|
MEDIA COALITION is an association that defends the First Amendment right to produce and sell books, movies, magazines, recordings, DVDs, videotapes, and video games, and defends the American public's First Amendment right to have access to the broadest possible range of opinion and entertainment. NEWS CENTER • Amendmed Arizona H.B. 2549 Passes House, Heads to Governor's Desk Updated:April 30, 2012 • With U.S. v. Alvarez Opinion Looming, Author and Publisher Face Civil Suit over Lies in Memoir Updated:April 30, 2012 • Deseret News Features Media Coalition General Counsel in Coverage of Argument in Utah Internet Censorship Case Florence v. Shurtleff Updated:April 13, 2012 • Arizona Internet Censorship Bill Pulled after Media Coalition Objects, Northern Arizona News Reports Updated:April 13, 2012 • Tennessee Proposal to Tax Media Based on its Contents Voted Down in Committee Updated:March 15, 2012 • Oklahoma Violent Video Game Tax Proposal Voted Down Updated:February 29, 2012 • Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Challenge to Stolen Valor Act Updated:February 22, 2012 • 10th Circuit Upholds Federal Law at Issue in U.S. v. Alvarez, Denies Protection for False Speech Updated:February 1, 2012 • Media Coalition Files Amicus Brief in U.S. v. Alvarez Updated:January 20, 2012 • Media Coalition Members File Motion for Summary Judgment in Utah Internet Censorship Case Updated:June 10, 2011
MEMBER CENTER
    |
Most Recent News: Governor Jan Brewer signed H.B. 2549 into law on May 14. On May 1, H.B. 2549 passed the legislature and was transmitted to the governor. The bill received its final vote in the House on April 30. Lawmakers amended H.B. 2549 to narrow its scope and address other issues to which Media Coalition continuously alerted legislators beginning in early March. There are four changes that address some of the concerns raised by Media Coalition in our letters to the governor and to legislators. First, "annoy" and "offend" have been removed from the legislation so that the bill would only apply to electronic speech that is intended to terrify, threaten, intimidate, or harass. Second, the intent to terrify, threaten, intimidate, or harass must be of a specific person(s) rather than a general intent. Third, the communication must be directed to the person the speaker intends to terrify, threaten, intimidate, or harass rather than be a general communication. Fourth, the legislation is limited to telephone calls, text messages, instant messages, and email. Arizona House Bill 2549, in its original form, would have updated the state's telephone harassment law to apply to the Internet and other electronic communications. It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to "annoy," "offend," "harass" or "terrify," as well as certain sexual speech. However, because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying. read moreUpdated: May 16, 2012 New York A.B. 290 would impose a $2 surcharge on magazines, videos, DVDs, or websites registered in New York that contain "nude" images, with "nude" defined as any display of female breasts or any portions of the buttocks or genitalia of any person; the images need not be sexual in nature and are illegal as to neither adults nor minors. Most Recent News: The Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce and Industry will hear A.B. 290 on May 15. Media Coalition sent to the committee members a memo in opposition to the bill on May 14. read moreMost Recent News: At a May 1 hearing, the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee recommended that S.B. 2647 be held for further study. Media Coalition sent the members of the Judiciary Committee a memo opposing the bill for several reasons, outlined below. The bill did not pass out of the committee and is not scheduled for further action. S.B. 2647 places limits on the distribution of pictures via the Internet, listservs, and public chat rooms. It does not limit prohibited images to those deemed constitutionally appropriate to ban for minors, unduly burdens adults free speech rights online, criminalizes contacting or causing others to contact a person if the contact meets certain requirements, and requires the subjects of images to consent to any distribution, even if they gave permission for the picture to be taken. read moreMost recent news: U.S. District Judge Dee Benson heard arguments on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on April 12, 2012. Coverage of the argument is available here. On November 21, plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the state's motion for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss on mootness. Utah filed on October 6 a motion for judment on the pleadings and a motion to dismiss for mootness. The following day, the state filed a reply to Media Coalition's response to the state's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. This case is a challenge to a Utah law meant to restrict minors' access to sexual material on the Internet. The law would do so by creating a list of websites the Attorney General's office deems inclusive of harmful material. Due to the nature of blocking technology, ISPs would sometimes be required to restrict access to websites that are not included on the list and do not feature "harmful" material. read more |
Copyright © 2012 Media Coalition
19 Fulton Street, Suite 407 New York, NY 10038 | Tel: 212-587-4025 Fax: 212-587-2436