Corley termed an act of "electronic civil disobedience," 2600.com continued to host links to other websites that themselves provided the source code for DeCSS. Corley also moved for the court to overturn the Digital Millennium Copyright Act altogether as a violation of the First Amendment, because it restricted citizens from distributing and discussing programming code, which in turn is an item of expression. In August 2000, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Kaplan noted the tension in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act between copyright holders and those who wish to use new technologies, but concluded that the language of the act provided relief for the plaintiffs against unauthorized copying of their copyrighted works. In Kaplan's words, "For now, at least, Congress has resolved this clash in the DMCA and in plaintiffs' favor. Given the peculiar characteristics of computer programs for circumventing encryption and other access control measures, the DMCA as applied to posting and linking here does not contravene the First Amendment." Judge Kaplan also held that the Corley and 2600.com had violated the DMCA by continuing to post the code that ran afoul of the act's anti-circumvention provisions. Kaplan issued another injunction against Corley, prohibiting him from posting the DeCSS code or providing links to sites where the code could be found. Corley appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Circuit court ruling Corley's appeal at the Second Circuit, now under the name Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley because Shawn Reimerdes had been removed as a defendant, received numerous amicus curiae briefs from both the entertainment industry and supporters of Internet innovations. In November 2001, the Second Circuit upheld Kaplan's ruling at the lower court. However, the circuit court found merit in Corley's view that computer programs are a form of protected speech regardless of whether they are in source code or object code form, which commentators regarded as significant. The circuit court opined that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act could be subjected to intermediate scrutiny as a partial restriction on free speech. Citing the Supreme Court precedent Hill v. Colorado, the circuit court held that some laws can restrict speech for reasons that are "justified without reference to the content" if there are larger public benefits from the speech restrictions. Hence, due to the conflict with the DMCA in the present case, DeCSS was held to be