No Subject

["Dave Banisar" <banisar@epic.org>]

A federal judge in Philadelphia has issued a partial temporary 
restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the "indecency" 
provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).  The judge 
declined to enjoin those provisions of the Act dealing with 
"patently offensive" communications.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs' claim that the CDA will have 
a chilling effect on free speech on the Internet and found that 
the CDA raises "serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful 
questions."  The court further agreed that the CDA is 
"unconstitutionally vague" as to the prosecution for indecency.  
But the court left open the possibility that the government could 
prosecute under the "patently offensive" provisions

The court has recognized the critical problem with the CDA, which 
is the attempt to apply the indecency standard to on-line 
communications.  Nonetheless, online speech remains at risk 
because of the sweeping nature of the CDA. 

The entry of the court order is a strong indication that the 
"indecency" provision of the legislation that went into effect on 
February 8 will not survive constitutional scrutiny by a three-
judge panel that has been impaneled in Philadelphia.  The panel 
will fully evaluate the constitutional validity of the legislation 
and consider entry of a permanent injunction against enforcement 
of the new law.

The temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued in a lawsuit 
filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the 
American Civil Liberties Union and a broad coalition of 
organizations.  EPIC is also participating as co-counsel in the 
litigation.  

The court ruling comes in the wake of widespread denunciation of 
the CDA, which was included in the telecommunications reform bill 
signed into law last week.

According to EPIC Legal Counsel David Sobel, one of the attorneys
representing the coalition, "The court's decision is a partial 
victory for free speech, but expression on the Internet remains at 
risk.  This is destined to become a landmark case that will 
determine the future of the Internet."  Looking ahead to 
proceedings before the three-judge panel, Sobel said "we are 
optimistic that further litigation of this case will demonstrate 
to the court that the CDA, in its entirety, does not pass 
constitutional muster."

EPIC has maintained since its introduction in Congress that the 
ban on "indecent" and "patently offensive" electronic speech is a 
clear violation of the free speech and privacy rights of millions 
of Internet users. 

Comprehensive information on the CDA lawsuit, including 
plaintiffs' brief in support of the TRO, is available at:

     http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/lawsuit/


===============================================================
David L. Sobel
Legal Counsel
Electronic Privacy Information Center
sobel@epic.org
http://www.epic.org
===============================================================




_________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
_________________________________________________________________________
David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org)        *  202-544-9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center   *  202-547-5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301     *  HTTP://www.epic.org
Washington, DC 20003                    *  ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org