Now that the highest court in the United States has ruled the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional, are U.S. cybercitizens free at last from would-be censors?
CDA opponents believe the court's ruling leaves no room for further legislative action, saying that the justices were decisive in their 7 to 2 vote to uphold a lower court ruling that the law is unconstitutional. But supporters of the CDA, which made it a crime to distribute indecent or patently offensive material to minors over the Internet, vowed to continue the legislative fight.
"We're going to go back to Congress," said Monique Nelson, director of West Coast operations at Enough is Enough, a group that staunchly supported the CDA. "I don't know when or with what, but we will."
President Bill Clinton, whose U.S. Justice Department fought to keep the CDA on the books, did not directly address any possible future legislative paths to prevent children from seeing pornography on the Internet. Instead, in a written statement, he called for study of technological blocks and rating systems to "help ensure that our children don't end up in the red light districts of cyberspace." Clinton plans to convene industry leaders as well as heads of parent, teacher, and librarian groups to address the issue.
The justices objected to the law because of the broad and vague way it defined indecency, and the fact that the law's harsh penalties--up to two years in prison and fines of up to $250,000--could stifle conversations among adults. Among other concerns, the justices seemed troubled by the fact that there is no effective way for content providers to screen out minors from chat rooms or newsgroups, according to one observer.
"Given the way the Internet works, people would not be able to obey the statutes without cutting off free speech to adults as well as minors," said Jack Beermann, a professor of law at Boston University. "Adults would be chilled by the chance of a criminal prosecution when they couldn't be sure of the age" of the person with whom they communicated or who read a posting.
The CDA was championed in 1996--a presidential and congressional election year--more for political reasons than deeply felt concerns about pornography on the Internet, observers and CDA opponents said. Now that the elections are over, legislators' willingness to tackle the subject has likely waned.
"Members of Congress don't really care about the court," Beermann said. "They want to be able to tell constituents, 'I voted to take obscenity off the Internet.'"
"This will have the effect of wiping out all of those state-level CDAs," said David Banisar, staff counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy rights group in Washington, D.C.
CDA supporters, however, say they plan to lobby Congress to get another federal law on the books, one that will narrow the definition of indecency so that it will pass First Amendment muster.
In addition to going back to Congress, CDA supporters plan to pressure the Justice Department and state legal officials to enforce anti-obscenity and child pornography laws that are already on the books. They will also ask the computer and online industries to come up with better content screening methods, which would help parents protect their children from pornography on the Internet.
"And the most important thing is, we'll educate the public," Nelson said. "[Software] screens are a good thing, but that gives people a false sense of security."
The full text of the Supreme Court's decision is available at the American Civil Liberties Union's Web site.
Ad Choices