Internet law evolving.

• Author: O'Tierney, Daniel Patrick

"Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." So wrote federal Judge Dalzell last month in a decision rejecting recent law designed to regulate "indecent" material on the global computer network.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia unanimously issued a preliminary injunction blocking the federal government from enforcing the Communications Decency Act provisions of the 1996 telecommunications reform law. A group of approximately 50 corporations, public interest organizations and trade associations (including the American Library Association) brought the combined lawsuit challenging the legislation.

The stated purpose of the law is to protect children from sexually explicit content on the Internet. One provision of the Decency Act criminalized the transmission to minors of "indecent" or "patently offensive" material - without expressly defining those terms. Another provision sought to limit online discussion of abortion. The federal district court found the law both overreaching and unconstitutionally vague in its approach.

The Internet was judicially characterized as a "never-ending, worldwide conversation" and "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed." Consequently, in a 200-page decision, the federal district court declared that the Internet deserves the highest First Amendment protection from government intrusion and censorship.

The Clinton Justice Department reportedly will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. If upheld, the decision offers sweeping protection to Internet communication (and online businesses) from government regulation - perhaps greater than that afforded the press. Online users may ultimately enjoy greater protection against libel suits than newspapers or magazines.

The lower federal court noted that, unlike radio or television, communication over the Internet doesn't invade one's home or computer screen but must be sought out. Internet content is seldom encountered by accident. For that matter, indecent or patently offensive speech is not necessarily "obscene." Both categories are much broader than the U.S. Supreme Court's legal definition of prohibited obscenity. Indecent material, on the other hand, receives some First Amendment protection.

In an unrelated, yet relevant, case, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled on a question of regulation of commercial speech in the form of...