THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, June 13, 1996 TAG: 9606130574
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: FROM WIRE REPORTS
LENGTH: 128 lines
A special three-judge panel declared Wednesday that a new law restricting indecency on the Internet violates the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
``As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion,'' Judge Stewart Dalzell, one of the three Philadelphia-based federal judges, concluded in striking down the Communications Decency Act.
``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,'' Dalzell wrote.
The judges granted a temporary restraining order that prohibits the Justice Department from enforcing, or even investigating, violations of the Communications Decency Act's ban on indecent and ``patently offensive'' speech.
The judges said the Internet deserved at least as much, if not more, protection under the First Amendment as printed material received. The government had argued that cyberspace be subject to the stricter regulation given television and radio.
The Computer Decency Act was passed overwhelmingly by Congress earlier this year as part of the broader Telecommunications Act of 1996, and was signed by President Clinton on Feb. 8. Lawmakers said the intent of the act was to halt the flow of pornography and other objectionable material on the Internet, a vast collection of computer networks now used by tens of millions of people around the globe, including children.
The law makes it a felony, punishable by prison terms and large fines, to make indecent or patently offensive material available on computer systems where children might see it.
However, lawmakers anticipated a constitutional challenge to the law and specifically wrote in a provision allowing swift appeals, first to a three-judge panel, then, if needed, directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Justice Department, which agreed not to prosecute any cases under the new law until its constitutionality was determined, is reviewing the decision to determine whether to appeal to the Supreme Court, a department spokesman said. An appeal must be filed in 20 days.
Before Wednesday's ruling, government lawyers said they would appeal any adverse opinion to the Supreme Court. ``We believe the statute can be applied in a constitutional manner to assist parents in protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Internet,'' the Justice Department spokesman said.
The three judges in Philadelphia - Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and Federal District Judge Ronald Buckwalter and Dalzell - reaffirmed that unprotected speech, including obscenity and child pornography, is outlawed on the Internet as well as on other media.
But they concluded that with the technology now available - including filtering software for personal computers - broad attempts by the government to limit the flow of indecent, offensive but constitutionally protected material to children who use the Internet would place unacceptable restrictions on what adults can publish or see as well.
As a symbol of the importance that the judges placed on the Internet's role as a communications medium, the court's decision was distributed on computer diskettes and published on the court's computer bulletin board system.
Within minutes, the text of the court's ruling - more than a quarter megabyte in computer terms, well over 200 pages if printed on paper - was copied by computer users and distributed worldwide on the Internet's World Wide Web.
As news of the court's decision spread in the cyberspace community through electronic mail, computer bulletin boards and on the global Web, victory rallies were scheduled in several cities including New York, Pittsburgh, Washington and San Francisco.
``It was as complete a victory as we could have hoped for,'' said Christopher Hansen, counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which, along with the American Library Association, led the legal challenge. ``I think in some ways we could not have asked for a more thoughtful opinion or an opinion that protected free speech more.''
The Communications Decency Act was added to the telecommunications bill without hearings or public comment after legislators and family interest groups became alarmed about the prevalence of sexually explicit images and text on the Internet, on private computer bulletin boards, and consumer on-line services.
The act established prison terms and fines of up to $250,000 ``for anyone who knowingly uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person under 18 years of age, or to display in a manner available to a person under 18, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that is indecent.''
Indecent was defined as anything that ``in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.''
In the decision, the judges said that this definition would expose Internet publishers to the varying interpretations of local prosecutors of indecency. MEMO: This story was compiled from reports by The New York Times and The
Washington Post. ILLUSTRATION: Graphics
ABOUT THE CASE
The Law: Making ``indecent'' or ``patently offensive'' material
available to minors via the Internet would be punishable by a
$250,000 fine or two years in jail.
The Ruling: ``As the most participatory form of mass speech yet
developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from
government intrusion.''
What's Next: An appeal is likely.
POLICING THE INTERNET
Although enforcement of the new law barring ``indecent'' material
on the Internet has been blocked, there are steps parents can take
on their own to restrict net-surfing kids' access to material they
find objectionable.
Some commercial online services offer restrictive features, such
as America Online's ``Parental Control,'' which can be programmed to
block access to certain areas.
There is also software available to block access to areas chosen
by parents, with periodic updates available for an additional fee.
Two of the better known are SurfWatch from Los Altos, Calif., and
Net Nanny from Vancouver, British
Columbia; both sell for about $50.
WEB SITES FOR ``CYBERSMUT'' RULING
The full text of Wednesday's court ruling on free speech on the
Internet, plus commentary, is available through these sites on the
World Wide Web:
American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org/
Center for Democracy and Technology http://www.cdt.org/
Electronic Privacy Information Center http://www.epic.org/
Voters Telecommunications Watch http://www.vtw.org/
KEYWORDS: INTERNET FREEDOM OF SPEECH RULING by CNB