🚀 go-pugleaf

At the risk of wasting a little bandwidth, I'm posting the text of an article
from the e-zine TidBITS, #333/17-Jun-96. Most of the info will be old
news to the well informed. However, there is a quote from Judge Stewart
Dalzell's opinion, and most importantly, a number of URLs for further
access by the not so casual observer.

--Fred

ARTICLE STARTS HERE

CDA Challenge Upheld
--------------------
  by Tonya Engst <tonya@tidbits.com>

  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 brought major changes to United
  States telecommunications law and included the Communications
  Decency Act (CDA), a series of provisions that - among other
  things - specifically prohibited but broadly defined indecency on
  the Internet. (See TidBITS-315_ for more details on the
  Telecommunications Act).

  President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law on
  08-Feb-96, and within five minutes of the signing the ACLU
  (American Civil Liberties Union) and a collection of other
  organizations and businesses immediately filed a challenge to the
  CDA portion of the legislation, arguing it unconstitutionally
  violated freedom of speech and was too vague to be reasonably
  enforced.

  By 15-Feb-96, a limited, temporary restraining order against the
  CDA had been granted. Just last week, on 12-Jun-96, a three-judge
  panel for the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia ruled on the
  case and granted a preliminary injunction against the indecency
  provisions in the CDA, meaning that such provisions cannot be
  enforced unless a higher court of law overturns the injunction.

  TidBITS doesn't try to report on political news in an unbiased
  fashion (everyone has biases, no matter what they say), and I'm
  not trying to here; in fact, I'm delighted with the ruling, not
  just because the ACLU won, but also because of its content.

  The District Court's ruling has an extensive section about the
  facts behind the Internet, including how the Internet works, who
  uses the Internet, services available on the Internet, and more.
  This section makes for interesting reading for anyone trying to
  learn about the Internet. Those legislating or pontificating about
  the Internet should include this ruling on their required reading
  lists.

<http://www.eff.org/Alerts/HTML/960612_aclu_v_reno_decision.html>

  The ruling states that the court has no problem with existing laws
  against pornography and obscenity, but that the CDA goes too far.
  The court denounced the CDA for vagueness, for the high cost of
  successfully barring minors from a site that might be considered
  indecent, and for not offering a sufficiently strong reason to
  restrict freedom of speech. The ruling also noted several other
  ways minors could be cut off from inappropriate material on the
  Internet, including the PICS proposal (where sites would be rated)
  and various software lockout products such as SurfWatch and
  CyberPatrol.

<http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/>
<http://www.surfwatch.com/>
<http://www.cyberpatrol.com/>

  Portions of Judge Stewart Dalzell's opinion in the ruling have
  been widely quoted, and I include here an excerpt from his
  comments. Such language from our legal system gives me hope that
  the Internet will be treated as an open forum where many people
  may easily give and receive information, and not as a broadcast
  medium dominated by large businesses.

  "If the Government is going to intrude upon the sacred ground of
  the First Amendment and tell its citizens that their exercise of
  protected speech could land them in jail, the law imposing such a
  penalty must clearly define the prohibited speech not only for the
  potential offender but also for the potential enforcer. As the
  most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet
  deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion.

  "True it is that many find some of the speech on the Internet to
  be offensive, and amid the din of cyberspace many hear discordant
  voices that they regard as indecent. The absence of governmental
  regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind
  of chaos, but as one of plaintiffs' experts put it with such
  resonance at the hearing: 'What achieved success was the very
  chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is that
  chaos.' Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the
  strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of
  the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects."

  Interestingly, a footnote in the ruling notes that the ACLU
  withdrew its challenge to language that restricts discussions of
  abortion on the Internet. Apparently, the ACLU withdrew because
  both President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno have made
  it clear that "no one will be prosecuted under the abortion-
  related provision.... In view of this 'longstanding policy,' the
  Government contends there is no realistic fear of prosecution and,
  so the argument goes, no need or equitable relief."

  Whether the government will take its case to the Supreme Court
  remains to be seen. Should they do so, I hope the Supreme Court
  seriously considers the facts and opinions presented in the ruling
  for a preliminary injunction.

  For additional information and commentary on this issue, check out
  the following URLs.

<http://www.cnet.com/Content/News/Files/0,16,1541,00.html>
<http://www.hotwired.com/special/indecent/>
<http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/960612_eff_cda_decision.statement>

END ARTICLE