AST
URON
TREET
HICAGO
LLINOIS
HONE
●
●
For the second time in three years, the U.S. Supreme
Court on June 29 upheld an injunction on the Child
Online Protection Act (COPA), but did not rule on its constitutionality. The Freedom to Read Foundation—an amicus in the case—hailed the decision as an important victory for the First Amendment.
In the most recent ruling, a majority of the Supreme
 FTRF challenges the FCC’s Golden Globes decision, p. 2

2004 FTRF Board election results, p. 3

Pinnell-Stephens joins Roll of Honor, p. 3

New PATRIOT Act litigation, p. 4
Court justices, led by Justice Kennedy, concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that
COPA unconstitutionally burdened speech protected by the First Amendment. Under the Court’s strict scrutiny test, the government must now show that the law achieves a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so.
The Court determined that COPA’s use of jail time and fines to punish protected speech on the Internet deemed
“harmful to minors” is not the least restrictive means of achieving the government’s stated goal of protecting children from seeing sexually explicit material online.
In his majority opinion, Kennedy identified filtering software as a less restrictive means of achieving the government’s goal. He said a congressional program to improve filtering software and to encourage the voluntary use of filters by parents would accomplish the government’s goals without requiring adults to identify themselves or provide credit card information to access material they have a right to see or subjecting publishers to criminal sanctions. He dismissed the argument that filters were not a good alternative to COPA because
Congress cannot require the use of filters; nor, he said can Congress assume that parents will not act if given the opportunity to do so. A program to promote voluntary filtering would give parents the ability to protect their children without penalizing protected speech.
Kennedy distinguished the Court’s 2003 decision to uphold the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), by explaining that COPA is a restriction on speakers on the Internet, while CIPA is an example of a program encouraging filtering by those receiving speech published on the Internet.
The High Court ordered the lawsuit returned to the
District Court for a trial to determine whether COPA’s scheme is actually the least restrictive means of achieving the government’s objectives. Kennedy said that unless the government could provide evidence that the less-restrictive option of encouraging parents to use
Internet filters is not as effective as COPA’s criminal sanctions in accomplishing the government’s goals, the law is unlikely to pass the strict scrutiny test.
Four Justices dissented from the Court’s opinion.
Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Rehnquist and
O’Connor, argued that COPA’s definition of “harmful to minors” materials was sufficiently narrow and unlikely to burden protected speech. Breyer also said filters did not work and were not a good alternative to the restrictions imposed by COPA. Justice Scalia found no fault with COPA.
In 2002, the Supreme Court overturned the Third
Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling that COPA’s reliance on local community standards to determine what was
“harmful to minors” and thus barred under the law made it unconstitutional. The Court remanded the case back to the appellate court, but kept in place the injunction against implementation of the law. In 2003, the Third Circuit again declared the law unconstitutional, finding it vague and overbroad.

Freedom to Read Foundation News
In April, the Foundation joined in filing a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking the commission to reconsider and reverse its decision to impose penalties on NBC for airing an allegedly indecent comment made by the singer Bono during the
2003 Golden Globe Awards broadcast. The FCC’s decision reversed its original order in the matter, which did not impose penalties on the network after concluding that Bono’s comment, taken in context, was not indecent or obscene. The petition further urges the FCC to set aside new rules imposing more stringent punishment on broadcasters for indecency. The petition and other documents related to this case can be found online at http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/Plead.html.
On July 8, by a vote of 210-210, the US House of
Representatives defeated the Freedom to Read
Amendment, sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and 149 other congressmen, after House leaders held open the vote, a move that had many bill supporters chanting “Shame!” The bill would have denied funding to the FBI to conduct searches of confidential library and bookstore records; such searches are permitted under
Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Freedom to Read Amendment appeared to be on the way to passing, with a 219-201 lead as the fifteen minutes allotted to the vote were coming to a close.
Republican leaders, however, held the vote open for an extra 23 minutes and were able to convince nine congressmen—eight Republicans and one Democrat—to change their votes. The resultant tie meant the amendment failed. The White House had threatened to veto the appropriations bill to which the amendment was attached if it included this provision.
There are several similar bills pending in both the House and Senate, including the SAFE Act (S. 1709), sponsored by Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Richard
Durbin (D-IL), which would reinstate the requirement that an FBI agent seeking a FISA court order show
Vol. 29, No. 2–3 Page 2 probable cause that the person whose records are sought is either a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power. It also forbids treating libraries as
Internet Service Providers, barring the use of National
Security Letters to obtain library records. The SAFE
Act also places limits on roving wiretaps and sneakand-peak searches. More information on legislation both to limit and expand the USA PATRIOT Act is available at www.ala.org/oif.
A great way to help the effort to protect reader privacy is to sign the petition at www.readerprivacy.org. Even better, you can help us gather petition signatures! To download a petition, go to: www.ala.org/ala/oif/ ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/alapetition.pdf
The Office for Intellectual Freedom will also mail you as many petitions as you like. Circulate them and return them to OIF—which has already collected thousands of signatures, thanks in great part to FTRF members! Call
800-545-2433 x4223 or e-mail oif@ala.org.
On July 1, the Children’s Internet Protection Act’s compliance rules went into effect. The law, upheld by the US Supreme Court last year after a challenge by
FTRF and others, mandates the use of Internet filtering software by libraries accepting E-rate discounts for
Internet access, or LSTA or ESEA funds.
The FCC is the agency responsible for creating the regulations concerning CIPA compliance. Currently, the FCC requires libraries to 1) install filters on the library’s computers as the default setting; 2) craft an
Internet use policy that includes a procedure for disabling the filter for adults aged 17 and older; and 3) certify these actions by filing the appropriate paperwork by the due date. It does not prescribe or endorse particular filtering software or outline what would constitute non-compliance other than the three actions listed above.
CIPA is not a criminal statute. If a library takes an action determined to be non-compliant by the FCC, the
FCC may require the return of the discount for the period of non-compliance. There is no other penalty.

Freedom to Read Foundation News Vol. 29, No. 2–3
On the American Library Association’s CIPA Web site
(www.ala.org/cipa) you can find questions and answers about CIPA, best practices, tools and worksheets, regulations and guidelines, and reports “From the Field.”
ALA is conducting an informal telephone survey of its institutional members to get a better sense of the impact
CIPA is having on public libraries.
In the April election, five Trustees were elected to the
Freedom to Read Foundation Board:
Francis J. Buckley, Jr.
Alexandria, VA
Chris Finan
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
New York, NY
Joel Hirschhorn (Treasurer; re-elected)
Hirschhorn & Bieber, P.A.
Coral Gables, FL
Deborah Jacobs
Seattle Public Library
Seattle, WA
Candace Morgan
Portland, OR
The newly elected Trustees join the following members to form the FTRF Board for 2004–2005:
John W. Berry (Vice President)
Jonathan Bloom
Gordon M. Conable (President)
Ginnie Cooper
Anne Heanue
Thomas H. Teepen
Ex Officio
Carol Brey-Casiano ALA President
Michael Gorman
Kenton Oliver
ALA President Elect
IFC Chair
Keith Michael Fiels ALA Executive Director
Executive Director Judith Krug also serves as Secretary of the Board.
Thanks to all of those who participated in this election, both candidates and voters!
Page 3
In June at the ALA Annual Conference in Orlando,
June Pinnell-Stephens, past president of the Freedom to Read Foundation, was presented with the Roll of
Honor Award, in recognition of her years of support for the Foundation and intellectual freedom in all its forms, both in Alaska and nationally. June works as the collection services manager for the Fairbanks-North
Star Borough Library in Fairbanks, Alaska.
In the words of FTRF President Gordon Conable,
“Pinnell-Stephens’ contributions go beyond merely a powerful vision and dedication to a cause. She is effective and tenacious, ensuring that intellectual freedom defenses, once begun, are followed through to the end. She is an advocate, a trainer, a student, an icon and a veritable intellectual freedom encyclopedia. She also puts her money where her mouth is, having donated significantly over the years to help the
Foundation be a viable and successful organization.”
The award was presented to her by ALA President
Carla Hayden. The text of the citation reads:
Thank you, June Pinnell-Stephens, for your years of devotion to, support of, and advocacy for the First
Amendment and the Freedom to Read Foundation.
Thank you, June, for making the Foundation a focal point of your life’s work. The Foundation is demonstrably stronger due to your tremendous contributions, including your service as President and
Treasurer, your efforts to raise the Foundation’s profile and expand its membership, and your generous financial support.
Thank you, June, for the many ways in which you go about defending the freedom to read: the trainings you conduct, your active involvement on committees and boards, your impassioned speeches, the impressive knowledge you accumulate and share. You are a powerful force for the constitutional principles that form the core of librarianship in this country.
Thank you, June, for making a difference at home.
Your stalwart leadership in Alaska has resulted in significant First Amendment victories. You have fought important battles against censorship and for user privacy. In each instance, you have taken the opportunity to educate everyone involved about what

Freedom to Read Foundation News Vol. 29, No. 2–3 intellectual freedom entails and why it is so essential to the state and the nation. Perhaps most impressive, you have maintained your sense of humor throughout it all!
Thank you, June Pinnell-Stephens, for your vigilance.
Thank you for your integrity. Thank you for persevering. Thank you for speaking out. Thank you for being an example to us all.
Gordon M. Conable, President
Judith F. Krug, Executive Director
Orlando, Florida ▪ June 2004
Carla Hayden presents June Pinnell-Stephens (right) with the
Roll of Honor award at 2004 ALA Annual Conference
Opening General Session.
The Roll of Honor was established in 1987 to recognize and honor those individuals who have contributed substantially to FTRF through adherence to its principles and/or substantial monetary support.
FTRF has joined with the American Booksellers
Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) and the
American Library Association to file an amicus curiae brief in John Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft . The case is a constitutional challenge to the expansion, under the
USA PATRIOT Act, of the FBI’s authority to use
National Security Letters to obtain records without judicial review. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in the
Southern District of New York in April, but disclosure
Page 4 of the case is limited due to the secrecy provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Much of the case remains under seal, but the judge in May ordered all information about the facial challenge to be filed publicly, including FTRF’s amicus brief. The public documents can be found at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/.
The FBI released documents in June showing that the agency has invoked Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT
Act—and did so mere weeks after Attorney General
John Ashcroft stated to great fanfare that the section had not been used. Another document—an internal agency e-mail—shows that the FBI considers apartment keys and other physical items to fit within the scope of Section 215. Yet another document demonstrates that Section 215 can be used against innocent people—and not merely suspected terrorists and spies.
The document release came in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in October
2003 by FTRF, ACLU, ABFFE, and the Electronic
Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
Ashcroft’s statement about not having used Section
215 was widely reported. Additionally, in the same month (October 2003), the Department of Justice claimed in a brief in Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor v. Ashcroft that the constitutional challenge to Section 215 should be dismissed because the FBI had never applied for an order under the section. FTRF joined an amicus brief in that case. (See the Report to Council on page 6.)
Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle’s May 21 order to release to documents was in response to a suit filed by the First
Amendment organizations after the FBI initially refused to release any documents in response to the
FOIA request. The FBI cited national security concerns in their initial decision.
More information on the FOIA request and released documents can be found at www.aclu.org/patriotfoia.

Freedom to Read Foundation News Vol. 29, No. 2–3
On September 3, the Supreme Court of Texas in New
Times, Inc. v. Isaacks reversed the Court of Appeals and ordering that the plaintiffs recover nothing. The
Court accepted both of the arguments made in the amicus brief filed by FTRF and others: (1) that no reasonable reader (an objective standard) would have understood the
Dallas Observer’s satirical “news” article to convey actual facts about the plaintiffs and (2) evidence of intent to ridicule does not establish actual malice. The Court’s opinion, which repeatedly points out the Court of Appeals’ deviation from the First
Amendment principles articulated in the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision in Hustler v. Falwell, provides strong protection for satire under Texas law.
The Observer article at issue claimed that a judge ordered a first-grader to juvenile detention for a book report based on a classic children’s book. The article was in response to the judge having ordered a seventhgrader detained for an allegedly violent Halloween story he wrote for a class project.
On August 9, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court order barring Irwin Schiff and his publishers from selling his book, The Federal Mafia:
How Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully
Collects Income Taxes . The initial injunction, imposed in 2003 by U.S. District Court judge Lloyd George, held that the book was commercial speech, and part of a larger tax fraud scheme. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in
U.S. v. Irwin Schiff does not bar others from selling the book, and suggests that Schiff and his colleagues could sell another edition of the book with the elements advertising his products and paid advice removed.
FTRF joined an amicus brief in this case to defend the principle that the First Amendment protects even fringe opinion or belief. Criminalizing advocacy that disputes the constitutionality of income taxes, or which advocates the decriminalization of drugs like medical marijuana, comes close to creating “thought crime.” Schiff has not indicated whether he will further appeal the ruling.
Page 5
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower decision holding that two French court orders fining Yahoo! for allowing Nazi-related materials to appear on its U.S. Web sites violate the
First Amendment. The Court of Appeals avoided deciding the First Amendment issues, ruling instead that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the
French parties and, therefore, could not decide
Yahoo!’s First Amendment claims until the French parties file suit in the U.S. to enforce the French courts’ orders. Yahoo! plans to file a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc and the Freedom to
Read Foundation has agreed to join an amicus brief in support (FTRF has already joined two briefs during the course of litigation). For a full overview of the case, see the FTRF Report to Council on page 7.
On June 7, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a
Littleton, Colorado, ordinance concerning the licensing of adult-oriented businesses is constitutional, overturning the ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit was a facial challenge to Littleton’s law by
Z.J. Gifts, which argued that prompt judicial review must be assured when a government body refuses to issue a license to an adult-oriented business based on activities protected by the First Amendment. The Tenth
Circuit had earlier ruled in favor of Z.J. Gifts. FTRF joined an amicus brief in support the challenge.
FTRF and its co-plaintiffs have prevailed in PSINet v.
Chapman , the case challenging Virginia’s Internet content law. The law was yet another state version of the Communications Decency Act. On March 25, the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the permanent injunction forbidding enforcement of the law. On June
24, the Fourth Circuit rejected the government’s petition asking for rehearing en banc and reargument of the case.

Freedom to Read Foundation News Vol. 29, No. 2–3 Page 6
In recent months, FTRF lost three members of its family: past Trustees Charles Beard, Charles Levendosky, and
Susan Pavsner. All will be deeply missed.
Gifts in memory of Charles Levendosky and Susan
Pavsner can be made to the Freedom to Read
Foundation, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611.
Memorial donations for Charles Beard should be sent to the Charles Beard Ingram Library Endowment, which
Beard recently established.
West Georgia Foundation c/o Scott Huffman, Development Office
State University of West Georgia
1903 Maple St.
Carrollton, GA 30118
Above from left: Levendosky, Beard & Pavsner (with husband Steve)
The Freedom to Read Foundation reports to the ALA
Council at each Annual Conference and Midwinter
Meeting. The following is an edited version of the report presented at the 2004 Annual Conference in Orlando.
As President of the Freedom to Read Foundation, I am pleased to report on the Foundation’s activities since the
2004 Midwinter Meeting:
THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND LIBRARY
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
The Freedom to Read Foundation regards the protection and preservation of library users’ privacy and civil liberties as one of its primary missions. In pursuit of this goal, FTRF joined with the American
Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) and other civil liberties organizations as amici curiae in
Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor v.
Ashcroft , a facial legal challenge to Section 215 of the
USA PATRIOT Act, which amends the business records provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to permit FBI agents to obtain all types of records, including library records, without a showing of probable cause. The government filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, and the District Court heard oral arguments on the government’s motion in
December 2003. We await a decision in the case.
FTRF also has joined with ABFFE and the American
Library Association to file an amicus curiae brief in
John Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft . (see p. 4) …
The Foundation’s efforts to address the USA
PATRIOT Act also include supporting legislation designed to scale back portions of the Act and opposing new legislation that poses a potential threat to library users’ right to be free from unreasonable government surveillance. FTRF signed a letter in support of the “Civil Liberties Restoration Act of
2004” (CLRA; S. 2528), introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Kennedy (D-MA) on June 16, 2004.
Cosponsors include Senators Leahy (D-VT), Durbin
(D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), and Corzine (D-NJ). The
CLRA is intended to restore the checks and balances that preserve our First Amendment rights and other civil liberties, and to end the abuse of immigrants and others who come as future citizens and visitors to our country.
FTRF also joined with ALA and numerous other organizations in signing a letter opposing H.R. 3179, the “Anti-Terrorism Intelligence Tools Improvement
Act of 2003,” which would expand the powers granted to law enforcement under the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Foundation continues to inform and encourage its members and all Americans to support the passage of other bills to amend portions of the PATRIOT Act. …

Freedom to Read Foundation News Vol. 29, No. 2–3
LITIGATION
As part of its mission to preserve First Amendment freedoms in the library and more generally, the Freedom to Read Foundation participates as both plaintiff and amicus curiae in lawsuits designed to defend the right to read and to receive information freely. Since the
Foundation last reported to Council, it has joined in the following lawsuits:
City of Littleton, Colo., v. Z.J. Gifts (see p. 5)
Video Software Dealers Association, et al. v. Maleng :
The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to challenge a
Washington State law barring the sale or rental to minors of any video game containing depictions of violence directed against law enforcement officers. FTRF joined with fellow members of the Media Coalition to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs. U.S.
District Court Judge Robert Lasnik issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law while the case is before the court. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and oral arguments on the motions were held on June 24. [Update: On July 15, Judge
Lasnik struck down the Washington law as unconstitutional.]
FCC petition for reconsideration (see p. 2)
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
(formerly ACLU v. Reno) (see p. 1)
Center for Democracy and Technology v. Fisher : The
Foundation agreed to provide a grant in support of the
Center for Democracy and Technology’s legal challenge to a Pennsylvania statute that allows a Pennsylvania district attorney or the Attorney General to require
Internet service providers—including libraries—to block access to specified Web sites accused of being child pornography. Before the lawsuit was filed, the state’s
Attorney General issued hundreds of blocking requests, forcing ISPs to bar access to both targeted and other, wholly innocent Web sites without adequate due process protections, raising serious First Amendment concerns.
The federal District Court judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the law while the case is pending before the court in
Philadelphia. Following a hearing, both parties filed briefs with the court. [Update: Oral argument occurred on June 25 in Philadelphia.]
United States v. Irwin Schiff, et al . (See p. 5)
Page 7
Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contra Le Racisme et
L’Antisemitisme is an ongoing case involving criminal charges that have been filed against the CEO of Yahoo! and monetary penalties assessed in French courts against the company for allowing the sale of
Internet auction items and the posting of book excerpts on its Web site that violate French law but are fully protected speech under the American First
Amendment. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et
L’Antisemitisme and the French Union of Jewish
Students initiated legal action in French Court against
Yahoo! for hosting pages containing auctions for Nazi and racist memorabilia on U.S. servers that could be accessed by French citizens. The two groups won their initial suit and the French trial court imposed fines against Yahoo!, which the groups tried to enforce.
Yahoo! filed suit in the United States to obtain a ruling on the validity of the French court’s order in light of its users’ First Amendment rights. The District Court judge ruled that no other nation’s law, no matter how valid in that nation, could serve as a basis for quashing free speech in the United States. FTRF has filed an amicus brief in this case which is now under appeal and pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
California. (See p. 5 for an update to this case.)
The issue—which the FTRF Board discussed at length at this meeting—concerns the ability of other countries in which speech is more restricted than it is in the
United States to compel American courts to enforce their judgments against American citizens or companies for expressive behavior that is fully protected in this country. The case has significant implications concerning the nature and the legal implications of cross-boundary Internet traffic. It may also set precedents that could have repercussions for intellectual property rights and treaties, particularly for cases in which American entities are trying to exact protections in countries where U.S. copyright may not be recognized. For librarians committed to the rights of free expression at home—and abroad as embodied in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
—these are critical questions.
STATE INTERNET CONTENT LAWS
The Freedom to Read Foundation has participated as a plaintiff in several lawsuits challenging state laws that criminalize the distribution of materials deemed
“harmful to minors” on the Internet. Athenaco, Ltd. v. Cox, challenging the recent amendment to
Michigan’s “harmful to minors” statute, is the newest

Freedom to Read Foundation News Vol. 29, No. 2–3 lawsuit filed by the Foundation in partnership with other
First Amendment organizations. Joining FTRF as plaintiffs are ABFFE, the Association of American
Publishers, and several Michigan booksellers. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the court heard oral arguments on May 17, 2004. A decision is pending.
Shipley, Inc. v. Long (formerly Shipley, Inc. v.
Huckabee) is a First Amendment challenge to recent amendments made to the Arkansas “harmful to minors” display statute. FTRF and its fellow plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on July 25, 2003, and oral arguments were heard on December 8, 2003.
In February, U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Eisele enjoined enforcement of the provision and certified four questions of law to the state Supreme Court. The parties are awaiting a decision from that court.
FTRF is monitoring Southeast Booksellers v. McMasters (formerly Southeast Booksellers Association v.
Condon), a lawsuit filed by members of the Media
Coalition to overturn an amendment to the South
Carolina “harmful to minors” law that sweeps in visual matter communicated via the Internet. [In November
2003 the government and plaintiffs filed cross motions for summary judgment.] Judge Patrick M. Duffy announced he would delay ruling on the motion until the
Supreme Court issues its decision in Ashcroft v. ACLU, the COPA lawsuit. [Update: On July 6, Judge Duffy denied both motions for summary judgment and ordered a hearing on the merits of the case including evidence on the comparative effectiveness of the statutory procedure and filtering.]
ABFFE v. Petro (formerly Booksellers, Inc. v. Taft):
The Foundation joined with several other plaintiffs to file this lawsuit to challenge Ohio’s amendment to its
“harmful to juveniles” law. After a federal court blocked the law, the government appealed the decision to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the lawsuit was pending before that court, the Ohio legislature amended the law in an attempt to moot the litigation. Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the trial court for further action. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint and a motion for summary judgment before the trial judge. The judge then issued an oral ruling finding for the plaintiffs. His written opinion is expected shortly.
PSINet v. Chapman (See p. 5 for an update on
FTRF’s successful challenge to Virginia’s
law.)
Page 8
ACLU v. Goddard (formerly ACLU v. Napolitano):
Arizona amended its new “harmful to minors” statute after a federal District Court struck down the law and entered a permanent injunction barring its enforcement.
Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the suit back to the District Court, where the parties exchanged briefs on the effect of the new statute on the lawsuit. The judge has now issued an order awarding summary judgment to FTRF and its coplaintiffs. [Update: On July 22, the judge signed a finding of facts and conclusions of law, thus permanently barring the state from enforcing the amended statute.]
ABFFE v. Dean : The Foundation is pleased to report that this litigation challenging Vermont’s amended
“harmful to minors” statute has concluded with the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the District
Court’s decision to issue a permanent injunction forbidding enforcement of the law.
ROLL OF HONOR AWARD (See p. 3)
FUNDRAISING
In addition to its litigation and work on behalf of free expression and the freedom to read, the Foundation’s
Board of Trustees continues to develop new methods of fundraising to support FTRF’s efforts on behalf of intellectual freedom and the First Amendment. These efforts are being developed in coordination with the
ALA Development Office to ensure that they do not conflict with similar initiatives being undertaken by the
Association and its units and that appropriate donors can be most effectively identified and approached.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon M. Conable
President, Freedom to Read Foundation
Freedom to Read Foundation News (ISSN 0046-5038) is issued quarterly to all members of FTRF. Regular membership in the Freedom to Read Foundation begins at $35.00 per year. Contributions to the Foundation should be sent to:
Freedom to Read Foundation, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL
60611. You can also join by phone at (800) 545-2433 x4226 or online at www.ftrf.org/joinftrf.html. All contributions are tax-deductible.
The Freedom to Read Foundation is the First Amendment legal arm of the American Library Association.