Internet Decency Argued

WASHINGTON In the Supreme Court's first venture into cyberspace,the justices seemed receptive Wednesday to the idea that thegovernment should help shield children from sexually indecentmaterials on the Internet.

However, during a vigorous 70minute session, the justicesexpressed uncertainty about how to deal with the emerging technologyand concern about how much control Congress should have as itattempts to regulate a growing sphere of public conversation.

The case immerses the high court in a complex and unexploredarea of free speech with potential implications for lawmakers andparents, librarians and educators, and many online businesses.At issue is a law passed last year that makes it illegal totransmit sexually explicit material to anyone under age 18. The lawexcludes from prosecution those who make a "reasonable, effective andappropriate" attempt to keep indecent material out of the hands ofminors.While some justices suggested that Congress was stiflingconstitutionally protected conversations between adults, it seemsunlikely that the court will rule with the unanimity of the specialthree-judge panel that struck down the law last summer.Although the court ultimately could find that theCommunications Decency Act violates the First Amendment, the justicesseemed sharply divided. A decision may come by July.Some justices were clearly troubled by how freely minors can getaccess through their computers to pornography. But they alsoquestioned the practicality of enforcing the law: How, for example,could someone sending sexually explicit material be expected toscreen out children, yet still communicate with adults?Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described the Internet as "a publicplace . . . much like a street corner or a park." But she latersuggested that Congress may have authority to restrict a narrowcategory of "patently offensive" materials.Arguing for the law, Deputy Solicitor General Seth P. Waxmansaid an unregulated Internet "threatens to give every child withaccess to a computer a free pass to the equivalent of every adultbookstore and theater in the country."Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned whether the law was sobroadly written that high school students, using their home computersto talk about their sexual exploits, would be open to prosecution, asthe law allows. Waxman conceded that the students might violate thelaw.Bruce J. Ennis, who specializes in First Amendment cases,appeared for the American Library Association, the ACLU and otherfree-speech advocates. Ennis spoke of the "real democratizingaspects of the Internet" and how "average citizens can speak to theworld for free."He emphasized that the law censors adult speech because mostusers cannot afford credit card or identification systems that wouldscreen for age. He also said the law ultimately would proveineffective in ridding cyberspace of sexually explicit materialsbecause 40 percent of computer postings come from foreign countries.