In his order, the judge said, “In their motion, plaintiff’s do not cite this legal standard controlling motions under Rule 59 (e) and do not specify any of the three major grounds as providing the basis for their request to alter or amend the judgment.”
Those three grounds include a change in controlling law, the need to correct a clear error and the availability of new evidence not available before.
“Although the Rule 59 motion was denied, it served the designed purpose of highlighting certain key issues for the appeal,” FSC’s attorney Jeffrey Douglas told XBIZ.
“We express great appreciation for his volunteer effort by FSC board member and legal committee chair Reed Lee in contributing to the draft of the Rule 59. Focus of our distinguished attorneys, Michael Murray and Lorraine Baumgartner, now will turn to the appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”
In asking the court to reconsider, FSC said that the court "overlooked a subtle but critical point: that the comprehensive record keeping interest to which the challenged statutes are narrowly tailored is meaningfully different than the government’s significant — indeed compelling — interest in suppressing child pornography.
"The burdens which it imposes upon speakers who produce or reproduce no child pornography at all and, even more importantly, on expression which is not, in fact, child pornography are very serious," the FSC said in its motion. "Congress may not substantially burden protected expression merely because it may resemble unprotected expression.”