Urofsky v. Gilmore
Urofsky v. Gilmore | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |
Full case name | Melvin I. Urofsky, et al. v. James S. Gilmore, III |
Decided | June 23, 2000 |
Citation | 216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000) |
Case history | |
Prior actions | Urofsky v. Allen, Civil Action No. 97-701-A (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia) |
Appealed from | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
Appealed to | Supreme Court of the United States |
Subsequent action | Supreme Court certiorari denied. |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en banc |
Keywords | |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, freedom of speech, obscenity, sexually explicit |
Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000), is a case decided before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which concerned the matter of professors challenging the constitutionality of Virginia law restricting access to sexually explicit material on work computers. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined the professors in the case against the state of Virginia. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit overturned an earlier ruling by the District Court, and upheld the Virginia law.
The ACLU then requested an
Background
Six university instructors in
The legislation challenged was originally passed by the
One of the plaintiffs was a professor who focused her research in
Case history
District Court
The representative for the Virginia Attorney General was quoted in The Virginian-Pilot: "This case is not about censorship or regulating the Internet. The issue is about appropriate use of taxpayer funds. The taxpayers of Virginia should not be forced to pay for the use of state computers—on state time—by state employees for downloading pornography off the Internet."[5]
In 1998, a ruling by the District Court in the case invalidated the Virginia law.[5]
Fourth Circuit
Panel ruling
In February 1999 a judgment by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit overturned the District Court ruling, and upheld the law.[5] The ACLU then requested an en banc hearing before the entire Fourth Circuit.[5][7]
The executive director of the ACLU of Virginia commented on the Fourth Circuit's decision, "In many ways this ushers in a new era in which college professors will have to seek permission for what they do."[6]
En Banc hearing
On October 25, 1999, en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reheard the case before the court.[4]
Decision
The
Supreme Court
In July 2000, the Virginia chapter of the ACLU decided to appeal the decision of the full Fourth Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States.[7] The executive director of the ACLU of Virginia stated to The Virginian-Pilot, "This decision has so thoroughly eviscerated the free-speech rights of public employees that we believe the U.S. Supreme Court will be willing to review this case and reverse the decision. Worst of all is that the 4th Circuit has essentially ruled there is no such thing as academic freedom. The Supreme Court may not go along with that."[7] The Supreme Court refused to hear the case further, and the thus the decision of the Fourth Circuit remained in effect.[1]
Impact
After the District Court struck down the Virginia law but before the case was heard by the first three-judge panel in the
Analysis
Writing in the Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, authors Kevin Kinser and Richard Fossey commented: "With the U.S. Supreme Court having declined review of the Fourth Circuit's opinion, the ruling in Urofsky diminishes the significance of academic freedom as a constraint on personnel decisions by academic administrators whose responsibility include the supervision of professors."[1]
See also
- Academic freedom
- Freedom of speech
- Network for Education and Academic Rights
- Politicization of science
- Scholars at Risk
- Scientific freedom
- Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
- Speech code
References
- ^ S2CID 142132298.
- ^ OCLC 35096908. Retrieved May 7, 2013.
- ^ a b Nuckols, Christina (June 4, 2006). "Ruling could curb reports of misdeeds, experts say". The Virginian-Pilot. Norfolk, Virginia. p. A1.
- ^ OCLC 35096908. Retrieved May 7, 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f g Heyser, Holly A. (August 22, 1999). "Capital Digest: Pornography: Ban on sexually explicit material is challenged". The Virginian-Pilot. Norfolk, Virginia. p. B3.
- ^ a b c d e Heyser, Holly A. (June 25, 2000). "Capital Digest: Court decision on Internet limits disappoints some". The Virginian-Pilot. Norfolk, Virginia. p. B2.
- ^ a b c d Heyser, Holly A. (July 16, 2000). "Capital Digest: College sexual material case gets ACLU appeal". The Virginian-Pilot. Norfolk, Virginia. p. B2.
- ^ a b c d Heyser, Holly A. (February 6, 1999). "Technology Committee tables bills to require libraries to ban web porn Delegates decide to leave the matter up to local school and library boards". The Virginian-Pilot. Norfolk, Virginia. p. B4.
Further reading
- Rendelman, Doug (January 1, 2002). "Academic Freedom in Urofsky's Wake: Post September 11 Remarks on "Who Owns Academic Freedom?"". OCLC 1769418.
External links
- Urofsky v. Gilmore, Encyclopedia of Law and Higher Education, SAGE Publications, Inc. (alternate link)
- Urofsky v. Gilmore, brief by American Association of University Professors
- Urofsky v. Gilmore, FindLaw
- Urofsky v. Gilmore, Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties