CDA reaction: No surprise

Netizens are cheering today's Supreme Court's decision to kill the Communications Decency Act, but their reactions seem more restrained compared with the heady celebrations that followed the Philadelphia lower court's ruling last summer.

1.7M ALA's Judith Krug on the importance of the decision

Today's ruling, which upheld the Philadelphia court's decision and rejected the government's appeal, solidified protections for free speech on the Net, according to users, organizations, legislators, and lawyers alike. If the reaction was less than overwhelming, it is because most court-watchers expected the decision and because most Netizens have learned over the last year that the issue of Net regulation won't be eliminated by any single ruling.

Still, today's ruling was released to loud applause from CDA opponents--both in and out of cyberspace.

Free-speech organizations such as the American Library Association; members of Congress such as Rep. Rick White (R-Washington); online services like America Online and CompuServe; attorneys who had fought the case; and many regular Netizens weighed in on the issue electronically, saying the ruling will help protect the Net as a new communications medium.

Meanwhile, in meatspace, as some call the physical world, Netizens and the press gathered throughout the country to pat each other on their actual backs.

In San Francisco, those who had spent months and even years fighting the CDA stood on the back of a pickup truck in a business district park and spoke one by one to a small but enthusiastic crowd under blue skies, with the backdrop of wind rustling through the trees and cars rushing past.

Bruce Ennis, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, assured the pro-CDA crowd that the ruling not only addressed the CDA, but will serve as a powerful weapon in fighting off any future attempts at regulating speech on the Net.

1.6M CIEC's Bruce Ennis on the end of content restriction

"The Internet is now basically safe from government regulation in the future," he said to the sound of a champagne cork popping. (Later, a man guzzling from a bottle of champagne offered up the celebratory liquid to everyone he passed.) "It's my professional opinion after reading this opinion that basically any future attempt by Congress to pass a law that remotely resembles the CDA would also have to be struck down as unconstitutional."

Mike Godwin, staff council for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, also gave a crowd-pleasing speech focused on the future. "I call upon each of you to let today be the first day of a new American Revolution--a digital American Revolution, a revolution built not on blood and conflict but on language and reason and our faith in each other."

Earlier in the day, as the decision was just registering to

1.1M EFF's Mike Godwin on free speech

people returning from lunch on the East Coast and just arriving at work on the West, Netizens spoke to each other, the press, and issued releases sometimes with cautious enthusiasm and other times with rhetorical exuberance.

"This is really wonderful and exciting--and also eliciting a little smug yawning," said Gail Williams, director of conferencing for The WELL, an online community that has been strongly opposed to the CDA and supportive of free speech on the Net. "When the decision came down in Philadelphia, there was a lot more tension."

But Williams and many others said that while this case represents a major victory for free-speech advocates, it is by no means the end of the road.

Regulating the Internet, she said, "is still a flash point for people who want to make political mileage right now. It's the most available bogeyman."

Karen Coyle, a privacy expert with Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, echoed that thought. "It's winning the battle, and now we still have to fight the war," said Coyle

Groups like Morality in Media and Enough is Enough, which supported the CDA, are already planning their next move, but admit that today's ruling will make that move a lot more difficult for them.

"Obviously, I'm very disheartened about today's decision," said Monique Nelson, director of West Coast operations for Enough is Enough. "I think it's nine-zip: nine in favor of the pornographers and zip in favor of the children."

Paul J. McGeady, general counsel for Morality in Media, a national antipornography organization, said he was disappointed by the ruling, calling it a "tragedy."

Both groups vow to continue the fight. "There was a crack left open in the door in the opinion," Nelson said. "We're going to go back to Congress and pursue this."

In the meantime, it's up parents and educational institutions to protect children from the adult material available online.

"The best protection for children is--and always has been--parents who teach them how to make positive choices, whether it's about books, movies, television, or the Internet," said Mary Somerville, president of the American Library Association. "We believe that public education and improved technology can address these concerns in a way that does not violate the free speech of adults."

Likewise, the Software Publishers Association reiterated the argument that the way for parents to protect their children is not through legislation, but through technology--primarily through software that can block objectionable material.

"We believe parents should have an opportunity to block objectionable content from minors, but the best solution for these concerns is through self-regulation by the software industry and content publishers," stated Ken Wasch, president of the SPA. "Further legislation by Congress in this area is unnecessary."

America Online, a pioneer in implementing parental controls on its online service, agreed. "This decision gives us an opportunity to come together as an industry to work even harder on reaching our goal of protecting children," stated George Vradenburg, a company senior vice president and general counsel. "We are confident that our industry is well on the way to building solutions that will ensure a safe, rewarding online experience for families and children."

Congressman Rick White added that he thinks the case will have a long-term effect on how the government treats the Net. "There is no question that we need to protect our kids from certain kinds of harmful materials, but we also need to protect our rights as Americans. The best way to do those things and encourage the growth of the Internet is through technological innovation, not unconstitutional federal regulations."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), who has been vocal in his opposition to the CDA, called the decision "a landmark in the history of the Internet."

"Vigilant defense of freedom of thought, opinion and speech will be crucially important as the Internet graduates from infancy into adolescence and maturity," he added.

Others say the government should now focus on prosecuting Net crimes covered by existing laws. "The real problem is not the Supreme Court, but the Justice Department," Patrick Trueman, director of governmental affairs for the American Family Association said in a statement.

"To protect children, the Justice Department must adopt a prosecution strategy targeting all individuals and companies who intentionally and knowingly facilitate the distribution of child pornography and obscenity over the Internet."

He would be hard-pressed to find anyone to argue against those principles--at least on the Internet. Online pundit Howard Rheingold said the ruling goes beyond the Internet: it reaffirmed this country's belief in free speech.

"I think we've lost some understanding of why it's important to protect free speech," he contended. "This kind of messy, uncontrolled speech on the Internet is precisely the kind of speech the First Amendment is going to protect. If you have a problem wondering what your kid is doing, you have a bigger problem than the Internet."

Back to intro