and disguise.
39 The ALA and Daniel Coast have violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under FABE and common law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against ALA and Daniel Coast in an amount sufficient to compensate for their damages, together with their costs.
COUNT TWO- JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
40 Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in Paragraphs one through thirty nine as though fully set forth herein.
41 Brainspring.com knew that it was hosting the Nuremberg Files through its Internet services.
42 Brainspring.com knew that its action of continued hosting of the Nuremberg Files would or reasonably could lead to the threatening, intimidation and harm of the Plaintiffs.
43 Brainspring.com had the technical ability, at any time, to take off of the Internet or edit on the Internet the content of the Nuremberg Files.
44 Brainspring.com was the only party with the technical ability to take off of the Internet or edit on the Internet the content of the Nuremberg Files.
45 Brainspring.com failed to exercise a reasonable level of care at a minimum cost to itself, which would clearly have prevented a foreseeable harm to the Plaintiffs.
46 As a result, Brainspring.com caused the Plaintiffs to suffer actual threats, intimidation and harm and caused the violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights under FABE.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Brainspring.com in an amount sufficient to compensate for their damages, together with their costs.
COUNT THREE - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
47 Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in Paragraphs one through forty six as though fully set forth herein.
48 Monetary damages alone will not prevent the Nuremberg Files website from continuing to exist on the Internet and thus to continue to threaten and harm the Plaintiffs.
49 The harm from the violation of the Plaintiffs’ common law and statutory rights by the Defendants has no adequate remedy at law.
50 Equitable principles dictate that this Court enjoin ALA and Daniel Coast from publishing, disseminating or posting the Nuremberg Files or any similar materials.
51 Because Brainspring does not validate user information before positng users' websites, equitable principles dictate that this Court enjoin Brainspring.com from hosting the Nuremberg Files or any similar website without regard to who the poster is.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order enjoining ALA and Daniel Coast from publishing, disseminating or posting the Nuremberg Files or any similar materials, and issue an order enjoining Brainspring.com from hosting the Nuremberg Files or any similar website.
DATED at Ames City, Ames, this 1st day of January, 1999.
______________________
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
Planned Parenting
Dr. Mike Nickette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Civil Docket No. 99-101
DISTRICT OF AMES
_______________________
)
Planned Parenting, and )
Dr. Mike Nickette, Plaintiffs )
)
v. )
)
American Life Activists, Daniel Coast, )
and Brainspring.com, Defendants )
)
_______________________
ANSWER
NOW COME the Defendants, American Life Activists, Daniel Coast and Brainspring.com, by and through their joint counsel, and answer the Complaint of the Plaintiffs as follows:
1 Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 5 inclusive.
2 Defendants have no basis for an opinion on the information contained in Paragraphs 6 through 8.
3 Defendants ALA and Daniel Coast partially admit and partially deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 9 through 12.
4 ALA was founded to afford its members a forum in which to express their political, personal and religious opinions and beliefs.
5 Defendant Brainspring.com has no basis for any knowledge regarding Defendants ALA and Daniel Coast’s activities, motives and purposes.
6 Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraphs 13 through 23 inclusive.
7 Defendants have no specific knowledge about, or involvement in the murder of the abortion doctors mentioned in Paragraphs 20 through 22.
8 The Defendants have no basis for an opinion on Paragraphs 23 through 24.
9 The Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraphs 25.
10 Brainspring.com’s name appears no where on the Nuremberg Files website, nor were they involved at all in the creation or content of the website.
11 Defendants partially admit and partially deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 26 and 27. Defendants ALA and Daniel Coast did not intend for the Nuremberg Files to violate or evade any laws or legal authorities.
12 Brainspring.com’s Users Policy (Exhibit A) specifically warns its users to be aware that their website may harm or otherwise violate another person’s rights and that Brainspring.com will bear no liability for any such resulting harm.
13 ALA and Daniel Coast admit the allegations in Paragraph 28. Brainspring.com has no basis for any opinion on the allegations contained in Paragraph 28.
14 Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraphs 29 through 32 inclusive. ALA and Daniel coast had no knowledge, at the time, of the FBI contacting Brainspring.com.
15 Brainspring.com Users Policy prevents Brainspring.com from interfering with, reviewing or editing the content of its users’ websites. Brainspring.com does not have the technical capability nor the physical capability (including staff size and financial cost) to review and edit all of its Users’ websites. Nor does Brainspring.com have the ability to determine which of its Users’ websites will, or are likely to, cause harm.
16 ALA and Daniel Coast were aware of and accepted Brainspring.com’s Users Policy.
17 Defendants generally and specifically deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 33 through 51.
18 Defendants have never directly or personally communicated with any of the Plaintiffs by phone, fax, email or in person. Defendants have never directly confronted the Plaintiffs or visited their places of work or their homes.
19 Defendants ALA and Daniel Coast were using a legal format, the Internet, to communicate their opinions and beliefs with the hope of educating Plaintiffs and others as to the Defendant’s perceived harms of abortion.
20 Defendant Brainspring.com has no special duty of care to the Plaintiffs and no prior existing relationship with or knowledge of them. Brainspring.com followed its reasonable and customary Users Policy.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 Defendants ALA, Daniel Coast and Brainspring.com engaged in a lawful and legitimate exercise of First Amendment protected free speech in order to dissuade the Plaintiffs from providing abortion services.
22 ALA’s, Daniel Coast’s, and Brainspring.com's First Amendment rights to exercise free speech prevent the application of FABE in this situation. Such application would silence an otherwise lawful, nonviolent and legitimate exercise of political speech and expression.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants pray for the following relief:
23 For an order of the Court declaring the expressions and opinions of ALA and Daniel Coast as Constitutionally protected speech.
24 For an order of the Court upholding the validity of Brainspring.com’s Users Policy which denies Brainspring.com’s liability for any harms resulting from the website’s which it hosts but over whose content it has no control.
25 For an award of the Defendants’ attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action.
26 Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED at Ames City, Ames, this 1st day of February, 1999.
________________________
Attorney for the Defendants
American Life Activists
Daniel Coast
Brainspring.com
EXHIBIT A
BRAINSPRING.COM USER’S POLICY
1 Provision of Services. I understand and agree that, subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, Brainspring shall provide me with certain Internet access and web site hosting services. I understand and agree that I am fully responsible for the use of such services by me or by anyone whom I permit to use my account, and that Brainspring reserves the right to terminate my account at any time, for any reason.
2 Appropriate Use of Services.
(a) I agree to maintain my password as private and confidential information.
(b) I agree to use my Brainspring account in a way that conforms with all applicable laws and regulations.
(c) I specifically agree not to make any attempt to gain unauthorized access to any systems or networks.
(d) I agree that I will not use the Brainspring services (including any web site I establish on Brainspring’s server) or the Brainspring web site to publish, post, distribute or disseminate another’s proprietary information, including trademarks or copyrighted information, without express authorization of the rights holder.
(e) I agree that I will not use the Brainspring services (including any web site I establish on Brainspring’s server) or the Brainspring web site to publish, post, distribute or disseminate any information that will libel, slander, defame, threaten, defraud, or otherwise legally harm another individual.
(f) I understand and agree that Brainspring is not responsible for the content of my website nor the consequences of my website. Brainspring will not, upon its own initiative, remove from any website I establish on Brainspring’s server any material or information which infringes another’s rights.
(g) I understand and agree that my website will be attributed with my name and date.
(h) Brainspring.com will not take responsibility for the comments I post on my website. I understand and agree that I should be careful about making comments that could be libelous or slanderous or otherwise violative of another’s rights. To be safe, Brainspring.com encourages that I make only factual, emotionless comments.
3 Security. I understand that the information available through Brainspring or interconnecting networks may not be accurate, including the content displayed on the Brainspring Desktop. I understand that some of the information available through Brainspring or interconnecting networks may be intended for adult audiences. I understand that internetworking communications are not secure, and may be subject to interception or loss. Brainspring Enterprises, Inc. makes no warranties of any kind, whether expressed, implied, or statutory concerning the data or information available through the Brainspring network.
4 Anonymity. Brainspring does not and cannot verify user information before it allocates home page space to customers. The customer acknowledges that he or she is liable for any misrepresentation of identity that he or she engages in through Brainspring, and Brainspring does not have the resources to edit or delete home page space on the basis of content or claimed failure to fully identify oneself.
5 Warranty Disclaimer. I understand that the use of my Brainspring account, and any data of information accessed using that account, will be completely at my own risk. I agree that Brainspring shall have no liability for any consequential, indirect, special or incidental damages regardless of the success or effectiveness of other remedies.
6 Indemnification. I agree to defend, indemnify and hold Brainspring and its affiliates harmless from any and all liabilities, costs, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, related to or arising from, any violation of this agreement by me or those who access the services through my account, or the use of the services or the Internet and the placement or transmission of any message, information, software, audio files or other materials on the Internet by me or by those who have access to the services through my account.
EXHIBIT B
FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO BUILDING ENTRANCES
10 USCs 284
1 Prohibited activities.--Whoever--
(a) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, knowingly or intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(b) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, knowingly or intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or
(c) knowingly or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or knowingly or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship, shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (2) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (3), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities.
2 Penalties.--Whoever violates this section shall--
(a) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both; except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.
3 Civil Remedies.--
(a) Right of action.--
(i) In general.--Any person aggrieved by reason of the conduct prohibited by subsection (1) may commence a civil action for the relief set forth in subparagraph (4), except that such an action may be brought under subsection (1)(a) only by a person involved in providing or seeking to provide, or obtaining or seeking to obtain, services in a facility that provides reproductive health services, and such an action may be brought under subsection (1)(b) only by a person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship or by the entity that owns or operates such place of religious worship.
4 Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (1), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. With respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Civil Docket No. 99-101
DISTRICT OF AMES
_______________________
)
Planned Parenting, and )
Dr. Mike Nickette, Plaintiffs )
)
v. )
)
American Life Activists, Daniel Coast, )
and Brainspring.com, Defendants )
)
_______________________
DECISION AND ORDER
1 The Jury, in its special verdict, found each defendant liable under FABE and awarded each Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages against each Defendant.
2 I find that ALA and Daniel Coast acted with specific intent and malice in a blatant and illegal communication of true threats to kill, assault or do bodily harm to each of the Plaintiffs and with the specific intent to interfere with or intimidate the Plaintiffs from engaging in legal medical practices and procedures.
3 I consider a person to make a "true threat" when the person makes a statement that, in context, a reasonable listener would interpret as communicating a serious expression of an intent to inflict or cause serious harm on or to the listener (objective); and the speaker intended that the statement be taken as a threat that would serve to place the listener in fear for his or her personal safety, regardless of whether the speaker actually intended to carry out the threat (subjective).
4 The jury, in its special verdict, found that Brainspring.com knew of the Nuremberg Files Website that it was hosting. The jury found that Brainspring.com knew that the Website was intimidating and failed to remove it. Therefore, I find that in violation of FABE, BrainSpring.com knowingly intimidated and interfered with the Plaintiffs who were in the business of providing reproductive health services.
5 FABE provides this Court with express statutory authority for injunctive relief, and the substantial evidence of continuing harm to Plaintiffs from Defendants’ unlawful threats and actions provides clear factual and equitable bases for issuance of an injunction.
6 In deciding whether to grant permanent injunctive relief, the Court considers the balance of hardships or equities- weighing on one hand the harm to Plaintiffs if the Court declines to prohibit the Defendant’s threats, and on the other hand the harm to the Defendants from an injunction ordering them to cease these activities. I find that the balance of hardships weighs overwhelmingly in Plaintiff’s favor. In the absence of an injunction, plaintiffs will continue to live as they did before the trial: clad in bulletproof vests and disguises, borrowing cars and varying routes to avoid detection, and constantly in fear of the bodily harm with which they have been threatened.
7 The law requires a higher level of scrutiny and proof for an injunction involving speech than for an award of damages for violation of a statute. I find the actions of the defendants in preparing, publishing and disseminating these true threats objectively and subjectively were not protected speech under the First Amendment.
8 Therefore, in light of its authority under FABE, the general equitable authority of the Court, and the Court’s findings concerning the grave threat to each Plaintiff’s security and the likelihood of continuing harm from each Defendant I am issuing the following Order and Permanent Injunction.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
1 Defendants ALA and Daniel Coast and their agents and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Order and Permanent Injunction are hereby immediately and permanently ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from committing any of the following acts or aiding, abetting, directing, or facilitating others to commit or conspiring with any others to commit the following acts:
(a) Threatening, with the specific intent to do so, Planned Parenting and Dr. Mike Nickette or any of their family members, officers, agents, servants, employees or attorneys in violation of FABE.
(b) Publishing, republishing, reproducing and/or distributing anywhere, either directly or indirectly, in print or in electronic form the personally identifying information about the Plaintiffs, or any of their families or agents, officers or employees, contained in the Nuremberg Files or any mirror web site that may be created.
(c) Publishing, republishing, creating and/or distributing anywhere, either directly or indirectly, in print or in electronic form the personally identifying information about the Plaintiffs, or any of their families or agents, officers or employees, in any file materially similar to the Nuremberg Files.
2 Defendant Brainspring.com and their agents, officers and employees are hereby immediately and permanently ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from committing any of the following acts or aiding, abetting, directing, or facilitating other to commit or conspiring with any others to commit the following acts:
(a) Hosting, publishing, reproducing or distributing in electronic form the Nuremberg Files, any mirror website that may be created, and any materially similar site that contains specifically threatening personally identifiable information about the Plaintiffs.
3 Willful violation of this Order and Permanent Injunction or any other of this Court’s orders may subject any person who commits such an act to criminal and/or civil prosecution for contempt of this Court. Any violation of this Order and Permanent Injunction will resume in the immediate issuance of an order to show cause for service on the violator who after appropriate hearings and findings, will be dealt with within the sanctions provided by law.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Civil Docket No. 99-101
DISTRICT OF AMES
_______________________
)
Planned Parenting, and )
Dr. Mike Nickette, Plaintiffs )
)
v. )
)
American Life Activists, Daniel Coast, )
and Brainspring.com, Defendants )
)
_______________________
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOW COMES the Defendants by and through counsel, and file notice of their intent to appeal from the decision and order of the District Court, dated August 1, 1999. Defendants ALA and Daniel Coast’s appeal presents the following question: whether application of FACE is unconstitutional in this instance since such application would violate ALA and Daniel Coast’s First Amendment rights. Defendant Brainspring.com’s appeal presents the following question: whether an Internet Service Provider (ISP) can be held liable for the content of its users websites.
DATED at Ames city, Ames, this 1st Day of September, 1999.
______________________
Attorney for the Defendants
American Life Activists
Daniel Coast
Brainspring.com