First Amendment freedoms 'are delicate and vulnerable' and the very 'threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanction.'A hearing on January 5 in my bitter, incredibly stupid divorce brought forth an attempt at prior restraint censorship of my web page and of various unspecified places "over the Internet" and "other computer bulletin boards". In a filing entered by my wife's attorney, I am accused of "harrassment by posting countless entries of data". That is, I am guilty of exercising rights protected under the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. I have been doing this "possibly for the last several months". Not only that, but I've "enlisted the assistance of friends" to similarly and reprehensibly exercise their constitutional rights. Who knows?--possibly they've been doing these deeds for months, too.--Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Distributors v. Kenneth Eikenberry, 1984
The issue is a web page that I created to document my campaign to change the statute law behind an Arizona court precedent that has, at least for now, denied my fatherhood of my seven-year-old daughter. The story is complicated, but you can see the putatively offensive, allegedly "harrassing" material at:
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Testimony.html
The filing promises "samples of the types of entries Greg has been making", but, alas, the samples were omitted. Not the end of the world, though, since my attorney is submitting everything currently available from that web page as an exhibit. I have nothing to hide, after all. Printed out, it runs to over two hundred pages of "entries", many of them Usenet posts by "friends" who are totally unknown to me.
It is demanded that I be found in contempt of court under Item B of the Preliminary Injunction Against Petitioner and Respondent in Dissolution or Separation Proceedings. Item B enjoins me from "Molesting, harrassing, disturbing the peace of, or committing an assault or battery of the other party or any natural or adopted child of the parties." "Harrassing" is ever and always a nebulous word, but the company it keeps in this sentence makes it pretty plain that "harrassing" would be something that P does to R or R does to P, not something that P does in the company of hordes of invisible strangers. If the police cannot respond to it, subsequent to a call to 911, it seems like it's not an Item B affair, wouldn't you agree?
Moreover, I cannot understand how publishing a web page or posting messages can be construed as harrasment, when the aspiring victim is required to seek the offending material out in order be bothered by it.
Moreover yet again, clearly this Preliminary Injunction cannot be construed to enjoin constitutionally protected activities. In the instant matter, we can seek the expert testimony of one John Peter Zenger.
But it is rich, after all. The factual claims on my web page are not challenged. The interpretations of those facts are not rebutted. What is sought instead of the cleansing power of reason is the power to silence, the power to impoverish and the power to imprison.
As someone pointed out, nothing has happened to me yet. That is true. I haven't been damaged by this in any way at all so far, and I doubt very much that I will be found in contempt of court. But that wasn't the point, was it? The point was to attempt to intimidate me into effecting what is called "voluntary self-censorship" out of the fear that I might be found in contempt of court. We need to expose this nonsense not because soldiers with guns are burning our books, but because lawyers with fountain pens will impel us to burn our books ourselves, if we don't stand up to them.
And this is still the United States, where we are accorded the right to speak and to publish freely, where we are permitted to petition the legislature and the courts with grievances, and where we are suffered to persuade others to join us in our petitioning.
Greg Swann
Sandra J. Fromm
S.B.N. 006865
Attorneys for Respondent
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
In re the Marriage of:
GREGORY STEPHEN SWANN,
Petitioner,
and
ANN TEMLAK SWANN,
Respondent,
STEPHEN HARRY WRIGHT,
Third Party Defendant
No. DR 95-90086
ADDENDUM TO WIFE'S POSITION
STATEMENT AS TO CONTESTED
ISSUES
(Assigned to the Honorable
Dennis W. Dairman)
COMES NOW the Respondent, ANN TEMLAK SWANN, hereinafter referred to as "ANN," through counsel undersigned, and hereby submits her Addendum to her Petition Statement as to Contested Issues in the above-referenced matter.
A new issue has come to light in the past few days: Petitioner, "GREGORY STEPHEN SWANN," hereinafter referred to as "GREG," has violated the Preliminary Injunction against harrassment by posting countless entries of data over the Internet, the Worldwide Web and other computer bulletin boards regarding ANN, third-party Defendant "STEPHEN HARRY WRIGHT," hereinafter referred to as "STEVE," the minor children to this action and the pending case.
ANN has recently become aware that GREG has possibly for the last several months been posting countless data entries through electronic bulletin boards such as the Internet and the Worldwide Web. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference are some samples[*] of the types of entires which GREG has been making. ANN believes that the entries to these electronic bulletin boards, which have been widely disseminated to the public, are being done only for the purposes of harrassing ANN and STEVE as well as interfering with their privacy.
GREG has not only undertaken to make data entries himself on these electronic buletin boards, but has enlisted the assistance of friends to make such entries on his behalf.
The Preliminary Injunction Against Petitioner and Respondent in Dissolution or Separation Proceedings enjoins both GREG and ANN from "B. Molesting, harrassing, disturbing the peace of, or committing an assault or battery of the other party or any natural or adopted child of the parties." The actions which have been undertaken by GREG clearly flies[**] to the level of harrassment and therefore clearly violates[**] the Preliminary Injunction against him.
Thus, an additional contested issue is whether GREG has violated the Preliminary Injunction and should be found in contempt thereof.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3rd day of January, 1996.
COHEN and FROMM, P.C.
By [Signed]
Sandra J. Fromm
2198 East Camelback Road, Suite 365
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4742
Attorney for Respondent
COPY of the foregoing hand-delivered
this 3rd day of January, 1996, to:
THE HONORABLE DENNIS W. DAIRMAN
Maricopa County Superior Court
Southeast Judicial District
222 East Javelina
Mesa, Arizona 85210
and
COPY of the foregoing mailed this
3rd day of January, 1996, to:
Mr. Michael D. Miller, Jr.
1351 North Alma School Road
Suite 225
Chandler, Arizona 85224
Attorney for Petitioner
and
Ms. Stacy L. Lackey
6991 East Camelback Road
Suite D-200
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251-2435
Attorney for Third-Party Defendant
[Signed by Notary Public]
[*No samples were included with the copy of this filing supplied to my
appellate attorney, David L. Rose.]
[**It was thus in the original.]
If you run a page concerned with censorship or Internet censorship, I'd appreciate it if you'd link to this page. And if your censorship page is not listed here, please let me know.