o Government Witness: Censor First, Ask Questions Later
o Plaintiffs Waive Rebuttal of Government Testimony
o Oral Arguments Moved Up to Friday, May 10th
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, April 15, 1996
PHILADELPHIA--Testifying on the last day of trial in ACLU v.
Reno, government witness Dan Olsen told a three-judge panel that
the best way to comply with the censorship law would be to block
all possibly "indecent" words and images, until "questionable"
material could be reviewed and labeled for adult consumption.
That process could take weeks or months, he told the court.
Using this triage approach, as Olsen described it, Internet
content providers would have to virtually shut down their sites
until they could complete the task of self-censoring using his
"-L18" system. The proposed system requires content creators to
determine whether their words or images are "indecent" or
"patently offensive," and if so attach an electronic "-L18" label.
Olsen, a professor of computer science at Brigham Young
University, returned to the court today to conclude his testimony
in the last day of a trial that could well determine the future of
free speech in cyberspace. The consolidated cases of ACLU v. Reno
and ALA v. DOJ challenge provisions of the Communications Decency
Act that criminalize making available to minors "indecent" or
"patently offensive" speech.
"When the government forces you to censor your expression of
words or images or face jail time, that's a pretty clear violation
of the First Amendment," said Christopher Hansen, who conducted
cross-examination of the witness for the ACLU.
Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter questioned Olsen closely on
the effect the censorship scheme would have on Internet sites
containing "a great deal of material not offensive to anybody,"
that would have to be blocked for review. "Can you think of any
time in history when we have blocked access to material in
advance?" Judge Sloviter asked.
The judges also wondered how the labeling scheme would apply
to speech in other Internet forums such as e-mail or chat rooms.
Posing a hypothetical question, Judge Stewart Dalzell asked Olsen
whether an 18-year-old discussing the censorship law in a chat
room with minors would have to "label" a phrase such as "Fuck the
CDA" before transmitting his words. Yes, Olsen replied, if he
wanted to be protected from prosecution.
In his testimony on Friday and today, Olsen acknowledged that
PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection), an alternate
system described by plaintiff witnesses, would allow parents to
control their children's Internet viewing without requiring broad
censorship.
According to MIT expert Dr. Albert Vezza, who testified
Friday on behalf of plaintiffs, expected industry-wide acceptance
of the PICS standard will enable any number of third-party
organizations such as the PTA, the Christian Coalition or the Boy
Scouts of America to rate content for parents and other Internet
users. As early as this summer, he said, Microsoft Corporation
plans to issue software embedded with the PICS protocol, and other
corporations are expected to follow suit.
In addition, plaintiff lawyers pointed out, unlike Olsen's "-
L18" system, PICS would allow users to block all "untagged"
Internet content from the receiving end, instead of requiring the
providers to censor their material. This feature is especially
important because overseas Internet providers are not subject to
U.S. laws. By contrast, said ACLU lawyer Chris Hansen, user
empowerment software like PICS can block a site regardless of its
origin. "The government's proposal -- and the law itself -- does
not take into account the global nature of the medium," Hansen
said. "If the censorship law is upheld, minors will still be able
to access any foreign site without restriction."
The key to the PICS system, and to keeping the Internet a
free medium for users of all ages, Hansen added, is parental
empowerment. "While there will always be objectionable material
in any communications forum, the responsibility -- and the tools
-- for guiding children's interaction should remain with the
parents."
At the conclusion of today's trial phase, plaintiff's lawyers
informed the court that they would waive the option to rebut the
government's testimony. After a short scheduling conference, oral
arguments were moved up to Friday, May 10, instead of June 3, and
the April 26 rebuttal day was canceled.
Under procedures for oral arguments, each side will have two
hours to make its case and answer questions from the judges.
Plaintiffs and defendants are required to submit briefs and
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the judges by
April 29. After a ruling by the three-judge panel, under
expedited provisions, any appeal would be made directly to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Lawyers for the ACLU appearing before the judges are
Christopher Hansen, Marjorie Heins, Ann Beeson, and Stefan
Presser, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
Return to the EPIC Censorship Lawsuit Page