Cybertelecom Federal Internet Law & Policy An Educational Project

Communications Decency Act Reference

Law

• Telecommunications Act of 1996
  • Communications Decency Act
    • FCC Proceeding Implementing CDA: The FCC announced a schedule for promulgating regulations implementing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Communications Decency Act was number 28 on that schedule. The FCC did not pursued this rulemaking.
  • Legilsative History
  • The Legislative History of Senator Exon's Communications Decency Act: Regulating Barbarians on the Informationf Superhighway, 49 Federal Communications Law Journal 51 (1996).
  • Congressional Conference Report on the CDA.
  • Sec. 501 et seq. of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (The Communications Decency Act)
  • 18 USC 1462 (Hyde Amendment)
  • 18 USC 1465
    • 18 USC 1465 As Amended
      CAPITALIZED TEXT has been added
      [Bracketed text] has been striken -CITE-
      
      18 USC Sec. 1465 01/24/94 -EXPCITE-
      
      TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
      PART I - CRIMES
      CHAPTER 71 - OBSCENITY -HEAD-
      
      Sec. 1465. Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution -STATUTE-
      
      Whoever knowingly [transports in] TRANSPORTS OR TRAVELS IN, OR USES A FACILITY OR MEANS OF, interstate or foreign commerce OR AN INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 230(E)(2) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934) IN OR AFFECTING SUCH COMMERCE for the purpose of sale or distribution, [or knowingly travels in interstate commerce, or uses a facility or means of interstate commerce for the purpose of transporting obscene material in interstate or foreign commerce,] OF any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

      The transportation as aforesaid of two or more copies of any publication or two or more of any article of the character described above, or a combined total of five such publications and articles, shall create a presumption that such publications or articles are intended for sale or distribution, but such presumption shall be rebuttable

  • 18 USC 2510
  • Chronology
• Hyde Amedment
  • In the midst of the final debate over the CDA, Congressman Hyde slipped a surprise. Entitled "Clarification of Current Laws Regarding Communication of Obscene Materials Through the Use of Computers," it would have expanded the reach of the federal obscenity laws to cover "interactive computer services." [18 U.S.C. § 1462] [18 U.S.C. § 1465]. This subsequently received a whirlwind of attention because, according to 18 U.S.C. § 1462(c), it would have been illegal to transmit material online about abortion. This provision was so clearly unconstitutional that the Department of Justice declined to defend it in Court. [Hyde]
  • Entitled "Clarification of Current Laws Regarding Communication of Obscene Materials Through the Use of Computers," Sec. 507 of the Telecommunications Act expands the reach of the federal obscenity laws to cover "interactive computer services. "See18 U.S.C. § 1462 as amended; 18 U.S.C. § 1465 as amended. According to 18 U.S.C. § 1462(c), it would be illegal to transmit any material over online communications concerning abortion.
    • -CITE-

      18 U.S.C. 1462 As Amended

      CAPITALIZED TEXT has been added 18 USC Sec. 1462 01/24/94 -EXPCITE-
      
      TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
      PART I - CRIMES
      CHAPTER 71 - OBSCENITY -HEAD-
      
      Sec. 1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters -STATUTE-
      

      Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier OR INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 230(e)(2) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934), for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce -

      (a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or

      (b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or

      (c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or

      Whoever knowingly takes OR RECEIVES from such express company or other common carrier OR INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 230(E)(2) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934) any matter or thing the carriage OR IMPORTATION of which is herein made unlawful -

      Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

  • 142 Cong. Rec. H1145 (daily ed. February 1, 1996) (remarks of Rep. Hyde):

    Concerns have been raised about the amendment to 18 U.S.C. s1462 regarding an interactive computer service. Section 1462 generally prohibits the importation or transportation of obscene matter. Subsection 1462(c) prohibits the importation or interstate carriage of "any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters or things may be obtained or made * * *."

    We are talking about the advertisement, sale or procurement of drugs or medical instruments or devices, used to bring about an abortion. This language in no way is intended to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion, nor in any way to limit medical or scientific discourse on the Internet. This amendment to subsection 1462(c) does not prohibit serious discussions about the moral questions surrounding abortion, the act of abortion itself, or the constitutionality of abortion. This statutory language prohibits the use of an interactive computer service for the explicit purpose of selling, procuring or facilitating the sale of drugs, medicines or other devices intended for use in producing abortions. The statutory language is confined to those commercial activities already covered in section 1462(c) of title 18 and in no way interferes with the freedom of individuals to discuss the general topic of abortion on the Internet.

  • ACLU Press Release (February 15, 1996).
  • On February 9, 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno informed Vice President Gore that Rep. Hyde's amendment to § 1462 is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment; the Department of Justice will not defend the constitutionality of the amendment. ("This is to inform you that the Department of Justice will not defend the constitutionality of the abortion-related speech provision of 1462 in those cases, in light of the Department's longstanding policy to decline to enforce the abortion-related speech prohibitions in 1462 (and in related statutes, i.e., 18 U.S.C. 1461 and 39 U.S.C. 3001) because they are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.") Cached version
  • 142 Cong. Rec. H1145 (daily ed. February 1, 1996) (remarks of Rep. Berman) However, I am gravely concerned that provisions in title V of the conference report, in particular, sections 502 and 507, are unconstitutional. In section 507, by extending to the internet clearly unconstitutional underlying law, we are enacting an unconstitutional abortion gag rule.

Litigation History

Supreme Court Unanimously Declares CDA Unconstitutional!

• Supreme Court Decision.  Reno v. ACLU, 521 US 844 (1997)
• 47 U.S.C. § 223 after SCt Decision

On June 26, 1997, on the second to last day in the Court's term, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in ACLU v. Reno, the constitutional challenge to the Communications Decency Act. The Court unanimously concluded that the CDA as challenged was unconstitutional. A copy of the decision can be found at multiple places around the WWW including the ACLU homepage,EPIC, and CIEC. See also what is left of 47 USC s 223, the statute amended by the CDA, after the Supreme Court decision. The provisions of the CDA outlawing the transmission of obscenity (as opposed to indecency) were not challenged and remain intact.

History in the Supreme Court

On July 1, 1996, in the midst of the 1996 election campaign in which President Clinton was busy making his "centralist" bid, the United States Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal of ACLU v. Reno. See Letter From DOJ to Senator Exon (June 26, 1996) (stating DOJ's plan to appeal Philadelphia Court Decision). Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court is required to hear this case - it cannot deny certiorari. See Cornell University - Information About the Supreme Court .

On October 31, 1996, challenges filed its response of appellees to appellant's jurisdictional statement, in which they moved for summary affirmance of the Philadelphia Court decision. See ACL U Response ; CIEC Response. On December 6, 1996, the Supreme Court found that it had probable jurisdiction and set a briefing schedule. See CI EC Statement. A decision is expected for late Spring 1997. See Chronology Below for briefing schedule.

The Department of Justice, seven Senators and seventeen House members, and private sector supporters of the Communications Decency Act filed briefs arguing for reversal of the Philadelphia Court's decision declaring the CDA unconstitutional. See DO J Brief.; A mici Curae Brief of Members of Congress in Support of CDA; Amici Curae Brief filed by "Enough is Enough" et al. The Members of Congress who filed a joint amicus brief include, according to Communications Daily, Exon, Bond, Coats, Grams, Grassley, Helms, Inhofe, Santorum, Hall, Hyde, Barlett, Boehlert, Goodlatte, Hunter, Hutchinson, Jenkins, Jones, Largent, Ryun, Schieff, Sensenbrenner, Smith, Souder, Weldon, and Wolf. The Congressional brief was reportedly prepared by Cahtleen Cleaver, legal director, Family Research Council, and Bruce Taylor, president of the National Law Center for Children & Families.

On February 20, 1997, the ACLU and CIEC filed briefs with the Supreme Court. The ACLU's brief can be found at http://www.aclu.o rg/court/renovaclu.html . The CIEC's brief can be found at http:/ /www.cdt.org/ciec/SC_appeal/970220_brief.html . Amicus brief's were reportedly filed by the following additional orgainzations:

• Site Specific, Inc. and Jon Lebkowsky requesting that the Supreme Court find that the proper analogy for cyberspace is "print media." http://www.specta cle.org/cda/amicus.html .
• Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/rcf p/reno.html
• National Association of Broadcasters with ABC, NBC and CBS
• Apollo Media
• Feminists for Free Expression
• New York State Bar Association
• Playboy
• US Chamber of Commerce http://www.wrf.com/pub/brief2.html
• Association of National Advertisers and the Media Institute

On March 7, 1997, DOJ filed its reply brief with the Supreme Court. http://www .ciec.org/SC_appeal/970307_brief.html This was the final filing.

Oral argument was held on March 19 at 10:00 a.m. The ACLU has uploaded a copy of the Supreme Court oral argument trascript at http://www.aclu.org/i ssues/cyber/trial/sctran.html . Other accounts of the days events can be found at the following sites: ACLU Press Conference (real audio) ; News.Com Analysis of the Argument ; MSNBC's Analysis .

Philadelphia Case

Communication s Decency Act Declared Unconstitutional, FCBA News (September 1996)

Philadelphia Decision

Statement by President Clinton in reaction to Court Decision

On February 1, 1996, Congress passed the Senator Exon's Communications Decency Act (CDA) as a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On February 8, 1996, the ACLU filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to challenge the constitutionality of the CDA. A second action was filed on February 26, 1996, by a coalition led by the American Library Association, likewise challenging the CDA. These two cases have been consolidated.

Section 561 of the Telecommunications Act which provides for expedited judicial review of constitutional challenges to provisions of the Telecommunications Act. Pursuant to this provision, plaintiffs first moved for a temporary restraining order which would prohibit enforcement of the CDA until the Court had the opportunity to review the CDA during a full trial. The TRO was reviewed by U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who granted a partial temporary restraining order, enjoining enforcement of only a portion of the Communications Decency Act, § 223(a)(1)(B). The provision enjoined concerns indecency transmitted over "telecomm unication devices" other than "interact ive computer networks" (using these terms as defined by Congress, the Internet is composed of both "telecommunication devices" and "interactive computer networks"; the distinction which Congress seeks to make between the two is, at times, strained in both the CDA and the Conference Report). SeeACLU Press Release (February 15, 1996).

Plaintiffs also challenged the Constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment to the Telecommunications Act, which amended § 1462. According to 18 U.S.C. § 1462(c) as amended, it would be illegal to transmit any material over online communications concerning abortion. See Congressional Record (comments by Representative Hyde on restriction of abortion communications). On February 9, 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno informed Vice President Gore that Rep. Hyde's amendment to § 1462 is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment; the Department of Justice will not defend the constitutionality of the amendment. See Letter From Attorney General Janet Reno to V.P. Gore (February 9, 1996); ACLU Press Release (February 15, 1996).

Subsequent to Judge Buckwalter's decision on the TRO and pursuant to the expedited review provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the case then moved to a three judge panel (Judge Stewart Dalzell; Judge Ronald Buckwalter; Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter) to consider Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction of the CDA. The panel started hearings March 21, 1996, and these hearings are continuing. Plaintiffs completed their primary cases on April 1. The United States started its defense on April 12, 1996.

Plaintiffs case in chief included testimony from the following individuals: Ann Duvall, President of Surfwatch Software Inc; Dr. Albert Vezza, Associate Director of the Massachusetts Institute of technology's Labratory for Computer Science, responsible for the PICS project; Bill Burrington, Director of Public Policy for America Online; Andrew Anker, CEO of HotWired Ventures Ltd.; Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director, National ACLU; Howard Rheingold, Author; Stephen Donaldson, President of Stop Prisoner Rape; Prof. Donna Hoffman, Vanderbilt University; Robert Croneberger, Director of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh; Scott Bradner, IETF; Patricia Warren, author; and Kiyoshi Kuromiya, Director of the Critical Path AIDS Project

Government witnesses included Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr., Ph.D., professor of computer science at Brigham Young University, and Special Agent Howard A. Schmidt, US Air Force Office of Special Investigation.

Closing arguments took place May 10, 1996 in Philadelphia (Shea v. Reno, the New York case challenging the constitutionality of the CDA is set for final arguments on June 3). Each side had approximately two hours to make their final arguments and answer the questions of the three judge panel. (For a good account of the closing argument, see Craig Johnson, As Good a Bench As We Can Hope For, The American Reporter (May 11, 1996)). The panel of three judges indicated that a decision on the Constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act would issue a its decision "in due course."

On June 11, 1996, the Philadelphia Court found that the CDA was unconstitutional. SeeCommunication s Decency Act Declared Unconstitutional, FCBA News (September 1996) for a summary of the Court's decision.

Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, this decision may be directly appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Papers

• Unconstitutional: Communications Decency Act, OnTheInternet (September/October 1997) (Supreme Court Decision).
• Communications Decency Act Declared Unconstitutional, FCBA News (September 1996) (District Court Decision).
• Jerry Berman and Daniel J. Weitzner, “Abundance and User Control: Renewing the Democratic Heart of the First Amendment in the Age of Interactive Media,” 104 Yale Law Journal 1619 (1995)

Litigation Documents

• DO J Brief.
• ACLU Litigation Documents
• Trial Transcripts available on EPIC page
• ACLU et al. v. Reno complaint
• ACLU Brief Philly Case
• EFF CDA Litigation Document Archive
• Annoy.Com's Challenge to the "annoy" provisions of the CDA :: See Annoy

Background Material

• FCC Announcement of Schedule for Notice of Inquiry for promulgation of rules implementing 42 U.S.C. & 223 as amended (Communications Decency Act).
• FNC Resolution June 1995
• Because the Internet interconnects users and information resources in local, state, and national jurisdictions, it is inevitable that the federal government will become involved in issues of network use and information content. A recent example of an issue before the federal government is the "Exon Amendment" to the telecommunications legislation passed recently by the U.S. Senate (S.652) which seeks to prohibit the use of telecommunications devices (including networks) for obscene communications unwelcome by a recipient or involving minors. The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee believes that societal goals in research, education, and lifelong learning will be best served by an information infrastructure that encourages the publication of a wide variety of viewpoints and creative works, while empowering users to determine the kinds of information that is accessible at their access points to themselves and their children. The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee wishes to point out that technical means may be used to restrict access to unsuitable materials. Such technical solutions may obviate the need for new legislation regarding content. . . . The FNCAC recognizes the seriousness of the concerns which the Exon Amendment is seeking to address. We encourage the federal government to explore technical means which allow parents, teachers and librarians to control and facilitate access by children to information which is determined by those responsible adults to be appropriate, and we encourage the federal government to enforce existing laws regarding the dissemination of obscene information and other illegal acts covered by those existing laws.

General

• Jame s T. Bruce and Richard T. Pfohl, Analysis: S. 314, The Communications Decency Act of 1995: Introduced by Sen. Jim Exon (D-NE) (February 7, 1995)
• CATO Institute: Robert-Corn-Revere, New Age Comstockery: Exon vs the Internet, Policy Analysis No. 232 (June 28, 1995); Beyond the Communications Decency Act: Constitutional Lessons of the Internet (November 1996)
• Interactive Working Group Report to Senator Leahy, Parental Empowerment, Child Protection, & Free Speech in Interactive Media (July 24, 1995)

Rimm Study

• Ned Brainard, Journoporn Special Report: The Philip Emer-Dewitt Award for Bad Internet Journalism, Hotwired (1995)
• Philip Elmer-Dewitt, Fire Storm on the Computer Nets, Time (July 24, 1995)
• Donna L. Hoffman & Thomas P. Novak, A Detailed Analysis of the Conceptual, Logical, and Methodological Flaws in the Article: "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway" (version 1.01 July 2, 1995)
• Brock Meeks, Journoporn Special Report: Muckracker, Hotwired (1995)
• David Post, Preliminary Discussion of Methodological Peculiarities in the Rimm Study of Pornography on the 'Information Superhighway' (June 28, 1995)
• Brian Reid, Ph.D., Digital Equipment Corporation, Critique of the Rimm Study (July 6, 1995) ("In summary, I do not consider Rimm's analysis to have enough technical rigor to be worthy of publication in a scholarly journal").
• Journoporn Special Report, Hotwired (1995) (archive of online discussion critiquing Rimm Study).
• Journoporn Special Report:Hotwired Interviews DeWitt, Hotwired (July 2, 1995) (giving background on developement of Time report on Rimm Study)

Opposition

• Gingrich Says CDA is a "clear violation of free speech rights" Center for Democracy and Technology.

Conference

• Cate Corcoran, From DC to Cyberspace , Hotwired (1995)
• Geeks Take to the Street , Hotwired (1995)
• Brock Meeks, Jacking in from the "Sticking It to the Net" Port, Hotwired (1995)
• Congress man Rick White, Background on the White Internet Compromise, (1995)

Testimony

• Openin g Statement of Sen. Herb Kohl , Hearing Before the Judiciary Committee On "Cyberporn", June 24, 1995 reprinted at Center for Democracy and Technology WWWW Page
• Writte n Statement of William W. Burrington, Assistant General Counsel and Director of Government Affiars, America Online, Inc., and Chairman of the Online Policy Committee, Interactive Services Association, Hearings on S. 892 and Indecency on the Internet Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 24, 1995)
• Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, Judiciary Committee Hearing on Cyberporn and Children: the Scope of the Problem, the State of the Technology and the Need for Congressional Action, July 24, 1995

Other Sources

• Transcri pt of MacNeil/Lehrer Debate, CDT Executive Director Jerry Berman v. Exon (June 22, 1995)

Chronology

• June 26, 1997: Supreme Court hands down decision declaring CDA unconstitutional.
• March 19, 1997 - 10:00 am: Oral argument.
• March 7, 1997: Department of Justice Reply due.
• February 20, 1997: Briefs due from challengers.
• January 21, 1997: Department of Justice and Supporters of CDA file Briefs. DO J Brief.
• December 6, 1996: Supreme Court sets schedule for oral argument.
• October 31, 1996: Challengers move for summary affirmance of Philadelphia decision.
• September 29, 1996: DOJ Appeal filed.
• July 29, 1996: Shea v. Reno: Second Circuit Declares CDA unconstitutional in separate proceeding. See Second Federal Panel Declares C.D.A. Unconstitutional, Cybertimes (July 30, 1996)
• June 11, 1996: Philly Court declares CDA unconstitutional.
• May 10, 1996: Final Arguments
• April 26, 1996: Plaintiffs scheduled to present rebuttle witnesses.
• April 12 & 15, 1996: Government scheduled to present witnesses.
• April 10, 1996: ACLU's motion to supress sexual images from the internet denied.
• March 21, 22 and April 1, 1996: Plaintiffs presented witnesses.
• February 26, 1996: A coalition files suit to challenge the CDA. Coalition includes the American Library Association, Compuserv, Microsft, Apple Compuer, Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, America Online, and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
• February 9, 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno informed Vice President Gore that Rep. Hyde's amendment to § 1462 is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment
• February 8, 1996: ACLU filed suit to challenge the CDA
• February 1, 1996: United States Congress passes the Telecommunications Act of 1996
• December 1995: White Compromise passed and gutted in a blink of a conference committee eye.
• October 1995: Members of Conference Committee named.
• August 4, 1995: House passes the House version of the Telecommunications Bill.
• August 4, 1995: House votes to add the Cox/Wyden Amendment to the House version of the Telecommunications Bill.
• July 26, 1995: Congressional Hearings on pornography on the Internet.
• June 1995: Time Magazine published the Rimm Study.
• June 30, 1995: Represenatives Cox and Wyden introduce the Family Empowerment Act in the House of Representatives.
• June 20, 1995: Speaker Gingrich goes on the record in opposition to the CDA.
• June 15, 1995: Senate passes the Senate version of the telecommunications bill. June 14, 1995: Senate Amends the Senate version of the telecommunications bill to include the Communications Decency Act.
• June 9, 1995: Senator Exon introduces a revised Communications Decency Act.
• February 1, 1995: Senator Exon introduced the Communications Decency Act on the floor of the Senate.

Other CDA Litigations

• Nitke v. Ashcroft Challenging constitutionality of "obscenity."
• Decision in Nitke Case Leaves Web Publishers at Risk, EFF 7/29/2005
• Court Upholds Internet Obscenity Ban, Information Week 7/29/2005
• National Coalition for Sexual Freedom information.
• EFF Archive
• Seth Finklestein Blog
• Annoy
  • For some reason, members of Congress really dont like to be annoyed. They made making annoying comments illegal in the Communications Decency Act; and they made it illegal again in 2005.
    • Sec. 113 Preventing Cyberstalking, of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 amended 47 USC 223 to read as follows (bold letters added)

      (a) Whoever--

      (1) in interstate or foreign communications--

      (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

      . . . . .

      (h) Definitions - For purposes of this section—

      (1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—

      (C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).

      Note that this is the first first time where Congress has affirmative defined telecommunications as the Internet. Previously the definitions sought to distinguish the two. Well it looks like I violated federal law tonite when I sent that joking email to my buddy.

  • The Suggestion Box, Inc. v. Gonzales
  • Complaint
  • Annoy.Com's Challenge to the "annoy" provisions of the CDA [link dead]
  • McDermott succeeds with Federal Law Against Cyberstalking, Press Release Jan 11, 2006
  • New cyberstalking law challenged over 'annoy' language, First Amendment Center (Feb. 24, 2006
  • Cyberstalking law opens debate on what's annoying , USA Today Feb 14, 2006
  • FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained CNET Jan 11, 2006
  • Orin Kerr, A Skeptical Look at the E Annoyance Law, Jan 10
  • Annoy.com Parent Accuses Government of Violating First Amendment - Blasts Investigation July 1997

Other News

• No Private Right of Action for Communications Decency Act :: Ashland Hospital v. Intl Bro of Electrical Workers 575 (Case Summary), Cybertelecom 8/1/2011