[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6130-S6131]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this morning, the three-judge panel 
sitting in the U.S. district court in Philadelphia issued its decision 
in the case involving the Communications Decency Act, which was 
included in the telecommunications bill signed into law earlier this 
year.
  I opposed the Communications Decency Act when it was first proposed 
in the U.S. Senate, because I believe this measure would have a 
chilling effect upon communications transmitted over the Internet, and 
it would stifle the expansion of this important and exciting new 
communications vehicle.
  My concern was that the Communications Decency Act injected 
Government censorship into communications over the Internet that would 
not withstand a first amendment challenge and would be harmful to the 
development of technology to do what the proponents of the 
Communications Decency Act said they wanted to do, and that is to 
protect minors from exposure to pornographic material transmitted or 
made available on the Internet.
  I also joined the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] in introducing 
legislation to repeal this patently unconstitutional infringement of 
first amendment rights. Let me take my hat off to the Senator from 
Vermont who has been a great leader on this issue. It has been a bit of 
a lonely fight out here, given the vote we had on the Communications 
Decency Act, but the Senator from Vermont has been very instrumental in 
raising this challenge.
  I am delighted to report that the court this morning acted in a 
decisive manner and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the 
Federal Government from enforcing the act. In a decision which I 
believe recognized the unique nature of the Internet, the court wrote:

       As the most participatory form of mass speech yet 
     developed, the Internet deserves the highest level of 
     protection from Government intrusion.

  Mr. President, let me repeat. The court has said ``the Internet 
deserves the highest level of protection'' of any form of communication 
or mass speech.
  This decision followed an extraordinary court proceeding in 
Philadelphia where the three judges were actively involved in learning 
about how people communicate across the Internet and the limitless 
potential the Internet now provides. They were also exposed to detailed 
information on how this same technology can and should be used to block 
access to certain material by minors. What they found, as some of us 
tried to note in the congressional debate, was there were far less 
intrusive means of achieving the goal of protecting minors than the 
approach utilized in the Communications Decency Act, which would impose 
content-based restrictions on information transmitted by adults over 
the Internet.
  It is a longstanding constitutional doctrine that when the Government 
chooses to interfere with fundamental constitutional rights, even for a 
very good cause, it can only do so in the least restrictive means 
available. Clearly, the Communications Decency Act has failed to meet 
that test.
  I firmly believe that if Members of Congress had this kind of 
tutorial that the members of the court had on the workings of the 
Internet and the alternatives available to protect access by minors to 
certain material, I think the Communications Decency Act would never 
have become law in the first place. This measure was pushed through 
Congress with minimal understanding or debate over the far-reaching 
implications of its provisions, and I think that was a mistake.
  The issues relating to the Communications Decency Act are larger than 
the so-called adult expression or communication. The core issue is 
whether Government, and in particular the Federal Government in 
Washington, DC, should decide what we see, hear, and write. The 
Constitution protects every American from this kind of censorship, 
except for very narrow circumstances, which did not exist in this case.

[[Page S6131]]

  So today, the court in Philadelphia affirmed our basic fundamental 
right to freedom of expression in this new mode of communication. I 
think it is a victory for those who support freedom of speech and for 
those who want to see this new dynamic communications technology 
develop safe from the chilling threat of Government control and 
censorship.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________