Internet Free Speech Upheld

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the key provisions of the "Communications Decency Act" (CDA), which would have made it a felony to place "indecent" material on a computer if a minor could obtain it. The ruling means that the Internet now has the same First Amendment free-speech protections as newspapers and books. The vote was 7-2, but even the minority would have overturned the CDA in most respects.

Under the CDA, AIDS organizations publishing or distributing safer-sex information on the Internet could have been prosecuted if sexually oriented material was found offensive in any part of the country; the importance or value of the information would not have been a defense. The Supreme Court noted that there is no way to publish information on the Internet and make sure that minors do not receive it -- and that under the CDA, even parents could be prosecuted for letting their 17-year-old use a computer to obtain birth control or other information that the parents considered appropriate. (AIDS TREATMENT NEWS covered this Internet censorship legislation from July 1995 to October 1996, in issues #227, 229, 236, 237, 238, 240, 249, and 256.)

The case against the CDA was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and many other organizations, on the day that President Clinton signed the legislation. The case was initially heard by a three-judge panel in Philadelphia. One litigant against the CDA, Kiyoshi Kuromiya of Critical Path AIDS Project in Philadelphia, attended that trial every day and may have been the most influential with the judges, because "unlike other litigants, I proclaimed in court that I WANTED to reach teenagers with sexually explicit safer-sex information. An estimated 25% of HIV infections occur among teenagers. I felt particularly at risk for prosecution under this law. The special three-judge panel who heard our arguments agreed that Critical Path AIDS Project would be profoundly affected by the law. They detailed their concerns in the 170-page brief and separate opinions they wrote in June of 1996. At that time an injunction was issued against enforcement of the law until the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutional issue" (which it did on June 26, 1997).

Kuromiya also noted, "The Internet is going to be every bit as important as the telephone. The sweeping restrictions of the Communications Decency Act would have knocked the cornerstone out of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech as applied to the Internet for the next hundred years. We, as providers of information on AIDS treatment, safer sex, and risk management for a variety of sexual practices, can breathe a bit easier now. To criminalize the publishing of life-saving but sexually explicit information on the Internet would have been a great public-health mistake."

Another litigant against the censorship law, Sister Mary Elizabeth of AEGIS (AIDS Education Global Information System (http://www.aegis.com); for information on AEGIS, see AIDS TREATMENT NEWS #271), said she was "elated the Supreme Court struck it down. It was too broad and undefinable. If the CDA had been upheld, we would have had to go through every file on our system; up to half might have had to come off [AEGIS has over 350,000 documents online]. You cannot talk about AIDS in an intelligent manner without bringing sex into it. We and others could not have afforded the legal costs, and would have been facing $250,000 fines and imprisonment."

For more information on the recent Supreme Court decision, see THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 27, page 1. Also see the following Web sites:

American Civil Liberties Union,

http://www.aclu.org

Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, http://www.ciec.org

Critical Path AIDS Project (see Bulletins), http://www.critpath.org

Electronic Frontier Foundation, http://www.eff.org/

Electronic Privacy Information Center, (website no longer available)