It's decision time on Net free speech

PHILADELPHIA--The trial that could determine the definition of free speech on the Internet drew to a close today in a federal district courtroom here. Now it's decision time.

A three-judge panel--Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter, Judge Stewart Dalzell, and Judge Ronald Buckwalter--heard final oral arguments from the plaintiffs this morning in the case of ACLU vs. Janet Reno, a suit filed in February in an effort to overturn the Communications Decency Act, which criminalizes the posting of material deemed indecent or patently offensive on the Internet. If the CDA stands, violators will face up to two years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

It was not known when the panel will render its decision. Sloviter would say only that "you will hear from us in due course."

Regardless of the ruling, observers have speculated that the decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court. But Sloviter said today that "we are not sure the Supreme Court will take this."

Jason Baron gave oral arguments for the government but didn't offer an extensive presentation. He mostly answered questions.

"Doesn't the record show we don't need a CDA for parental control access?" asked Dalzell, the parent of a 10-year-old, saying that he would use some kind of parental control software regardless of the law.

"The two sides are not clashing on facts that there are parental controls," Baron replied. "But we have shown that the third-party software mechanisms just can't keep up, and there is a tremendous amount of material that will seep through."

The government has on its own behalf proposed three different ways to block access that it said would be superior to the existing technology: requiring sites to ask for credit card numbers before releasing content to confirm age and identification; requiring sites ask visitors their age before letting them log on; and requiring sites to include tags in their Web addresses if they contain possibly objectionable content.

The plaintiffs argued that all three solutions were technologically unfeasible, saying: lots of sites offer free content; anyone could lie about their age; and tags wouldn't stop a 12-year-old from looking.

The judges seemed to agree. Sloviter said to Baron: "You're asking us to sustain a bill on technologies that don't exist. Until it exists it isn't working, and until it works we won't know how well it will work."