robh
|
|
response 9 of 73:
| 
Jun 12 17:50 UTC 1996 |
Here's the news, from www.eff.org:
Federal Court Rules Communications Decency Act Unconstitutional
---------------------------------------------------------------
Groups challenging the law prepare for government appeal to the Supreme Court
Electronic Frontier Foundation
PRESS RELEASE
Contacts: Stanton McCandlish, Online Activist, +1 415 436 9333
Mike Godwin, Staff Counsel, +1 510 548 3290
Shari Steele, Staff Counsel, +1 301 375 8856
Philadelphia -- "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."
With these ringing words, a Philadelphia federal court has struck down a law
today that would have criminalized constitutionally protected speech on the
Internet and other online forums.
In what civil libertarians are hailing as a victory for everyone who uses
computer communications, a three-judge panel in Philadelphia's federal
court ruled in a unanimous decision that the controversial
"Communications Decency Act" (CDA) violates the U.S. constitutional
guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.
"First of all, we are pleased to see the court vindicate our vision of the Net
as a medium protected by the First Amendment," said Lori Fena, executive
director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a watchdog group
established to protect civil liberties, and promote responsibility, in
computer communications. "Secondly, we are delighted that the court has gone
beyond striking down the law, and has stated positively what constitutional
principles must govern any attempt to regulate the most democratic mass
medium the world has ever seen."
Said EFF Chairman Esther Dyson: "This is a day for individual citizens, for
families, and for public and private organizations online to celebrate."
"The judges recognized that CDA was a wholly inappropriate exercise of
governmental power under the Constitution," said Mike Godwin, EFF staff
counsel. "The law would have abridged one of the freedoms that Americans
treasure most, and a freedom that is central to any democratic society," he
said.
Godwin applauded the members of the coalition that challenged the law in
federal court. "We and the other plaintiffs persuaded them that the
government cannot constitutionally impose this sort of overreaching, and
duplicative regulation of content in the online world," Godwin said.
Dyson stated that the decision stands for one of EFF's principal positions
regarding free speech online: "We believe in free speech at the source -- and
in the empowerment of any audience for that speech to control what they see.
"This decision takes the responsibility for controlling and accessing speech
on the Net out of the hands of government and puts it back in the hands of
parents and other individuals where it belongs," she said. "Individuals
already have the technical means to make their own choices about what they
and their children read and see," Dyson said.
Godwin noted that existing anti-obscenity laws, together with low-cost
technological solutions, offer a more efficient, less intrusive answer to
questions about protecting children in the online world.
"The government kept saying that this was a crisis that required harsher
censorship in the online world than in any other communications medium,"
Godwin said. "In fact, we showed that it's possible to promote both freedom
of speech and family values -- that the two goals don't oppose each other."
While the plaintiffs are pleased with the victory, Fena said, "it's no time
to be complacent." A collection of poorly drafted state laws has followed in
the wake of the passage of the CDA, and the issues these statutes raise must
be addressed as well, she said.
"What's as compelling as the language of this decision," Godwin said, "is the
breadth of the opposition to this legislation," He noted that two large
groups of plaintiffs, including EFF, the American Civil Liberties Union, the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, People for the American Way, the
American Library Association, Microsoft, and Apple Computer, had challenged
the recently passed law in Philadelphia's federal court. Even Administration
officials have privately and publicly voiced their concerns. The plaintiffs
must now prepare for the government's planned appeal to the United States
Supreme Court, Godwin said, citing a provision of the Telecommunications
Reform Act of 1996, which prescribes such a direct appeal when a provision of
the telecom act is found unconstitutional in a lower court..
Godwin also commented that "this may be the most rapidly distributed federal
court opinion in American history." Sites all over the over the Net would be
carrying the full text of the opinion almost as soon as the judges hand it
down, he said, noting that the court is providing copies of the opinion on
computer diskettes as well as through more traditional means.
The constitutional challenge to the Communications Decency Act has been
grounded in four basic arguments -- that the law is unconstitutionally
overbroad (criminalizing protected speech), that it is unconstitutionally
vague (making it difficult for individuals and organizations to comply),
that it fails what the judiciary calls the "least restrictive means" test for
speech regulation, and that there is no basic constitutional authority under
the First Amendment to engage in this type of content regulation in any
nonbroadcast medium.
"We are confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Philadelphia court's
decision," Godwin said.
To reach EFF board chairman Esther Dyson or executive director Lori Fena,
please contact EFF's main office at +1 415 436 9333.
*****************************************************************
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
1550 Bryant St., Suite 725
San Francisco CA 94103 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
Internet: ask@eff.org
|
