Who knows what goes on in the minds of Federal judges? It remained financially burdensome, time consuming and expression-chilling to run by our attorneys everything potentially criminal before annoy.com published it. Especially given that at the time ApolloMedia and the Attorney General agreed to push back the date of the hearing, pending an outcome in the Supreme Court, the Government demanded, and retains, the authority to retroactively prosecute us if the "annoy" provision before the court is deemed constitutional. Some behind-the scenes insights and manuevering.

Some journalists and their respective publications have actually gotten annoy.com; some have understood our position and the underpinnings of our legal challenge. Most - including First Amendment "experts" - unfortunately, have not. How have they understood the law? Have they paid attention to the language they use? Are they aware of the issues? This section contains just a sample of those we have been able to find or that have been drawn to our attention. Note the publication, note the speaker, and note the context (where possible). The good, the bad and the ugly. You decide.

A federal court decision in ApolloMedia v. Reno left ApolloMedia and other Internet users subject to prosecution for "indecent" communications anywhere outside the Northern District of California. ApolloMedia's communications are of course available to recipients in every state. Courts around the nation are free to disagree with the statutory interpretation rendered by two judges in one California district. And so ApolloMedia appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. At stake on this appeal was the right of ApolloMedia and all Internet users not to have to live under the uncertain cloud of a statute that on its face makes an "indecent" communication a felony. A compilation of the legal documents filed in the case as well as other related legal material are presented in this section.