CINDY A. COHN, ESQ.; SBN 145997 McGLASHAN & SARRAIL Professional Corporation 177 Bovet Road, Sixth Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 Tel: (415) 341-2585 Fax: (415) 341-1395 LEE TIEN, ESQ.; SBN 148216 1452 Curtis Street Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: (510) 525-0817 JAMES WHEATON; SBN 115230 ELIZABETH PRITZKER; SBN 146267 FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT 1736 Franklin, 8th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 208-7744 ROBERT CORN-REVERE, ESQ. Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 2000 Tel: (202) 637-5600 Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel J. Bernstein IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL J. BERNSTEIN ) ) C 95-00582 MHP Plaintiff, ) ) PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED ) DECISION v. ) ) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) STATE et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) In connection with the Court's consideration of the parties' pending cross-motions for summary judgment, heard and submitted on June 18, 1977, Plaintiff, though his undersigned counsel, respectfully submits the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (No. 96-511, June 26, 1997). The statute in Reno regulated speech on the Internet more strictly than speech in printed form. The regulations challenged here do the same. The Supreme Court in Reno also considered argument that publication on the Internet could be criminally prosecuted based on the status of who could read them. In Reno this status was that of being a minor; here, it is being a foreign person or being located abroad. Finally, the Supreme Court in Reno considered the claim that a "knowledge" requirement saved the statute from overbreadth. The government makes the same claim here for the "technical assistance" provision of 15 C.F.R. para. 744.9. The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that: speech on the Internet was entitled to full First Amendment protection; "most Internet fora -- including chat rooms, newsgroups, mail exploders, and the Web - are open to all comers" so that requiring age or identity verification would chill protected speech; a "knowledge" requirement as to the status of those who might read material on the Internet did not save the scheme. The Supreme Court therefore held the statute unconstitutionally overbroad on its face and upheld an injunction against its enforcement. Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 1, 1997 McGLASHAN & SARRAIL ---------------- Professional Corporation By (signed CeP A CosR) ------------------------ CINDY A. COHN Attorneys for Plaintiff