ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, June 13, 1996 TAG: 9606130072
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: The Washington Post
NOTE: Lede
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.
Dalzell and Judges Dolores K. Sloviter and Ronald L. Buckwalter wrote individual opinions in support of the panel's unanimous decision to block enforcement of the CDA. Dalzell and Buckwalter were appointed by President Bush, Sloviter by President Carter.
``It's a spectacular victory for free speech and the Internet,'' said Bruce Ennis, the Washington attorney who argued against the CDA in Philadelphia.
Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and co-counsel in the CDA challenge, called the decision ``The Times vs. Sullivan of cyberspace,'' alluding to the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case that found that the First Amendment protects the press from libel suits by public officials, except for reports made with ``actual malice.''
When Congress approved the CDA as part of its overhaul of telecommunications law earlier this year, it set up the special judicial panel as part of an accelerated appeals schedule for evaluating the decency law's constitutionality. The decision by the Philadelphia court sets the stage for a probable appeal to the Supreme Court, which could be heard as early as next fall.
President Clinton said the Justice Department was reviewing Wednesday's decision and would decide whether to appeal. ``I remain convinced, as I was when I signed the bill, that our Constitution allows us to help parents by enforcing this act to prevent children from being exposed to objectionable material transmitted through computer networks,'' he said.
Under 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 plaintiffs, a broad coalition of businesses, librarians and Internet users opposing the bill, argued the technology of the Internet did not allow people who posted information to control who received it. Plaintiffs also argued the indecency standard was unconstitutionally vague and the government had less restrictive means of protecting children from objectionable materials.
Wednesday's ruling came as no surprise to Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, who strongly supports the indecency act. Goodlatte's top aide, Tim Phillips, said the congressman knew the law would be challenged and that opponents might win the first round.
"This was fully expected," Phillips said. "Those who want to block this had their pick of courts across the country. They picked a panel that would be sympathetic to them."
The law contained a clause providing for quick review by the Supreme Court, Phillips said, to avoid years of litigation.
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Abingdon, said the court's decision was predictable because he always believed the law was unconstitutional.
"I was pleased with the very strong terms by which the court found this provision to be unconstitutional," Boucher said. "I'm confident that if the decision is appealed, the U.S. Supreme Court will reach the same conclusion."
Boucher said a better solution to the problem of indecency on the Internet is turning the responsibility over to parents.
"The government should not engage in censorship, but should respect the ability of parents to control the material their children utilize."
At Ennis's law offices Wednesday, lawyers and plaintiffs exchanged hugs and high-fives as the text of the decision arrived via modem from Philadelphia. ``Slam-DUNK!'' shouted Daniel Weitzner, an attorney for the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a technology policy group that helped pull the anti-CDA coalition together. Attorneys grabbed pages one by one as they emerged from laser printers around the office, shaking their heads at the magnitude of their win.
But a leading proponent of the legislation, Bruce Taylor of the National Law Center for Children and Families, a leading proponent of the legislation, said the court ``jumped off the bridge'' with its ``absolute'' decision. Saying ``the technology overwhelmed the court,'' Taylor predicted the Supreme Court would reject the ruling. ``They haven't got a prayer of having this upheld on appeal,'' he said.
Sen. J. James Exon, D-Neb., who introduced the bill that became the CDA, said, ``I was not surprised'' by the decision, but added, ``We are expecting approval from the Supreme Court.''
In presenting their case, the law's opponents brought the Internet directly to the judges with modems and computer monitors.
The judges' 71-page findings of fact closely resembled the plaintiffs' briefing materials to the court.
The judges immersed themselves in the technology to explore the broader issues for society. Dalzell wrote, ``Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered the hearing testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation.''
The plaintiffs had argued the CDA would render works that would be legal in print illegal if distributed on-line. Although proponents of the law argued it would not be used to prosecute those who posted works of genuine artistic value, the court noted there was no explicit prohibition of such prosecution in the statute.
The wording of the judges' opinions grants First Amendment protections to the on-line world that are equal to, if not stronger than, those afforded to printed material.
The law did not address issues of child pornography or obscene materials, which are already illegal whether in print or digital format.
The court accepted the plaintiffs' contention that parents could best police their children's Internet surfing by high-tech tools becoming available to restrict access to objectionable materials.
The case could have reverberations far beyond the Internet. The plaintiffs suggested the ``indecency'' standard itself is unconstitutionally vague, and two of the three judges agreed. Michael Greenberger, a Washington attorney who has argued before the Supreme Court a recent case assailing the indecency standard as applied to local-access cable television programming, said that, if upheld, ``This is going to have a sweeping impact on the ability of the government to involve itself in any kind of censorship that goes beyond obscenity.''
Staff writer Betty Hayden Snider contributed to this story.|
LENGTH: Long : 120 linesby CNB