Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily ScoopPOLITICS & COMMUNITY
Ann Beeson
interviewed by Anthony Qaiyum on 12 February, 1996
"I definitely won't second-guess what the judge is going to do."
Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is part of the team contesting the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act. Tripod talked with her the week after the Federal Court filing.
Tripod: The ACLU is currently challenging last week's Communications Decency Act. Can you explain the suit to us?
AB: We filed in Federal Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania last week asking that the judge issue an injunction against the enforcement of this statute, which makes it a crime to send indecent or "patently offensive" material over the Internet and other online services.
Tripod: The legislation went into affect as soon as Clinton signed the bill?
AB: That's right. And we asked that it immediately be enjoined.
Tripod: According to one of your press releases, the government has already conceded that censoring abortion debate is unconstitutional. Are they only after pornography?
AB: Pornography is not even a legal term. It's not recognized in a court of law. Child pornography is recognized, but that's already illegal on the Internet, and everywhere else.
Tripod: So, what are they targeting with this legislation?
AB: That's our question. We don't know. We don't know what they mean by indecency. We think that this is a vague law and that people can't know what kind of material is a crime to put up on the Internet.
Tripod: Do you think the government is scared of the potential of the Internet?
AB: Yes, I think that's fair to say. Throughout history, this has gone on in every case -- when the telephone came along, when the radio came along, when the TV came along. You always see that people are afraid. You always see that there are feelings that somehow this new medium is going to be used to corrupt children or something. And it always takes a little while for the lawmakers to understand that, no, this is a potential tool for democracy and not at all something that is going to harm children.
Tripod: What is the outlook of the case right now -- is it pretty positive?
AB: We definitely don't ever guess or try to second-guess judges at all. Obviously, we wouldn't have filed a lawsuit if we didn't think we could win. We think that the statute is clearly unconstitutional, but I definitely won't second-guess what the judge is going to do.
Tripod: So the ideal outcome of the case is that the whole Indecency Act would be ...
AB: Ruled unconstitutional, which means that it is no longer in effect. It moots the whole law, in other words. It can never be used to prosecute anyone.
Tripod: The date we're waiting for is Wednesday. If things don't go well, do you have a plan B?
AB: Actually, it isn't such a huge decision. The temporary restraining order is very necessary, but it is just something that is put into place while the court can actually consider the real merits of the legal argument. And that, the latter, happens through what's called a preliminary injunction hearing. That hearing, according to this law -- the Communications Decency Act, has to take place before a three judge panel, which we've already asked to be convened. And that will happen sometime, probably, within the next month. There will be a much bigger hearing, at which time both sides put out evidence. Then that three judge panel will actually rule substantively on whether the law is unconstitutional. If they do that -- no matter what way they rule -- it will then go from that panel, directly to the Supreme Court on appeal.
Tripod: What is your advice to sites out there right now if the law ends up being upheld?
AB: To be very careful about what they're posting now, online. And to continue to speak very vocally against this law and against any form of censorship of the online medium by statements on their Web pages.
Tripod: Although they're not going to prosecute right now, if the law is upheld, can the attorney general go back and prosecute based on content that is posted right now?
AB: Yes, they can, which is one of the reasons we are hoping that the judge will rule in our favor in the [decision to enjoin] on Wednesday or Thursday.
Tripod: Many adult sites put up warning pages, or "over 18" links. Do you think these precautions will be enough to protect them from prosecution?
AB: We don't know. That's one of the claims we're making in the case. We don't understand what the defenses are all about, and people don't understand what they have to do to comply.
For up-to-the-minute information on the ACLU's suit, visit their Web site at http://www.aclu.org.
