Supreme Court rules in favor of ClariNet in landmark case, protecting Internet free speech

US Supreme Court Finds The Communications Decency Act Unconstitutional

Background 
ClariNet joined several other electronic publishing companies and organizations in a suit against the U.S. Attorney General to have the "Communications Decency Act" declared unconstitutional. This so-called "Exon bill" was passed as an amendment to the Telecom bill President Clinton signed February 8, 1996. 

The American Civil Liberties Union spearheaded and funded this case. ClariNet joined with the ACLU, the EFF and several others as plaintiffs in this case because we felt the law would unfairly affect and chill our electronic publishing efforts, and because we feel the law violates the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution. 

Here is the text of the complaint. 

As newspaper publishers we are strong supporters of full freedom of expression. ClariNet has always felt that we should not "protect" our readers from possibly offensive or "indecent" material. Our job is to deliver the news to you. We sometimes even run stories that ordinary print newspapers won't run in the USA because their content might be offensive. We believe our readers are educated and intelligent and able to make their own decisions about what to read. We also believe that children should be able to read our news -- and that it is up to their parents to control their access and educate them about how to deal with material those parents feel is inappropriate. 

We were particularly distressed by this bill for several reasons. Not only are we against censorship, we are particularly frightened by the suggestion that the electronic press should be subject to restrictions that would never be allowed or accepted on or by the paper press. This law forbids allowing "indecent" material from reaching minors, but such a restriction has been proven time and time again to be unconstitutional when applied to publishers of paper books and newspapers. 

We fear this sort of law because it declares the electronic press to be second class press, not protected by the full strength of the 1st Amendment. The government was able to restrict radio and TV stations, denying them that protection, under the argument that they used the scarce resource of electromagnetic spectrum, and thus were subject to licensing by the FCC. No such argument applies here. 

The digital press is growing. All major newspapers now have online versions as well, or plan them. Many feel that the online newspapers will supplant the paper versions in the decades to come, and the digital press will be "the press" as far as the USA is concerned. Laws like this one would leave the USA without a mainstream medium that is protected fully by the 1st amendment. We must stop efforts to curtail our freedom of speech before it's too late. 

Other Information

• Our press release on the suit 
• The affidavit filed by Brad Templeton, Publisher of ClariNet, in the case. 
• The text of the lawsuit complaint 
• The ACLU's press release 
• The ACLU's brief on the case 

What ClariNet Publishes

This law would require all open facilities on USENET to either install and use draconian access controls to stop access by minors, or to "dumb down" to a level acceptable for children. Open adult discourse would be destroyed. 

The Suit

- Brad Templeton, Publisher 

(Templeton was owner and Publisher at ClariNet during the suit.)

RHF Home | Current Jokes | Best of Jokes | Search