ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, December 7, 1996 TAG: 9612090024
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: From the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post
In its first attempt to set free-speech rules for the computer network known as the Internet, the Supreme Court announced Friday that it will decide whether lawmakers can make it a crime to send or display ``indecent'' words or photos that can be picked up by minors.
The court will consider reviving the Communications Decency Act, which passed Congress in March but was ruled unconstitutional almost immediately on First Amendment grounds.
Federal lawmakers said that they were not troubled by what adults said or saw over the Internet. They were, however, eager to protect children from being exposed ``to the worst, most vile and most perverse pornography,'' said Sen. James Exon, D-Neb., the bill's sponsor. For computer-savvy kids, the sexually explicit displays are ``only a few click-click-clicks away,'' he said.
The law would make it illegal to transmit child pornography or sexually explicit material that is deemed ``obscene.'' No one has disputed those provisions.
However, the measure also targeted a broader array of ``patently offensive'' descriptions or photos that involve sex, a category that the high court has dubbed ``indecent'' speech. Violators would be hit with a two-year prison term and a $250,000 fine under the legislation passed by Congress.
In the past, the justices have said that indecent speech among adults, whether on television or over the phone, is entirely protected. However, the court has said that the government may restrict this kind of material to protect children. For example, TV or radio programs that are indecent can be limited by law to late-night hours when children supposedly are asleep.
But how can children be shielded if they use the Internet, a free-wheeling global network that is expected to have 200 million users by the end of this decade?
The computer network gives users the power to tap into information sources or even conversations. In its broad wording, the law would seem to put the liability on the information bank, even when its owners do not know children are tapping into it.
Even the Supreme Court itself could be a violator, at least theoretically. In its best known case involving indecency, the justices upheld federal regulators who fined the broadcasters who carried George Carlin's comedy monologue about the ``seven dirty words?''
A three-judge panel in Philadelphia declared the new law unconstitutional. It is too broad in its reach, vague in its meaning and impossible to enforce fairly, they said.
Clinton administration lawyers appealed and the justices agreed to hear arguments in March in the case, Reno vs. the American Civil Liberties Union.
A sender has no way of knowing whether a minor will receive pictures that the law deems indecent, say the challengers, and as a result the law is impossible to oblige. They contend that the new law, which has never been enforced because of the lawsuit, would criminalize discussions of AIDS and gay life, safer sex, prison rape and other adult topics.
As a practical matter, the case will decide who has the duty to police the Internet: parents or prosecutors?
In his brief to the court, U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger argued that it is reasonable to force those who display or transmit sexually explicit material over the Internet to try to keep it away from children. They can do so either by not displaying such material or by adopting methods to screen out children, he said.
Some ``web sites'' could require those seeking access to have a credit card number or other identifying code that would assure they are over 18.
But the lawyers challenging the measure said that those techniques will not work. Parents need to screen what the children see or they should buy software that will do the job, they maintained.
The justices will rule on the case by July.
LENGTH: Medium: 75 linesby CNB