A federal court in Manhattan is now hearing testimony on a suit filed by JoeShea, editor of the American Reporter. Like the higher-profile ACLU vs. Janet Reno case, where final arguments will be heard laterthis month in Philadelphia. Shea's suit against the Justice Department seeks to overturn the CDA, which was signed into law onFebruary 8 and makes it illegal to postindecent material to online areas that could be viewed by minors. Shea filedthe suit because he says the law limits freedom of speech for the U.S. press.
In a related fight for free speech rights in Oklahoma, journalism lawprofessor BillLoving filed a federal complaint against the University of Oklahoma, charging that it blocked access to a newsgroup from the university's computers. Thenewsgroup, "alt.sex," was blocked on April 1 after the university receivedcomplaints from a religious organization charging that the newsgroup is sexually obscene.
Loving says restricting students' access to the Internet is a violation oftheir First Amendment rights, and he awaiting the university's response.
The American Reporter's fight against the CDA began when it posted a commentaryby First Amendment advocate Stephen Russell that contains the "seven dirty words" cited in other free speech cases and then some. "The commentary was aimed at the members ofCongress who voted for this piece of trash," Shea said.
The article is now being introduced to the debate. The Philadelphia City newspaper reprinted the full commentary, and Harper'smagazine reprinted excerpts in the May edition. Publishers of those two publications will not face consequences for printingthe article, but if the CDA remains in effect Shea could face fines of up to$250,000 fines and up to two years in jail. "The law would apply a doublestandard to newspapers depending on whether they appear in print or appearon your computer," he said.
As a matter of policy, the American Reporter does not publish obscene material,but Shea said he decided to publish the article to take a stand. "If it were not for the fact that our First Amendment rights were directly threatened by the CDA, we would not have published the article," he said.
Shea's case is similar to the combined case of the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Association but says hiscase focuses on the issue of print vs. online free speech rights. "TheACLU case is a far broader challenge than ours, which is much more focusedand much more directed," said Shea.
Nevertheless, Shea expects his suit to be consolidated with the ACLU suitnext month.The court is expected to reach a decision on the Shea case in May whilearguments for the ACLU are expected on May 10. "In all probability,the case will be consolidated and taken to the Supreme Court," Shea said.
The government provided testimony from some of the same witnesses whotestified against the ACLU, including Special Agent Howard Schmidt of the AirForceOffice of Special Investigations and Dan Olsen, professor of computerscience at Brigham Young University. Schmidt pointed to sites that containsexually explicit contentand showed the court how easy it is to access them, while Olsen testifiedabout theoretical technology that could be used to block inappropriate content.
Related stories:
Last testimony heard in CDA trial
CDA judges shown ease of surfing
CDA judges get look at Net diversity
The CDA on trial
The Net testifies at CDA trial
Browsers to help parents monitor Net
Indecent is in, obscene is out
Censoring cybersmut: what happens now?
Will you be censored?
RealAudio coverage: CNET Radio