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