Computer guru Stewart Brand observed in 1987 that personal computers, electronic mail and word-processing programs are collapsing "the whole writing-publishing-distributing process into one event controlled entirely by the individual."
"If, as alleged, the only real freedom of the press is to own one, the fullest realization of the First Amendment is being accomplished by technology, not politics."
--Stewart Brand, "The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at M.I.T."
(New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1987) 253.
"The Government may well be right that sexually explicit content is just a few clicks of a mouse away from the user, but there is an immense legal significance to those few clicks." (929 F.Supp. at 876)Dalzell called Congress' attempt to "limit both the amount of speech on the Internet and the availability of that speech" "profoundly repugnant to First Amendment principles." (Id. at 881) The Internet, Dalzell wrote, "deserves the broadest possible protection from government-imposed, content-based regulation." (Id. at 883)
"Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar -- in a word, 'indecent' in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice." (Id. at 882)
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects." (Id. at 883)So how would the U.S. Supreme Court treat the Internet?
"Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. The Web is thus comparable, from the readers' viewpoint, to both a vast library including millions of readily available and indexed publications and a sprawling mall offering goods and services.However, though the Court drew an analogy between the Internet, particularly the WWW, and publishing, it stopped short of explicitly saying that cyberspace should be afforded the same full First Amendment protection as the print medium. Justice Stevens clearly did not champion, as Judge Dalzell had done so passionately and eloquently, the idea that the Internet is deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as print publications."From the publishers' point of view, it constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a world-wide audience of millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers. Any person or organization with a computer connected to the Internet can 'publish' information." (Id.)
Return to Media Law Home Page