Thus, Defendant's motion must be denied because Plaintiffs have alleged that the law directly harms their ability to communicate constitutionally protected speech. 1 If treated as a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court "must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party." Warth v. 12(b)(6) or 12(b)(1), but she clearly relies on several of Plaintiffs' declarations. 410, 419 (1971).ĭefendant is unclear as to whether she is bringing a motion to dismiss for lack of standing under Fed. Moreover, given the plain language of the statute, there is simply no way for the Court to rewrite COPA to cure its fatal overbreadth, or to eliminate its chilling effect on protected speech. Her argument in no way defeats Plaintiffs' standing, because Plaintiffs are at risk of prosecution under COPA if their interpretation of the statute is correct. Boiled down to its essence, Defendant's argument is in fact a request for the Court to re-write COPA to cure its constitutional defects. As discussed more fully below, Plaintiffs clearly have standing to bring a facial challenge to COPA because it directly threatens the rights of Plaintiffs and millions of other Internet speakers and users to communicate protected speech. § 231, because she alleges that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. INTRODUCTIONĭefendant has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' challenge to the Child Online Protection Act ("COPA"), 47 U.S.C. Plaintiffs hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS JANET RENO, in her official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |