Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!sri-unix!steve@BRL-BMD.ARPA From: steve@BRL-BMD.ARPA Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: BBS Confiscation Message-ID: <1155@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-May-84 03:00:41 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.1155 Posted: Thu May 24 03:00:41 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 28-May-84 05:57:54 EDT Lines: 23 From: Stephen Wolff >> However, I do not agree that the phone >> company (or congress, acting on its behalf) should be permitted to >> abridge first amendment rights any more than The Progressive should >> have been prevented from publishing its article (as it was not). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh, yes it was! Morland's article was originally scheduled for the April, '79 issue, but on March 26 Federal judge Robert W. Warren "..did what no Federal judge had ever done before in the 203-year history of the American republic" when he issued a preliminary injunction barring publication, and had all copies of the article, its proofs, sketches &c. locked up. Sanity did not prevail until September 28, when the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Warren's incredible injunction. The article was printed in November. The Progressive was, in fact "prevented" from printing it (by Warren's injunction) for more than six months. A last note: While this was only a minor random aberration on the Government's part, nearly five years later The Progressive is still struggling to get out of debt from the costs it incurred in defending the first amendment to the Constitution.