CDA

[Sheryl Dwinell]

>The CDA will most likely be modified to deal with the freedom of speech
>issue.  And I'm beginning to see why "freedom of speech" is even an issue.
>It appears that the arguement is, if an adult is accidently banned from a
>particular site because they were unable to prove that they were an adult,
>then that persons "freedom of speech" is being stomped on (to paraphase, of
>course).  Pretty lame excuse, if you ask me. 

You should read the text of the decision because your interpretation of
freedom of speech in this ruling is off base.  From my interpretation, it
has nothing to do with being banned from a site because of your inability
to prove your age. It's about government control over and the
criminalization of protected speech, as already determined by the courts.
The court said nothing about the unconstitutionality of implementing
technological means to block obscene material in a good faith effort to
protect children. The parties who brought the case against the government
pointed out that filters were a better solution than government control
over what information was available over the Internet. The CDA was
incredibly vague in its use of the term 'indecent'. Given that, it would
have been difficult for providers of information to know how liable would
be if someone found material they found 'indecent'.  What does that term
mean? It can mean anything to anyone. 

I encourage you to read the decision and go back and read the CDA. You'll
have a clearer understanding of the ruling in this case.


Sheryl Dwinell
Cataloger/Database Management Librarian
Memorial Library * Marquette University
P.O. Box 3141 * Milwaukee, WI 53201-3141
414-288-3542 * dwinells at vms.csd.mu.edu