The new federal antiterrorism law that was signed by President Bush on October 26 contained a number of provisions that are deeply troubling to civil libertarians. One of them makes it easier for the FBI to search a bookstore's business records, including the titles of the books purchased by customers.

ABFFE is deeply concerned by the potential chilling effect of court orders issued to booksellers under this new law. Normally, when a bookseller receives a subpoena for customer information, he or she has the opportunity to ask the court to quash the order on First Amendment grounds. In several cases, booksellers have successfully resisted subpoenas. Under the new amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), however, booksellers may not have this chance. Depending on the wording of the order, the bookseller may be required to immediately turn over the records that are being sought.

ABFFE has sent a letter to all members of the American Booksellers Association advising them of what to do if they receive a court order under FISA.
To see the ABFFE letter, click here.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a case challenging the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. In an amicus brief, ABFFE joined the Association of American Publishers and others in urging the Court to strike down the CPPA, which widens the ban on "child pornography" beyond photographs of actual minors to include any work that "appears" to depict minors. Defenders of the law insist that it is necessary to suppress all images that appeal to the prurient interest of a pedophile because they may incite attacks on children.

However, members of the Court endorsed the concerns expressed in the ABFFE amicus. Justice Stephen Breyer said he thought recent movies like "Traffic," "Lolita," and "Titanic" would run afoul of the law because they appeared to depict sexual conduct by minors although the actors portraying the minors were actually adults. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg worried that banning images based on their effect would open the door to efforts to suppress other types of constitutionally protected speech. "The same thing could be said for women with respect to pornography...The same thing could be said for hate speech," she said.

On October 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit delivered its long awaited decision in the case involving Alice Randall's "The Wind Done Gone." The court had previously overturned an injunction that barred publication of the book because it allegedly violated the copyrights that protect Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind." The opinions delivered on October 10 make it clear that the judges believe not only that the lower court made a mistake in issuing an injunction but that the Mitchell estate is wrong -- the "Wind Done Gone" is a parody and therefore protected by the First Amendment. ABFFE filed two amicus briefs in support of Randall and her publisher, Houghton Mifflin -- and it may have to file another one. The Mitchell estate has announced its intention to continue fighting. Although the book can no longer be blocked, the estate could recover damages. However, this seems highly unlikely unless the Supreme Court agrees to review the case.

When the World Trade Center towers collapsed on September 11, a cloud of dust swept through the streets of lower Manhattan; telephone and Internet services were knocked out, and the subway system was crippled. Almost two months later, business as usual has resumed in much of the downtown area, including the offices that ABFFE share with Media Coalition two blocks from where the trade center stood. We have been back for two weeks now. Every day we look over to the open space where the towers once stood and are aware of what filmmaker Ric Burns has called our "phantom limb." But we are happy to be together again and back at work.