Judges Bar Enforcement of Internet Indecency Law

A THREE-JUDGE federal panel Wednesday declared unconstitutional a new law making it a crime to transmit "indecent" material on the Internet, saying the worldwide computer network deserves broad First Amendment protection.

In a strongly worded, 179-page ruling issued just a month after closing arguments in the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia issued a preliminary injunction blocking federal prosecutors from implementing the Communications Decency Act.

Groups challenging the law, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling represented a thorough and resounding victory for free speech and puts them in a strong position to argue the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Justice Department, which is defending the law in court, is expected to appeal, though officials there Wednesday said they were reviewing the decision. In the law, Congress specified that any appeal would go directly to the Supreme Court.

President Bill Clinton, commenting o n the ruling, said, "I remain convinced, as I was when I signed the bill, that our Constitution allows us to help parents by enforcing this act to prevent children from being exposed to objectionable material transmitted through computer networks."

The law, approved by Congress earlier this year as part of an overhaul of the nation's telecommunications regulations, would have criminalized the transmission of "indecent" material to minors over computer networks or the electronic publication of such material in a way that would make it available to minors.

The judges agreed with groups challenging the law that it is so broad that it would essentially limit speech on the Internet to that which is acceptable for children. In formulating the law, Congress decided to use the broad "indecency" rather than the narrower "obscenity" standard. While courts have allowed the government to regulate "indecent" material in broadcast, there are no such restrictions in print.

In her opinion, Judge Dolores Sl oviter, chief judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, said the use of the indecency standard "sweeps more broadly than necessary and thereby chills the expression of adults."

Sloviter and U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Buckwalter also agreed with the ACLU, the American Library Association and the numerous other groups challenging the law that the "indecency" standard was unconstitutionally vague.

She said the terms could cover a "broad range of material from contemporary films, plays and books showing or describing sexual activities, to controversial contemporary art and photographs showing sexual organs in positions that the government conceded would be patently offensive in some communities.

The judges also expressed skepticism about the government's arguments that the law was aimed at pornographers, saying that differing regional standards and politics could render something indecent in one community that is acceptable in another.

"What may be, figuratively speaking, one a dministration's pen may be another's sword," wrote Buckwalter.

While the third member, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, said he thought the "indecency" standard was not vague, his opinion was the most forceful in arguing that the Internet deserves the strongest possible free-speech protections, largely because the Internet is so democratic a medium in the "marketplace of ideas."

"Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig," wrote Dalzell, an appointee of President George Bush.

Groups challenging the law were thrilled by the decision and said the three judges laid out the facts in a way that clearly explains how the Internet works. None of the three judges had used the Internet extensively before they took on this case, and spent considerable time hearing experts' testimony to learn about the computer network.

"Our mission was to convince the court that even though it's an electronic medium, the Int ernet should have the same protections as print, and I think we succeeded beyond our wildest expectations," said Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an industry group.

Heidi Stirrup, legislative director with the Christian Coalition in Washington, which supported the law, said the decision is not surprising and suggested the challengers filed the case in Philadelphia specifically because they thought that court would be sympathetic to their challenge.

Neither side would speculate on how the Supreme Court might rule in this case. While Wednesday's winners said they believed the case was clear-cut in their favor, they also said they feared the Supreme Court might uphold the law out of fear of criticism that it protected pornographers.

Jill Lesser, deputy director for public policy at People for the American Way, one of the plaintiffs, said that while groups supporting the law have attempted to portray it as "family groups versus pornographers," the dec ision in fact sends the message that "this law takes away from families the power to make decisions" about what their children will see online.

Lawyers at the Justice Department suggested a decision on whether to appeal could await a ruling in a parallel suit now pending in federal court in New York, and a Supreme Court decision expected this summer on a 1992 law on indecency in cable access programming. If Justice decides to appeal, the Supreme Court will take up the issue even though the Philadelphia court's decision is a preliminary one and the case has not been fully argued on its merits there.

Gaylord Shaw in Newsday's Washington bureau contributed to this story.

Virtual Glee Greets Indecency Ruling

Fireworks exploding on his computer screen broke the news to Sujal Shah: The American Civil Liberties Union and others had won their case against the Communications Decency Act.

"I walked in to the office this morning and fired up Netscape and the image was right there," said Shah, a technology support assistant and undergraduate at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "I was delighted."

The icon that Shah saw on his Website, the icon that had changed automatically from a dark question mark to a victorious, red, white and blue virtual firework display, was the same symbol that changed on 3,900 different Web sites around the country Wednesday morning. That was when Shabbir Safdar, a spokesman for the Voters Telecommunications Watch, changed the controlling icon on his computer in Brooklyn, bringing the news to thousands before they heard about it on television or the radio.

The release of Wednesday's decision was a sweet moment for Safdar, who had been campaigning for months against what he and other activists considered a misguided law that strips Net users of their First Amendment rights.

"We're ecstatic," he said. "The court looked at the law and looked at the Net and realized you don't need the law to protect children, unlike Congress, which acted first and thought second, if they thought at all."

Celebratory rallies were planned in Pittsburgh and Manhattan. At the SoHo loft space that houses the Internet service provider Outernet, Net activists had mixed feelings about the decision.

Nathaniel Daw, 22, a programmer for Piermont Information Systems celebrated the decision, but said "I guess I wouldn't call it important because they are going to appeal it to the Supreme Court, of course. But its a nice symbolic moment.

His friend and co-worker, Chris Holst, 22, a researcher, disagreed. "It's an encouraging start. If you can get three stodgy Philadelphia judges to say it's unconstitutional, the Supreme Court should be a pushover."

In cyberspace, it was perhaps too early to gauge what impact the judges' decision will have on those most obviously affected.

For months any number of sexually oriented sites, such as Links to Adult Sites: Niel's Home Page -- a site that contains many links to photography-based adult sites -- have featured a blue ribbon that symbolized the campaign for free speech and provided a link to the Electronic Freedom Foundation's site.

One adult site, VegasseXXX, was still displaying Wednesday the kind of warning that became common when the law was passed earlier this year: "If you are offended by such material, or you are under 18 years old, you must disconnect from this server."

There was no mention of the case Wednesday afternoon on the site put up by the Christian Coalition, an organization that supported the law.