The latest chapter in the story of the Internet and the Communcations Decency Act (CDA) was written on June 12, 1996, when a panel of three Federal District Court judges voted unanimously to place an injunction on CDA enforcement, with particular attention to "indecency provisions". Tripod continues to cover developments with links to proceedings, rulings, and information provided by proponents and opponents of the CDA.

Participate in our survey about this critical time in cyberlaw and get more details about this historic decision at the sites below:

---

Legal Writs The Comunications Decency Act (full text) Clinton Administration Statement on Telecommunications Bill and CDA Full Text of Complaint Filed By the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) The Decision(this full text version is over 200k)
Proponents The Christian Coalition The Family Research Council Senator Jim Exon, Bill Author	Opponents The American Civil Liberties Union Electronic Frontier Foundation Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Voters Telecommunications Watch

---

survey

In a unanimous decision, judges placed a stay on the enforcement of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). But what exactly does that mean? Partisan postings are rife with warnings, but don't necessarily tell the truth.

What do you think? What's the CDA really about, and where do you stand on it?

Comments or Questions:

DeadManTalking: I think the CDA is really about pure old fashioned censorship and the fear of a loss of absolute power over our lives, not to mention hearts and minds. As for "where do (I) stand on it"... frankly, I wouldn't want to step in it. Most of the people/organizations who supported it have probably never even surfed the 'net (much as I dislike that expression) anyhow. Thank God there's some honest, thoughtful and freedom-respecting individuals in some high places (like Judge Dalzell) who refuse to let our basic freedom of speech be trampled on. Senator Exon, get your fat friggin' finger outta my eye, guy!

jfreeman: I think the judges have spoken eloquently and with determination.

I hope people have listened.

edwardheath: It was with remarkable clarity that the three judges in Philadelphia declared that the CDA would place some Netizens in a position where they must "choose between silence and the risk of prosecution." Realizing the risk to constitutionally protected free speech, various individuals, free speech advocates, publishing and computer industry groups combined forces in a manner which underscored how precious our First Amendment is.

goforth: The CDA can be viewed as a luddite-like reaction from those that don't understand the emerging digital society. These folks view decentralization of information as scary and dangerous. Their reaction is to close things down...put them "under control." For those who like historical analogies, we can compare today to the time when the printing press became widely available in Europe. The established order went through tremendous efforts to stop the wild dissemination of information. The CDA is just a modern manifestation of this tendency.
Ray Goforth
Social Justice Web Zine

RoadMan: I am and was always totally against the CDA! I hate censorship! The Republicans, which I am one of, support the idea of a small, nonintrusive government, and they support the First Amendment normally. So it baffled me as to why some members of my own party wanted to thumb their nose at the First Amendment in this case. I think that some of them, especially those who are part of the wacko, fruitcakey Born Again Christian Religious Right movement, support free speech until something comes along that "offends" them. In this case, it was "indecency" on the internet. I'm sorry, but how can one universally define "indecency?" It can't be done. What they consider indecent may not be indecent at all to other people. So I am thrilled that this bad piece of legislation, the CDA, was overturned! Now I hope the new bill sponsored by Orrin Hatch is stopped in its tracks because it further censors the internet.

Rip: CDA is a clumsy attempt at government censorship--real and by intimidation. It will no more prevent dissemination of information than prohibition prevented consumption of alcoholic beverages.

HighFiveDJ: I thought it was a sad day for free speech when the CDA was enacted. It never was, a never will be, a governmental repsonsibility to regulate what our children see. It is and foremost a parental responsibility. It is enough that parents decide what their children should and should not see and teach them to make choices of which they approve.

roadkill: We are indeed fortunate that so many people have banded together with the understanding that the CDA was not a single issue (cyberporn ?) document that was going to protect us from us or, God forbid, them. Using the concept that the government knows what is best for us so we should get out of their way while they are busy protecting us from people that have a point of view that is so different, so vile that we cannot avert our eyes and thus the very moral fiber of the nation would surely crumble and decay in a smoldering cyber-heap of tawdry smut. The government, waving its banner, tells us that they alone can protect us from the insidious evildoers. They will protect our children since we are not enabled by our rights of paternal censorship. We must be saved! The truth of the matter was the government was trying to take control of the most powerful device of free speech that had ever been conceived. Did we need the government to dictate calm and orderliness? The internet is chaos by design.

wiskey: I myself find it very inpractical and unneccesary for this government to regulate just what the internet users say to one another. I myself do not see the internet invading one computer by itself nor by accident, it has to called upon or shall I say it has to be "invited" into one house via the phone line. So the internet deserves the broadest possible protection that we can give to it. Let me put in my two cents by saying -uck off Uncle Sam and let democracy live on the internet. Put the voice of the people back where it should be and not the voice of a few that we have given power to. Lets do away with the professionals in politics and and start by putting someone into office that is truly "for the people and by the people. " Please let the freedom bell ring out and stay that way.

peytonr: 1984 can't succeed in 1996. Thank God for people who aren't afraid of reason and choice. I will never understand why people feel that they have any right to censor the thoughts, ideas and values of those who differ from themselves.

ronnielong: i think this is an act designed to tell young people of america thet they cannot do what they want and when they can, America must restrict it. there is no justice and these judges think this is the only way to keep people out of trouble. if they would let us be we could stay out of trouble our way.

moe: Election year politics. An effort by both parties to pander to the far right. Parents should monitor what their kids do, and that includes their time "on line". When I run across something that is offensive to me, a click of the mouse and it is gone.

rjnerd: I was one of the 41,000 that "signed on" to the case. I am delighted that the court saw through the goverment's case. I found it particularly amusing that the "family-"oriented opposition bemoaned a "handpicked ACLU judge", neglecting to mention that a: the result was unanimous and b: that two of the judges were Reagan appointees.

bg4: any attempt by a government to stifle freedom of expression is BULLSHIT. Only fascists think that privacy intrusions and legislated "morality"(their version) is a good idea. As a 52 year old lifelong true patriot, I cannot even believe we are discussing this in 1996.
A word of advice: The best way to beat oppression in a free country is to ignore it. Live like it doesn't exist. Do what you think is right. If they don't like it, fuck 'em. That's at the personal level. If you care about anyone else, then--of course--stand up for the rights of people who can't stand up for themselves. That's why you are so strong.
May you and I live free or die. Because of so-called Generation X we are turning this thing around. The future is bright (wear sunglasses to identify).

trainrobber: Freedom of speech only conveys the right to speak on any subject one wishes to discuss. It does not convey the right or the privilege of being offensive in manner or language used. Foul or unseemly language demonstrates a lack of character, self esteem and self discipline on the part of the user of such language. If an individual can not or will not control his own behavior to avoid injuring or offending other people it then becomes a duty of society ( government ) to impose control . I am opposed to governmental control of individual freedoms in general but do feel that a certain amount is required to maintain an ordered society.
One more thing, Any issue endorsed by the ACLU is automatically a loser. I am diametrically opposed to any issue supported by the ACLU. They are a self serving group. One among many, I might add.

PappaFrank: Really, as a Canadian, I should have no real say about this, but it does infringe on the rights of other nations' peoples. There may be a 49th parallel border between us, but the information flows in both directions. I have seen Canadian postings that have been selected a "Site of the Day." This, in a sense, made a mockery of the whole censorship question. One country is telling another country's citizens what they may watch. There is no border to the Internet. Ideas, products, fun, interests - all cross the border quite freely.
Really, I am not affected because the prurient material does not entice me; however, if I wanted to, I should be able to go there without hindrance.

bsn: The CDA is about the Status Quo, loosing further power to the objectivity of the people. Of course the Christian Coaliton is behind this, as they want all women barefoot, pregnant, and submissive, let alone anyone with a dissenting opinion. It's clear at this point that their objective is about control, not their children being exposed to the evil on the Internet. Why with Net Nanny, Surf Watch and other programs how can they complain? This is the equivalent of a V-Chip for the Internet. Let parents take control and responsibility for their own children while leaving the rest of us alone! In fact, aside from all the reports on pronography on the Internet, I have never experienced anything to do with pornography on the Net. Simply put, I never went looking. Much the same way that if I wanted to find drugs on the street, I probalby could in no time. However, I've no interest. But this is getting off the subject, because the CDA is all about a minority of conservative lunatics, trying to control our thoughts, and speech. Judge Dazell should be highly commended for his support of Democracy at its finest. The Net truly represents Free Speach, and Tripod is at the forefront in promoting the free exchange of ideas and information that truly makes the Web, one of the top 10 innovations, of all time. Keep up the fight!

Taxform: It all means the same thing. Posturing; How to get their name(s) in the news, how to line their pockets with more of our hard-earned money and how much more control can they wrest away from us. Who are "they"? The politicians, that's who. The CDA is about power. Power means control and money. Over us and from us. It's just a game of one-upmanship for them that happens to affect the lives of millions of REAL people. They could care less ....

rachel:The CDA is censorship. Plain and simple. I couldn't be happier that it's been overturned: it scared me on so many levels.

Billzebub: I think that people who own computers and are online should have enough time and money to be able to watch their own kids. The government and especially this Administration want to prove to you that they are more capable of raising your kids right, but they're wrong. Adults should be able to decide whether or not they want to look at nudie pictures on the internet.

JohnSherman: Frankly, it's stupid to attempt to censor. Even the Chinese are finding that censoring the net will be difficult.

kav: Why is there confusion over the CDA? It is blatantly unconstitional as confirmed by the courts. Most of the legislators that voted for this atrocity have never been "on-line", much less viewed "porn". Any Congress people that voted for this bill do not deserve to be re-elected. Martin Kavanagh