CINDY A. COHN, ESQ.; SBN 145997
McGLASHAN & SARRAIL
Professional Corporation				
177 Bovet Road, Sixth Floor			
San Mateo, CA  94402
Tel: (415) 341-2585				
Fax: (415) 341-1395

LEE TIEN, ESQ.; SBN 148216
1452 Curtis Street				
Berkeley, CA 94702				
Tel: (510) 525-0817			

JAMES WHEATON; SBN 115230
ELIZABETH PRITZKER; SBN 146267
FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT
1736 Franklin, 8th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 208-7744

ROBERT CORN-REVERE, ESQ.
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC  2000
Tel:  (202) 637-5600

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Daniel J. Bernstein

			IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
			FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL J. BERNSTEIN			 )
					 )  C 95-00582 MHP
                       Plaintiff, 	 )
					 )  PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED
					 )  DECISION
v.					 )
					 )
					 )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF	 	 )
 STATE et al.,				 )
					 )
					 )
	   Defendants.			 )
					 )

	In connection with the Court's consideration of the parties'
pending cross-motions for summary judgment, heard and submitted on June
18, 1977, Plaintiff, though his undersigned counsel, respectfully
submits the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Reno v.
American Civil Liberties Union (No. 96-511, June 26, 1997).

	The statute in Reno regulated speech on the Internet more
strictly than speech in printed form.  The regulations challenged here
do the same.  The Supreme Court in Reno also considered argument that
publication on the Internet could be criminally prosecuted based on the
status of who could read them.  In Reno this status was that of being a
minor; here, it is being a foreign person or being located abroad.
Finally, the Supreme Court in Reno considered the claim that a
"knowledge" requirement saved the statute from overbreadth.  The
government makes the same claim here for the "technical assistance"
provision of 15 C.F.R. para. 744.9.

	The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that:  speech on the
Internet was entitled to full First Amendment protection; "most Internet
fora -- including chat rooms, newsgroups, mail exploders, and the Web -
are open to all comers" so that requiring age or identity verification
would chill protected speech; a "knowledge" requirement as to the status
of those who might read material on the Internet did not save the
scheme.  The Supreme Court therefore held the statute unconstitutionally
overbroad on its face and upheld an injunction against its enforcement.


					Respectfully submitted,

Dated:  July 1, 1997			McGLASHAN & SARRAIL
       ----------------			Professional Corporation

					By  (signed CeP A CosR)
					   ------------------------
						CINDY A. COHN
						Attorneys for Plaintiff