#Opposition to motion to dismiss free#

A - N (plaintiffs' affidavits) Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Preliminary Injunction at 2-13 see also Complaint ¶¶ 4-17, 25-73, 86-171. See Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhs. The details of the plaintiffs' online activities have previously been set forth for the Court at length in the plaintiffs' brief in support of their preliminary injunction motion and the affidavits filed by each of the plaintiffs in support of that motion. The second restriction in the statute bans the use of trade names and logos in a way that 'would falsely state or imply' that the person using the name or logo has obtained permission to do so, and therefore appears potentially to restrict even protected, noncommercial use of trade names and logos in news, commentary, satire and parody.Įach of the plaintiffs use or seek to use computer networks for protected online communications that are now prohibited by one or both of these restrictions. The first restriction prohibits communications over computer networks using a name that 'falsely identifies' the user, and this restriction therefore bans among other things the use of online pseudonyms for the purpose of communicating and associating anonymously over computer networks. As set forth in plaintiffs' briefs in support of their currently pending motion for preliminary injunction, this statute imposes two unconstitutional restrictions upon communications over computer networks:

#Opposition to motion to dismiss free#

§ 16-9-93.1 in violation of their constitutional rights to free expression, association and privacy in online communications. § 1983, seeking protection from the enforcement of O.C.G.A. Plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. The defendants' motion that this Court abstain from exercising its jurisdiction should also be denied because the federal constitutional issues cannot be eliminated by any state court construction of the statute and abstention would simply delay an adjudication to protect the plaintiffs' rights. § 16-9-93.1 (1996) threatens an immediate and irreparable denial of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and has already chilled the exercise of their rights to free expression and association. § 1983 and the plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims, because O.C.G.A.

The complaint states a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. Plaintiffs respectfully oppose the defendants' motion to dismiss. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES