No Kidding

[Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>]

E.  Conclusion

          Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered
the hearing testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a
never-ending worldwide conversation.  The Government may not,
through the CDA, interrupt that conversation.  As the most
participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet
deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion.
          True it is that many find some of the speech on the
Internet to be offensive, and amid the din of cyberspace many
hear discordant voices that they regard as indecent.  The absence
of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably
produced a kind of chaos, but as one of plaintiffs' experts put
it with such resonance at the hearing:
               What achieved success was the very
               chaos that the Internet is.  The
               strength of the Internet is that
               chaos.[23]

Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of
our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the
unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.
          For these reasons, I without hesitation hold that the
CDA is unconstitutional on its face.

               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,  :   CIVIL ACTION
et al.                           :
                                 :
         v.                      :
                                 :
JANET RENO, Attorney General of  :
the United States                :   NO. 96-963

________________________________________________________________

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC.,        :    CIVIL ACTION
INC., et al.                    :
                                :
        v.                      :
                                :
UNITED STATES DEP'T OF          :
JUSTICE, et al.                 :    NO. 96-1458

                               ORDER
          AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 1996, upon
consideration of plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction,
and the memoranda of the parties and amici curiae in support and
opposition thereto, and after hearing, and upon the findings of
fact and conclusions of law set forth in the accompanying
Adjudication, it is hereby ORDERED that:
          1.   The motions are GRANTED;
          2.   Defendant Attorney General Janet Reno, and all
acting under her direction and control, are PRELIMINARILY
ENJOINED from enforcing, prosecuting, investigating or reviewing
any matter premised upon:
               (a)  Sections 223(a)(1)(B) and 223(a)(2) of the
Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("the CDA"), Pub. L. No. 104-
104, � 502, 110 Stat. 133, 133-36, to the extent such
enforcement, prosecution, investigation, or review are based upon
allegations other than obscenity or child pornography; and
               (b)  Sections 223(d)(1) and 223(d)(2) of the CDA;
          3.   Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), plaintiffs need
not post a bond for this injunction, see Temple Univ. v. White,
941 F.2d 201, 220 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Snider v.
Temple Univ., 502 U.S. 1032 (1992); and
          4.   The parties shall advise the Court, in writing, as
to their views regarding the need for further proceedings on the
later of (a) thirty days from the date of this Order, or (b) ten
days after final appellate review of this Order.

                           BY THE COURT:

                          ______________________________
                          Dolores K. Sloviter, C.J.
                          U.S. Court of Appeals
                          For the Third Circuit

                          ______________________________
                          Ronald L. Buckwalter, J.

                          ______________________________
                          Stewart Dalzell, J.