published in the Santa Barbara Independent on July 3,1996

Internet 3
Censorship 0
We won the battle, but what's coming up in the war?
A temporary injunction blocks enforcement of S.R. 314 and H.R. 1004, aka the Communications Decency Act. It was signed into law by Clinton on February 8 as part of a massive overhaul of telecommunications legislation. It makes displaying "indecent" or "patently offensive" words or images on the Internet -- accessible to minors --punishable by a $250,000 fine and a two-year prison sentence. While the Philadelphia Court decision announced on June 12 extended Constitutional Freedom of Speech protection to the internet, all is not over. The Supreme Court will rule on an appeal of the Philadelphia decision, perhaps as early as this fall, and forces inside and outside of Congress are already at work on a revised version of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
What was won: The three judges in Philadelphia held a series of hearings and took testimony as to just what was the internet, who used it, and how. Their 200-page findings will be accepted by the Supreme Court when it reviews the case. This research into the net stands in marked contrast to the politicians who sponsored the CDA. They held no hearings, interviewed no expert witnesses, and simply yielded to pressure groups pushing the "child porn" panic button. The ACLU has made the entire text of the Philadelphia decision available online (www.aclu.org/court/cdadec.html). The key problem for the Philadelphia judges was that the language of the CDA called for a banning of material that was "indecent" and "patently offensive." According to Chief Judge Sloviter, these terms are "inherently vague, particularly in light of the Government's inability to identify the relevant community by whose standards the material will be judged." The judges also rejected the government's claim that the internet should be regulated like a broadcast medium. This decision, based in part on the Fifth Admendment's protection of the internet's right to due process, may have been even more important than the one regarding First Admendment freedom of speech for it protects the internet from the Federal Communications Commission.
Son-of-the-CDA: If the Supreme Court upholds the Philadelphia decision, some Congressional legislators are planning to introduce a "Son-of-the-CDA." Instead of calling for a ban on "indecent" material, this one calls for a ban on anything "harmful to minors." This was the language introduced by Representative Rick White (R-Washington) last December. The commitee went with "indecent," but there is evidence of support for "harmful to minors" from right-wing political action groups. "We would consider 'harmful to minors' language if [the CDA] were struck down," a spokesperson for the Family Research Council has said. The National Law Center for Children and Families has already endorsed such language. The ACLU has already announced it will oppose it. Not helping matters much, President Clinton announced his support for the CDA, insisting that it should be upheld and that "our Constitution allows us to help parents by enforcing this act." The Christian Coalition has made censoring the Internet one of the tenets of its Contract with the American Family. The Supreme Court reconvenes on October 7, and this case is a jurisdictional one, which means it will be given priority. Hearings could begin as early as November or December. The ACLU expects a decision to be reached sometime next July, just in time for Congress to reconvene.

  • The rest of the article: what was lost, why the bill is unnecessary, why the bill is dangerous.

  • Back to Fearweb.