DURHAM - Members of the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team are objecting to the city's request to shut down a Web site that chronicles the legal proceedings in the players' federal lawsuit.

The 38 members of the 2006 team filed documents in federal court Monday raising objections that were similar to ones they made when Duke accused the lawyer representing the players of violating the same professional rule of conduct that fallen prosecutor Mike Nifong did.

Lawyers for Duke and the Duke University Health System filed a motion in federal court in late February complaining about the Web site www.dukelawsuit.com, a news conference and other communications by Chuck Cooper, the Washington lawyer representing the players.

The players filed suit in February against Duke, the city of Durham and a list of administrators and police officials who were involved in the Duke lacrosse case.

Although none of the 38 lacrosse players was charged criminally in the case, they claim that their reputations were damaged by their being linked to an escort service dancer's phony gang-rape allegations.

The suit contends that the players suffered emotional distress and other injuries when Duke University remained silent about evidence that soon contradicted the allegations of Crystal Gail Mangum, a dancer hired to perform at the team's now-infamous March 2006 party.

Duke, which posts its responses to the case on a university Web site, has asked a judge to declare the dukelawsuit.com Web site, the players' news conference and other statements in violation of an N.C. State Bar rule.

Durham joined Duke several weeks later in lodging a similar complaint.

Lawyers for Duke and the city claim the statements could prejudice a jury.

In its ethical rules, the State Bar orders lawyers to refrain from statements outside the courtroom that they know might have "a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing" legal proceedings. But once one side talks, ethics rules say, the other side can make statements "a reasonable lawyer" would think are required to protect a client from bad publicity.

The players' attorneys have described the complaints about the Web site and news conference as attempts to quell free speech.

The players, in their most recent response, described the city's attempt to quiet them as giving "new meaning to the concept of gall. The tsunami of negative national media publicity and commentary that engulfed the lacrosse players for months in 2006 was fueled in large measure by negative public comments and information from the City of Durham and its agents."