
DATE: Friday, June 27, 1997                 TAG: 9706270658

SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A1   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: STAFF AND WIRE REPORT 

DATELINE: WASHINGTON                        LENGTH:  115 lines

INTERNET PORN: BAN ON ``INDECENY'' VIOLATES 1ST AMENDMENT

In a sweeping endorsement of free speech on the Internet, the Supreme Court on Thursday declared unconstitutional a federal law making it a crime to send or display ``indecent'' material online in a way available to minors.

The decision, unanimous in most respects, marked the court's first effort to extend the principles of the First Amendment into cyberspace and to confront the nature of a new, and - to most of the justices - an unfamiliar medium.

The result left the coalition of Internet users, computer industry groups and civil liberties organizations that had challenged the Communications Decency Act exultant.

The forceful opinion for the court by Justice John Paul Stevens held that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to the protection the court gives to books and newspapers. That stands in contrast to the more limited First Amendment rights accorded to speech on broadcast and cable television, where the court has tolerated a wide array of government regulation.

``Content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought,'' Stevens said, quoting a special three-judge U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, which struck down the Communications Decency Act a year ago in a decision the Supreme Court affirmed Thursday.

The Internet is a rapidly expanding global computer network, which allows as many as 60 million people to communicate online and connect with information and entertainment sources around the world. A large majority of its users live in the United States.

The decision makes it unlikely that any government-imposed restriction on Internet content would be upheld as long as the material has some intrinsic value.

The law was challenged by many groups, including civil libertarians, computer companies and librarians. Attorney Bruce Ennis, who argued the case for those groups, called the court's 7-2 ruling ``the legal birth certificate for the Internet.'' Computer and civil liberties groups hailed the ruling as extending free-speech protections toward the 21st century.

But backers of the law complained the court's action leaves children vulnerable to lewd words and pictures easily obtained online.

Christian Coalition officials said they were shocked and disappointed by Thursday's ruling.

``We're not going to accept the decision as the final word when it comes to protecting our children,'' said Arne Owens, spokesman for the Chesapeake-based coalition.

Owens said the coalition plans to consult the best constitutional lawyers and draft a new decency law.

``We strongly believe that there has to be a constitutional way to protect children from pornography on the Internet,'' he said. ``We must and we will find it.''

Owens said the coalition's concern is the millions of children who are still vulnerable to exploitation by pornographers. Computer literate children can easily find and retrieve pornography online, he said.

The ``indecent'' material at issue Thursday was not precisely defined by the 1996 law - one of its serious vulnerabilities, as the court saw it - but was referred to in one section of the statute as ``patently offensive'' descriptions or images of ``sexual or excretory activities.''

Obscenity, which is outside the protection of the First Amendment, is also covered by the Communications Decency Act, and the court left that provision intact Thursday without even analyzing it.

Stevens said that the court regarded the law's goal of protecting children from indecent material as legitimate and important, but concluded that the ``wholly unprecedented'' breadth of the law threatened to suppress far too much speech among adults and even between parents and children. ``The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship,'' Stevens wrote.

He noted that people could not ``confidently assume'' that discussions of birth control, homosexuality, or prison rape, or even the transmission of ``the card catalogue of the Carnegie Library,'' would not be judged ``indecent'' and place computer users at risk of severe criminal penalties. Violations of the Communications Decency Act, which never went into effect because of a stay issued by the lower court, carried penalties of two years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The law made it a crime to use a computer to transmit indecent material to someone under 18 years old or to display such material ``in a manner available'' to a person under 18. Stevens said that given the nature of the Internet, there was no way someone transmitting indecent material could be sure that a minor would not see it. He noted that most Internet uses are open to everyone. MEMO: This story was compiled from reports by The New York Times, The

Associated Press and staff writer Naomi Aoki. ILLUSTRATION: FOR PARENTS

America Online offers an area designed for children under 12. No

cost.

(888) 265-8002 or http://www.aol.com

Prodigy accounts can be set up so children can't access the

Internet without a parent's authorization. No cost. (800) 776-3449

or http://www.prodigy.com

Bess is an Internet service provider designed specifically for

children. that blocks access to sites that are not appropriate.

Cost is about $35 per month. (206) 971-1400 or http://www.bess.net

Net Nanny is a tool that allows parents to screen and block a

child's access to certain sites and newsgroups. Cost is about $50.