Updated 17 December 1999
Initial file: 2 April 1997
See also Peter Junger's Web site: http://samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu/comp_law/jvd/
July 9, 1998: A fund has been established to defray the cost of this litigation and contributions may be sent to Professor Spencer Neth, Case Western Reserve University Law School, Cleveland, OH 44106. Checks should bear the notation "Junger Litigation Fund" or "Crypto Litigation Fund.''
Originally Peter D. Junger v. Secretary of State et al
INTRODUCTION
This action is brought by a law professor under the First Amendment challenging United States export laws that he claims infringe upon his rights to speak and publish encryption software and other encryption information. Recognizing that encryption software is protected by the First Amendment, the court finds merit in the plaintiff's claims. (From Plaintiff's Proposed Memorandum of Opinion.)
1.1 Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for Leave to File First Supplemental and Amended Complaint, March 5, 1997 (12K)1.3 Second (Corrected) Motion to Refile Proposed Memorandum Opinion, February 24, 1997 (4K)
1.4 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental and Amended Complaint Instanter, February 13, 1997 (8K)
1.5 First Supplemental and Amended Complaint, February 13, 1997 (31K)
Tab A(1) Presidential Memorandum, November 15, 1996 (9K)(2) Executive Order 13026, November 15, 1996 (9K)
(3) Encryption Items Transferred From the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List, Federal Register, December 30, 1996 (111K)
(4) Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Federal Register, December 30, 1996 (6K)
Tab B -- Computers and the Law excerpts (Algorithms deleted April 3 at request of attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendants)
Tab D -- Letter from the U.S. Department of Commerce to Gino Scarselli, Attorney for the Plaintiff, January 29, 1997 (14K)
Tab E -- Letter from Gino J. Scarselli to Anthony Coppolino, Department of Justice, Attorney for the Defendants, January 2, 1997 (6K)
1.6 Plaintiff's Proposed Memorandum of Opinion, No Date (139K)
1.7 Statement of Issues, Points and Authorities in Anticipation of Oral Arguments, November 7, 1996 (21K)
2.1 Reply in Support of Defendants' Cross-Motion to Strike New Affidavits and Exhibits, March 11, 1997 (14K)2.2 Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Complaint, February 27, 1997 (16K)
2.3 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Refile Proposed Memorandum Opinion with Exhibits and Defendants' Cross-Motion to Strike New Affidavits and Exhibits, February 27, 1997 (13K)
2.4 Defendants' Proposed Findings and Facts and Conclusions of Law, February 6, 1997 (137K)
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 22:11:24 -0500
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: Prior Restraint
As noted here on April 2, we've put on our Web site several of the docs of the Peter Junger suit against the Secretary of State:
http://jya.com/pdj.htm
One gives parts of Peter's article "Computers and the Law" which includes machine-readable code, code which is prohibited by the EAR from being placed on the Internet without a license (it is this "prior restraint" that Peter is challenging):
http://jya.com/pdj003b.htm
When Peter saw that I had put the article and code on my site, he telephoned immediately to say that the article should not have been sent to me along with the other material. He asked that it be removed because electronic publication could harm his case and put me at risk of prosecution.
After discussion I declined to remove it, and thanked him for his advice.
Yesterday, Raymond Vasvari, one of Peter's three attorneys, called to politely ask that I remove the doc. And further explained how its electronic publication could harm the case and put me at risk.
He said that he had notified Anthony Coppolino, DoJ, that the document was on the Web, as he was obliged to do by procedural rules. That they had discussed the ramifications. He did not say what DoJ intended to do.
And, that he was obliged as an attorney to advise me to retain an attorney for my defense against prosecution for placing the doc on the Web.
During this discussion with Mr. Vasvari I checked the access log for the prohibited doc and saw that DoJ had accessed it as well as several other files on me and my org.
I told Mr. Vasvari this and he again advised me to remove the doc. Again, I declined.
After chewing on this restraint of my publication by the attorneys, I decided to delete only the machine-readable code from Peter's article, leaving the text which explains why the electronic publication of the code is the crux of Peter's First Amendment case. On the assumption that his prior restraint claim is more important than mine.
Take at look and let me know what you think. Should I have deleted the code or left it in the public domain where it belongs? Am I right to comply with the attorneys' first claim on prior restraint?
Meanwhile, anyone worldwide who wants the article with the code intact, send me an email <jya@pipeline.com> for instructions on how to get it.
Use the subject: Restraint
Hypertext by JYA/Urban Deadline