Law Curbing Indecency on Internet Overturned

WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court on Thursday extended free-speech rights across the Internet, striking down a federal law that had prohibited sending “indecent” material over the global computer network. President Clinton responded by proposing to shield children from such content by creating the Internet equivalent of the television V-chip.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court in a 40-page opinion, said that while interest in protecting children from cyperporn is legitimate, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is vaguely worded and could have the effect of stifling communication among adults.

The desire to protect children “does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults,” Stevens said.

In two votes the court effectively dismantled the law, which was passed during a national furor over sex and violence in the media. The justices voted, 7-2, to strike down a provision banning transmission of indecent material to minors, and voted unanimously to declare unconstitutional a provision banning display of such material at sites that could be accessed by minors.

The votes, which affirmed a Pennsylvania court ruling striking down the law, were hailed as a major victory for free-speech advocates and the online industry, and denounced by lawmakers and others focused on shielding children from pornography.

“You don’t have to be a law professor to understand [the decision’s] practical effect: Congress must let the Internet grow, not strangle it,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Coalition, a Washington-based legal watchdog group that helped represent one plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Supporters of the law warned that the court’s action would give children no legal protection against the objectionable content that can be viewed on the graphical Web pages of the Internet, transmitted in e-mail or read in chat groups that publicly post messages for anyone to see online. They vowed to introduce new child protection measures that would pass legal muster.

The law barred distribution to minors of indecent or “patently offensive” materials, with penalties of up to two years in jail and a $250,000 fine.

The decision comes as a number of foreign nations, notably Germany, France, Singapore, China, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, have sought to rein in the freewheeling content of cyberspace and hoped the U.S. law would aid in their efforts. As the Supreme Court noted, the task is difficult given the global span of the Internet: “Once a provider posts its content on the Internet, it cannot prevent that content from entering any community.”

Clinton said Thursday he is “firmly committed” to protect children from computer pornography and said he would seek the development of something akin to television’s V-chip, which will be available next year to block out television programming that bears content rating levels parents deem unsuitable for their children.

“If we are to make the Internet a powerful resource for learning, we must give parents and teachers the tools they need to make the Internet safe for children,” Clinton said.

Some See V-Chip-Type Solution as Insufficient

Toward that end, Clinton pledged to bring together representatives of industry, teachers, parents and librarians to develop “a solution for the Internet that is as powerful for the computer as the V-chip will be for television, and that protects children in ways that are consistent with America’s free-speech values.”

Supporters of the law said that may not be enough.

“No one wants to return home after work to find a child downloading pornographic material,” said Rep. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). “Unfortunately, while the Internet can provide educational opportunities for young people, it can also expose them to dangerous material.”

Murray said she plans to introduce a bill called the Childsafe Internet Act that would create a warning advisory system for Web sites and make it a felony for anyone “to solicit or exploit” so-called childsafe online discussion groups.

The indecency controversy has engendered a hot industry of software developers and hardware makers marketing products aimed at screening objectionable Internet content. And many of them welcomed the publicity the indecency case has brought to their products.

“This decision means technology, including filtering software, is more important than ever in helping parents protect children from inappropriate material in cyberspace,” said Richard A. Gorgens, chief executive officer of Microsystems Software Inc., which publishes Cyber Patrol, a software blocking product.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said in its decision (Reno vs. ACLU, 96-510) that such new software screening agents provide “a reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent their children from accessing sexually explicit and other material.”

At the same time, computer and legal experts agree that efforts to control Internet content by legislative or technical means--such as the Internet equivalent of the V-chip--face many practical obstacles that set it apart from television. The primary difference is in access. The Internet is open to virtually anyone who wants to provide material, while television remains highly constricted by comparison.

The Internet also provides a far more diverse channel of communication, sending information through multiple paths to better ensure they they won’t be disrupted. With the simple click of a computer mouse, electronic mail or graphical Web images are broken down into numerous electronic packets of data and routed around a vast global computer network to one of more than 16 million “host” computers that store information on the Internet.

“It would be conceivable to incorporate some kind of a code in Web pages that would indicate they contain indecent material . . . but it’s unlikely such a technology would work in practice,” explained David B. Folger, program director of workgroup computing strategies at the Stanford consulting firm META Group. “Many people might choose to not rate their page.”

And Folder added: “Kids are probably more capable than any parent of hacking through that kind of chain.”

Christian Coalition Vows to Go on Attack

Nevertheless, Christian Coalition President Don Hodel vowed to find a solution, saying: “We are not going to accept the Supreme Court decision denying protection to the children of America as the final word. We will consult with the best constitutional lawyers available and examine remedial legislation that passes constitutional muster and stand up in court.”

Many legal experts and some legislators doubt that supporters of the indecency measure will succeed with any new effort.

“I don’t think the Supreme Court left any room open” for another law, said George Vradenburg III, general counsel for America Online, the nation’s largest Internet access provider, with more than 8 million subscribers. “This was a pretty clear-cut decision.”

Indeed, the online industry has already instituted a number of efforts aimed at preventing children from accessing indecent material.

Commercial pornographers who use the Internet typically demand that buyers supply an adult credit card number, the court noted. Other sexually explicit material is usually proceeded by a warning, the court said Thursday.

The “odds are slim that a user would enter a sexually explicit site by accident,” the court said. As for the child or teenager who is insistent on finding pornography, the court suggests parents purchase software filters that screen out such material.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Justices Open the Net

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress violated free-speech rights when it curbed pornography on the Internet. That left the nation’s leaders--and parents--searching for ways to control what children see.

In Response . . .

President Clinton . . . will form a panel to look for other solutions, including a possible V-chip-type device.

Congress . . . criticized the decision. At least one lawmaker vowed to attempt other safeguards.

The Industry . . .praised the decision but welcomed Clinton’s call for other ways to protect children.

Parents . . . looked to other ways--including special software--to block out cyberspace’s red light district.