 NEWS MEDIA UPDATE
· February 8, 1999 · Internet regulation Online protection act
blocked by federal judge PENNSYLVANIA--Citing
First Amendment concerns, a federal judge in Philadelphia in early February granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement
of a law intended to protect children from pornography on the Internet. Civil liberties organizations and commercial
websites, some featuring sexually explicit information, fear the law would infringe upon their First Amendment rights and
diminish their ability to freely disseminate products and information on the Internet. U.S. District Judge Lowell A.
Reed Jr. granted those groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, a preliminary injunction forbidding U.S. Attorney
General Janet Reno and the government from enforcing the Child Online Protection Act on the day the temporary restraining
order was scheduled to expire. The act would force commercial website operators to collect some form of age verification
such as a credit card number or an adult access code before permitting access to material deemed "harmful to minors"
by community standards. The penalty for an offense includes a $50,000 fine and six months in prison. Reed articulated
the difficulty in ruling against a law with such a "compelling interest." However, he noted, "Perhaps we do
the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in
the name of their protection." He said there might be less restrictive means, such as use of filtering software, that
could accomplish the same goal. Reed agreed with plaintiffs' arguments that the act potentially violates the First
Amendment and may be unconstitutionally vague. "The First Amendment was designed to prevent the majority, through acts
of Congress, from silencing those who would express unpopular or unconventional views," Reed said. A number of
the organizations who joined to sue the government said they were pleased with the ruling. As an author of gay literature,
plaintiff Patricia Nell Warren of Wildcat Press expressed concern that, "There are religious-minded people who would
like to see all gay literature on the Internet go away." She also warned against the potential domino effect of the law.
If a court could determine that a book on the Internet was indecent for minors, it could lead to censorship in schools and
libraries, she said. The online regulations could also affect businesses such as Condomania, a plaintiff in the case,
which describes itself as a company committed to safe sex education and outreach that sells condoms online. Company founder
Adam Glickman said the law could force him out of business by mandating age verification from teenagers who might be afraid
or unable to access the site if forced to give a credit card number or other form of verification. The Child Online
Protection Act was Congress' second attempt to curb pornography in cyberspace. Congress enacted the act after the Supreme
Court struck down portions of its precursor, the Communications Decency Act, as unconstitutional in June 1997. That act sought
to ban all "indecent" and "patently offensive" material from the Internet. "COPA doesn't correct
the problems of the CDA," said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center and co- counsel
in the case. Sobel said he expects a third round of legislation and litigation if the court's decision is ultimately upheld.
(American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno; Attorney for ACLU: Ann Beeson, New York) · Comments:
0 Copyright 1999 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Submit a comment Name (what you want displayed): Comment: Please note: comments with hyperlinks will be rejected. Email (only if you want to be notified of new comments):
| 