IP: new suit to be filed against CDA tomorrow in Philly

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

A full text will be available after noon eastern time tomorrow. Your
friendly IP Editor is a litigant in the suit.


Dave


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The Internet is more like a newspaper than  
television -- and deserves the same First Amendment protection, a 
coalition including Microsoft, the American Library Association and 
the Society for Professional Journalists plans to argue in a 
lawsuit Monday. 
        The lawsuit seeks to overturn the Communications Decency Act,  
which imposes a $250,000 fine and up to six years in prison for 
transmitting material considered indecent in such a way that it may 
be accessed on the Internet by children. 
        Another lawsuit, filed Feb. 8 by a coalition led by the American  
Civil Liberties Union, resulted in the temporary blocking of the 
act. U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwaler said the definition of 
indecency in the act was so vague that people wouldn't know they 
were breaking the law until they were arrested. 
        The new lawsuit, to be filed in Philadelphia by the Citizens  
Internet Empowerment Coalition, goes beyond the ACLU's by 
attempting to redefine the law which covers the Internet. 
        ``The basic First Amendment framework for the Internet is going  
to be set by this case,'' said Daniel Weitzner of the Center for 
Democracy and Technology in Washington D.C. 
        Messages left Sunday with the Justice Department seeking comment  
on the lawsuit were not immediately returned. 
        The lawsuit includes more than 50 pages of explanation as to why  
the Internet is a new technology deserving of new laws. 
        ``A good chunk of the complaint is spent walking the court  
through how the medium works,'' said Bill Burrington, general 
counsel for America Online, the largest commercial Internet service 
in the United States with more than 4 million members. 
        ``By putting together this very broad coalition we have the  
opportunity to bring this debate up to a more rational and 
intelligent level, and to educate the court about the technology. 
That education never happened in Congress because there were never 
any hearings,'' he said. 
        Historically, broadcast has been the most restricted kind of  
speech because the number of channels is limited and listeners and 
viewers don't have control over what they see. 
        ``We're hoping to show that instead of being a captive audience,  
Internet users have control of what they see and what comes into 
their homes,'' Weitzner said. 
        Because of that, the lawsuit holds, the Internet is more like a  
newspaper or a book than a television program -- and Internet 
companies are more like publishers than television stations. 
        The coalition also believes there are alternative and less  
restrictive means to protect children or anyone else from offensive 
content. Numerous software programs allow parents to block material 
they don't wish their children to have access to, without the need 
to reduce the content of the entire Internet to something 
acceptable for children. 
        ``We believe that parental involvement, education and technology  
provide far more effective solutions to protecting children than 
this or any other law could,'' Burrington said. 
        The coalition fears that if the same kinds of restrictions  
placed on television and radio are placed on the Internet, a double 
standard will develop between the real and online worlds. 
....