Date: Fri 22-Aug-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: CURT

Quick Words:

iinfo-internet-CDA

Full Text:

STD HD: Internet Info

The Supreme Court

Anyone who has used the Internet for more than a few minutes realizes the

scope of its worldwide reach. Information of all kinds cascades over borders

like the weather or radio waves. Passing a law to regulate the Internet is

equivalent to legislating six out of seven days to be warm and sunny. If a

person is unhappy with the weather, he may need to move to a different

climate. This simple logic escaped the thinking of our lawmakers. We often

wonder how they can be so far out of touch with reality. Here is an example.

In February 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as part

of the sweeping Telecommunications Act of 1996. Essentially, the CDA stated

that stiff criminal penalties would be applied to the transmission of obscene

or indecent (patently offensive is the term they used) material on the

Internet to persons under 18.

The ACLU, EFF & ALA

Reaction from the Internet community was swift. A coalition of organizations

including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier

Foundation and the American Libraries Association filed a legal challenge to

the law in US Federal District Court. The Internet was flooded with

information on this topic. Many websites posted a black ribbon on their home

pages in protest.

Four months later, a Philadelphia Federal Court of Appeals found the CDA was

unconstitutional. To quote Chief Judge Sloviter: "the CDA is patently a

government-imposed content-based restriction of speech and the speech at

issue, whether denominated `indecent' or `patently offensive' is entitled to

constitutional protection."

I watched the day by day accounts of these proceedings through reports on the

Internet. It became apparent that the judges in Philadelphia were very curious

about the actual workings of the Internet. This was a sign of encouragement

for the Internet community. It came as no surprise that the vote was 3-0

against the CDA.

Janet Reno Steps In

Well, as you might expect, things didn't stop there. Attorney General Janet

Reno appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on July 1, 1996. Sometimes the

wheels of justice move quickly. The Supreme Court put the appeal on the

calendar. On March 19, 1997, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments.

On June 27, 1997, by a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court ruled the CDA

unconstitutional. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Chief Justice William

Rehnquist cast the dissenting votes. While this should close the door on this

issue, debate about the content of the Internet will continue. Keep in mind,

however, that child pornography and obscene speech (unlike indecent speech)

remain banned from the Internet. Just having child pornography or a list of

stolen credit cards on your computer can get you in deep trouble.

The Judges "Get It"

Having watched the process unfold (it was almost impossible to avoid it by

active Net-sters), I would like to share a few observations. A number of

netizens expressed fear that the Internet was too "high-tech" for the justice

system. The judges "just wouldn't get it," they said. This proved to be false.

The judges asked probing questions. I got the impression that they understood

how various parts of the Internet work. This was most encouraging. We

sometimes feel that individuals who pass laws and render judgments are out of

touch with the real world. I wish that the CDA trials would have received just

a fraction of the TV media attention of the O.J. Simpson and Menendez

Brothers' cases.

Responsibility on the I-Net

Somewhere in the back of the minds of the judges, the question about

enforcement had to enter the picture. With the massive amount of Net content

being generated and transported every day, who could monitor, much less

enforce, any laws when illegal material appears in cyberspace?

The ISPs? Hardly.

Basically, the Supreme Court ruling holds an individual responsible for where

he goes on the Internet and what he sees when he gets there. It is the job of

parents to screen what their children are exposed to on the Internet. With so

many good places to go and see, this should not be a difficult task.

Just Walk Away

I don't know, maybe it is just me. However, for the most part, I find people

on the Internet well behaved and respectful. Oh sure, every once in a while, I

come across someone with bad net-manners. Quite often, peer pressure from

other members in the group (on an e-list, for example) will step in and point

out the crude behavior. The community quickly rejects this individual. They

simply walk away. The Net is remarkably self-correcting. Let's hope it stays

that way.

URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) of interest:

http://www.commlaw.com/pepper/Memos/cda.html

http://www.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html

(Note: This is the 65th of a series of elementary articles designed for

surfing the Internet. Next, "Second Phone Line" is the subject on tap. Stay

tuned. Until next week, happy travels through cyberspace. Previous issues of

Internet Info for Real People can be found: http://www.thebee.com. Please

e-mail comments and suggestions to: rbrand@JUNO.com or editor@thebee.com.)