Wiemeler, Steve. Data Center Manager at 3COM. Interview: 7:00P.M. Friday, 27,1998.

The ACLU or the American Civil Liberties Union was probably aware of the same problems of the CDA just mentioned. The very day that President Clinton signed the bill, it was opposed. The ACLU took the Supreme Court to court in Pennsylvania. Soon after that the American Library filed suit. The judges tried both cases together and agreed the restrictions set fort in the Communications Decency Act went against the First Amendment. The judges found there were no methods o screening for age on the Internet. The judges felt that the Communications Decency Act did not provide us with a clear definition of what indecency was. In June 1996 the group of judges voted the law down. This was known as Reno vs. ACLU.

Another problem with the CDA is that it limits adults to what is appropriate for children. The effect of the CDA's provisions regarding indecent content and minors would be both dramatic and disastrous. If enacted, the CDA would effectively turn all public areas of the Net into the equivalent of the children's room in the library. Traditionally every large public library has a Children's Room, an area with content deemed safe for children. Outside the Children's Room. The rest of the library is geared toward, and available to, adults.

There are some problems with the Act that should be of concern to all citizens of the United States. The Act clearly infringes on the First Amendment right of free speech. Under the CDA, it would be an offense to "knowingly" to publish material such as Erica Jong novels, certain rock and lyrics, and Dr. Ruth Westheimer's sexual advice column on the Internet unless children were affirmatively denied access to it. It is as if the manager of a Barnes & Nobel outlet could be sent to jail simply because children could wander the bookstore aisles and search for books which contain passages of racism. On the radio, certain shows which contain "indecent" content in broadcasting can be required to be limited to certain hours were as children are less likely to hear, in general indecency is fully protected by the first amendment. It can even be thought that profane language can be essential to political speech, since the emotional power of particular words may be as important as their intellectual content. It's important to not that not every application of this part of the CDA would be unconstitutional. If the "obscene or harassing" offense language been limited to instances in which the speaker intends to "threaten," it would have raised no constitutional problems. A threat of blackmail or physical violence, for example, is not protected speech. But the CDA goes beyond threats - it criminalizes the use of "indecent" language even when the speaker merely intends for his content to be "annoying," and this prohibition treads

Some common words found in the essay are:
Netcom Usenet, Senator CDA, Barnes Nobel, , Decency Act, Exon Net, Allowing CDA, Internet CDA's, Act Whoever, Clinton Leahy, decency act, communications decency act, communications decency, online available, restrictive means, indecent material, indecent content, president clinton, free speech, protected speech, access indecent, indecent content minors, act online available, cda's original intention, decency act online,
Approximate Word count = 1940
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)