Members of the university community are applauding last week's federal court decision holding two challenged provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional.
The university will make no changes in its computer policies as a result of the decision, said Marjorie W. Hodges, policy adviser to the Office of Information Technologies. "But if the act had been upheld, we would have reviewed the policy to consider any changes necessary to comply with the act," she said.
The CDA, passed as part of a larger telecommunications bill, included provisions that would have made it illegal to mail "indecent" material to a minor or post "patently offensive" material on any computer system where it might be seen by minors -- that, in effect, would have made it illegal to post such material anywhere on the Internet.
These provisions were immediately challenged by a broad coalition of Internet users and civil rights organizations as an infringement of free speech. Last week's decision was made by a panel composed of U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Buckwalter and Dolores Sloviter, chief justice of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. They unanimously agreed with the challenge and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting any enforcement of the law. The issue may now go to the Supreme Court.
An important concern for Cornell was that, as an Internet service provider, the university might have been held responsible for material posted on its system.
"Our policy states that we do not monitor electronic communications," Hodges said. "A decision requiring the university to monitor would have caused tremendous concern, not just because of the administrative burden and practical impossibility, but also because monitoring communications is antithetical to the university mission. I didn't anticipate that kind of decision and am relieved that we did not get one."
Associate University Counsel Patricia A. McClary also was happy. "We don't need to change our policies," she said. "I think the whole point is that it's not a paternalistic system where we have to be responsible for what everyone says on the net. There was certainly concern that we would have added burdens, responsibilities and liabilities, so it was a relief to see the decision."
Hodges was pleased that the judges unanimously decided the challenged provisions of the law were unconstitutional. "In effect, the panel decided that speech protected by the First Amendment in other media is also protected in Internet communications," she explained.
"That just makes sense," Hodges added. "The judges recognize that the Internet is a unique medium and not similar to broadcast radio and television where some regulation is permitted. It is the judges' apparent understanding of the technology that makes this such a sound decision. The attorneys on both sides of the issue did a great job educating the panel on what the Internet is and how it works. As a result, courts in future cases have the benefit of this understanding as set out in the decision." Hodges also noted that all three judges recognized the Internet as a unique medium.
"The Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation," Judge Dalzell said. "The government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion."
Hodges cautioned that the panel's decision does not change other restrictions on speech. "Obscenity and child pornography are still illegal, on the Internet or anywhere else," she pointed out.
The complete text of the 147-page decision is available at http://www.aclu.org>.