![[independent media
centre]](voteauction-relatedIndymedia20001102_files/imclogo.gif)
 SEARCH INDYMEDIA |
newswire
international
coverage of life, politics and protest.
publish
instantly
upload your audio, video, photo or text directly from your browser
background
in-depth
analysis on capitalism and global economics from znet
features
archive
links
about
chat
allies
contact
give us feedback
support us
get involved
up coming events
imc video projects
traducir
traduire
traduzir
traducono
ubersetzen
INDEPENDENT MEDIA
CENTERS
|
www.indymedia.org
belgium, europe
colombia
congo, africa
france, europe
india
israel
italy, europe
mexico
prague, europe
united kingdom,
europe
AUSTRALIA
melbourne, aus
sydney,
aus
CANADA
calgary
hamilton
ontario
québec
vancouver
windsor
UNITED
STATES
arizona
atlanta
austin
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
los angeles
madison
minneapolis
new york city
ohio valley
philadelphia
portland
richmond, va
rocky mountain
san francisco
seattle
washington dc
IMC
SITES
process.indymedia.org
global.indymedia.org.au
Global Action Radio Report
tech.indymedia.org
lists.indymedia.org
IMC technlogy by cat@lyst and IMC Geeks
Get involved with the indymedia revolution at process.indymedia.org
|
webcast
news
| print
article | news
wire | contact | email
article |
ACLU Charges
Political Censorship, Challenges CA's Shutdown of
Votexchange.com
by ACLU 2:28pm Tue
Nov 7 '00 |
|
|
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. ACLU
Charges Political Censorship, Challenges CA's Shutdown of
Votexchange.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
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."
add
your own comments
|
|
|