cr> ACLU et. al. v. Reno

1996-02-14

Craig A. Johnson

As we wait for the Government's response to and the judge's decision
(expected today or tomorrow) on the ACLU's request for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction against the
"communications decency" provisions of the telecom bill, it is
heartening to the leadership team here at Cyber Rights that we have
such a cracker-jack team of lawyers defending our rights to online
speech.

I am excerpting below the first few paragraphs of the ACLU brief on 
the case.  The brief is a model of legal clarity and poignancy.

If you wish to read the entire brief or see other materials related 
to the case, please visit the ACLU's Web site at 
<http://www.aclu.org/>.

--caj
   
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 

(Excerpt)

     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF
                             PENNSYLVANIA 

            AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., Plaintiffs, 

                                    v. 

                   JANET RENO, in her official capacity as 
              ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, 
                                Defendant. 




     Febuary 8, 1996 

     PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION
     FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
     INJUNCTION 

     INTRODUCTION 

The plaintiffs in this First Amendment challenge to the
"Communications Decency Act of 1996" seek emergency relief to stop
the enforcement of provisions of the Act that criminalize their
expression of constitutionally protected information and ideas over
computer communications systems/1. The Act bans all expression that
is "indecent" or "patently offensive" from all online systems that
are accessible to minors. Not only does this ban unconstitutionally
restrict the First Amendment rights of minors and those who
communicate with them about important issues, but, because of the
nature of the online medium, it essentially bans "indecent" or
"patently offensive" speech entirely, thus impermissibly reducing
the adult population to "only what is fit for children." Butler v.
Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 383 (1957). 

The prohibitions are also unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
The terms "indecency" and "patently offensive" are not further
defined. None of the plaintiffs knows how to define the Act's terms
or how much of their communications are criminal under the Act. The
Act explains neither how to comply, nor which participants in the
distribution of online speech may be held liable. Further, there are
many alternatives already available for those parents who wish to
shield their children from online communications that they deem
inappropriate. Finally, the Act interferes with the privacy rights of
minors, and impermissibly discriminates against computer
communications by imposing censorship that would not be permitted
for the print medium/2. 

The plaintiffs are providers and users of online communications with
significant educational, political, medical, artistic, literary, and
social value that deal with issues such as sexuality, reproduction,
human rights, and civil liberties. The censorship provisions that
they challenge threaten not only to chill these important
communications but to dismantle the free and open nature of a
promising new medium that could empower citizens and promote
democracy in the next millennium. The exponential growth in computer
technology, and international computer networks like the Internet, is
transforming the nature of communication. Computer networks have
created new communities with new opportunities for people with
similar interests to communicate with each other. Computer networks
embody the values that underlie the First Amendment by nurturing the
robust exchange of ideas. By imposing vague and broad-ranging
standards wholly inappropriate for this new medium, the Act would
stifle the creativity and breadth of expression occurring in
cyberspace. This result cannot be reconciled with the First
Amendment. Because plaintiffs and their members and online audiences
face the irreparable loss of First Amendment rights, plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter preliminary relief enjoining the Act's
enforcement. 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

   ~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~
 ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Visit The Cyber-Rights Library,  accessible via FTP or WWW at:

ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/

You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.
 ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-