High court overrules Internet indecency law

Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City), Jun 30, 1997 by Bob Drummond Bloomberg News

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a law that made it a crime to display sexual and other adult-oriented material on the Internet, in a landmark decision that extends free-speech rights in the computer age.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices said the Internet indecency law went too far because, in the name of protecting children from sexual material, the statute "effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive."

The ruling was a resounding victory for Internet companies and users in the Supreme Court's first stab at considering the boundaries of constitutional free-speech protections on computer networks. The high court rejected government arguments that speech on the Internet should be considered similar to broadcast television and radio, in which the government has relatively broad power to regulate indecent or obscene material. Instead, the court said it found no reason to limit free-speech protection for on-line communications. The case could set the legal framework for government regulation of communications on the Internet and World Wide Web well into the 21st century. On-line and computer companies such as Microsoft, America Online Inc., CompuServe Corp., Prodigy Inc., Apple Computer Inc., Netcom On-Line Communication Services Inc. and Wired Ventures Ltd. protested the law when it passed, arguing it would stifle the rapid growth of the far-flung computer network. "In effect, this is the first free speech ruling of the 21st century," said Carole Shields, president of the free-speech advocacy group People for the American Way. Thursday's court decision is likely to have the biggest effect on companies that produce material that could have been blocked if the law were upheld and on firms that make screening software, technology law specialists said. Supporters of the indecency restrictions promised to seek new legislation that would protect children while meeting the high court's standards. "We're going to see the floodgates of porn open up on the Internet," said Cathy Cleaver, legal policy director for the Family Research Council. "This is not a good day to be a child on the Internet." President Bill Clinton, whose administration defended the law, said he will "convene industry leaders and groups representing teachers, parents, and librarians" to find a solution "that "protects children in ways that are consistent with America's free speech values." A combination of "the right technology and rating systems" for Internet users, Clinton said, can function like the V-chip that blocks out violent programming on television, and "help ensure that our children don't end up in the red light districts of cyberspace." Congressional supporters of the law also expressed disappointment in the ruling. "This court has now chosen to defend immediate unrestricted access of children to pornography," said Indiana Republican Sen. Dan Coats. "There are many children with inattentive or computer illiterate parents who will be left with no protection at all from debased and debasing pornography." All nine justices agreed that the broadest provisions of the law, which make it a crime to display indecent material in a way that's accessible to minors, violate the Constitution. The fight involved so-called indecent material, which is legally different from obscenity. Indecency restrictions cover material that has legitimate artistic, scientific, or cultural value, but that may contain sexually oriented or other potentially offensive material. Opponents said the restrictions would almost surely fail to protect children from indecent material because they would have no impact on material posted on the Internet by overseas users, who account for about 40 percent of the information on the world-wide computer network. Critics didn't challenge separate provisions of the statute that outlawed distribution of obscene or pornographic material to children. The indecency restrictions have never been enforced, because a special Philadelphia judicial panel ruled in June 1996 that the Communications Decency Act tramples constitutional free-speech protections. That ruling, which the Supreme Court upheld today, rejected the Clinton administration's argument that on-line information should be treated like radio or television broadcasts, in which the government has more regulatory power. "The framers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment with quill pens on parchment, but their words have no less meaning on a video monitor," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of Washington- based Media Access Project. Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with that group's decision to strike the broadest restrictions. They filed a dissenting opinion, however, saying they would have upheld parts of the law that made it a crime for adults to send indecent material by computer when they know the recipient is a minor. The most controversial provision called for as much as five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for posting indecent material on a computer network in a way that's accessible to children. The government said those who want to post nudity or other indecent material should be required to take steps -- such as requiring a verified credit card number -- to weed out underage computer users. Critics said that law could trigger jail terms for people who use the World Wide Web to provide a range of information such as medical advice about AIDS prevention or sex education, reproductions of art masterpieces, and excerpts from mainstream books, popular films or Broadway plays. "The worst part about the (act) was that it was more effective in suppressing valuable political speech and artistic expression than in protecting children from exposure to inappropriate material," said Media Access Project's Schwartzman. The administration argued that Congress has well-recognized authority to shield children from offensive material and says restrictions against on-line indecency are needed to protect the viability of the Internet's World Wide Web. Complaints about the law centered on arguments that in the free- wheeling world of the Internet, once information is posted on a discussion group or Web page it is in most cases effectively impossible for the sender to control who might see it or to tell whether other users are more than 18. The case is Reno v. ACLU, 96- 511.