CITIZENS INTERNET EMPOWERMENT COALITION

1634 EYE STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

202/637-9800





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           For further information, contact:

June 12, 1996                         Sydney Rubin, 202/828-8829

DECISION IN INTERNET CHALLENGE HAILED AS VICTORY FOR PARENTS, CHILDREN AND AMERICAN TRADITION OF FREE SPEECH

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania -- Parents, librarians, online companies, publishers, newspaper reporters and others challenging government censorship of cyberspace today hailed an historic decision by a federal court enjoining the government from enforcing portions of a new law which violate constitutionally protected free speech.

But plaintiffs in the American Library Association v. U.S. Department of Justice suit warned that the battle against the Communications Decency Act may not be over if the government appeals today's decision to the Supreme Court.

"This is a victory for the Internet and for everyone who values free speech," said Jerry Berman of the Center for Democracy and Technology and a co-founder of the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition that organized the suit.

In their 175-page decision, the three judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvnia found the law unconstitutional on grounds that it violated rights of free speech. All three judges -- Dolores K. Sloviter, chief judge of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. District Judges Ronald L. Buckwalter and Stewart Dalzell wrote individual opinions supporting the panel's unanimous decision to enforce an injunction against the government.

"Our findings of fact -- many of them undisputed -- express our understanding of the Internet. These Findings lead to the conclusion that Congress may not regulate indecency on the Internet at all," wrote Judge Dalzell, referring to the extensive study of the Internet.

The Judges concluded: the "plaintiffs have shown irreparable injury, no party has any interest in the enforcement of an unconstitutional law, and therefore the public interest will be served by granting a preliminary injunction."

The 27 plaintiffs in the case, which was joined by the court with another suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, complained that the law imposed criminal penalities on speech in cyberspace that is otherwise entirely lawful. It was the first time in American history that criminal penalities had been placed on the exercise of free speech.

The result of the unconstitutional law was that books legal on library shelves could land a librarian in jail if posted on-line. The terms used in the law were so vague that they encompassed vast amounts of material with literary, artistic, political, cultural and medical value, and threatened to penalize people who did not realize they were violating a law.

The law was not aimed at curbing obscenity or child pornography on the Internet, which already are against the law.

"We are ecstatic. Librarians can continue to provide ideas and information to the public regardless of the format, without concern about fines or jail terms," said Judith Krug from the American Library Association. "This is victory for anyone who uses the public libraries."

In addition, the law would fail in its goal of protecting children since large amounts of material on the Internet originate overseas, beyond the reach of U.S. law.

During five days of hearings, plaintiffs showed the court the unique nature of the new medium and demonstrated software that allows parents to easily monitor and control the material coming into homes and schools. Plaintiffs argued that such technology was more effective than any law, empowered users to make their own judgements about what they wanted to see and protected Americans' First Amendment rights to free expression.

"The court today did for children and adults what Congress did not -- It decided that parental control tools combined with user education and enforcement of existing laws is a more effective and constitutional way to protect children and safeguard our freedoms," said Bill Burrington, Assistant General Counsel of America Online.

Other countries were watching the outcome of the case closely. Many nations, such as Germany, France and Japan, are just beginning to grapple with Internet issues. Other nations, such as China and Saudi Arabia, already have imposed strict controls on the medium, which Judge Dalzell referred to during the hearings as "the most democratic medium yet devised by the imagination of man."

"This court is the first to fully grapple with and grasp the unique nature and potential of the Internet. The court's decision today to afford communications over the Internet heightened protections recognizes the value of this new medium in a democracy," said Bruce J. Ennis, lead attorney in the case. "This decision will help define the legal framework for future decision related to the Internet."

The plaintiffs in the case include: American Library Association, Inc.; America Online, Inc.; American Booksellers Association, Inc.; American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; American Society of Newspaper Editors; Apple Computer, Inc.; Association of American Publishers, Inc.; Association of Publishers, Editors and Writers; Commercial Internet eXchange Association; CompuServe Incorporated; Families Against Internet Censorship; Freedom to Read Foundation, Inc.; Health Sciences Libraries Consortium; HotWired Ventures LLC; Interactive Digital Software Association; Interactive Services Association; Magazine Publishers of America, Inc.; Microsoft Corporation; Microsoft Network; National Press Photographers Association; NETCOM On-Line Communication Services, Inc.; Newspaper Association of America; Opnet, Inc.; Prodigy Services Company; Wired Ventures, Ltd.; the Society of Professional Journalists; and the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, representing more than 40,000 individual Internet users.

# # # #



[<---]Back to the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Page