---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
Date: 15 Feb 1996 18:51:00 -0500
From: David Sobel 
To: Distribution 
Subject: Decision in CDA "Indecency"


February 15, 1996, 6:45 p.m. ET
Washington, DC

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 plaintiifs' 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.

===============================================================
David L. Sobel
Legal Counsel
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Co-counsel in *ACLU, et al. v. Reno*
(202) 544-9240
sobel@epic.org
http://www.epic.org
===============================================================

NEWSHARE QUICK LINKS TO:

Newshare and Clickshare are service marks of Newshare Corp. and Clickshare Corp.

Copyright, 1995, Newshare/Clickshare Corps. All rights reserved.