Bibliography

Internet Sources:

1) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About The 1995 Communications Decency Act. Updated: August 26, 1995. www.vtw.org visited on 3/17/98.
This document was posted by the ACLU in conjunction with about 30 other organizations interested in the protection of free speech. Aside from defining indecency and obscenity, it lists several myths and realities about the effects of the CDA.

2)Constitutional Problems with the Communications Decency Amendment: A Legislative Analysis By the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Updated June 16, 1995. cda_passage_eff.analysis@ftp.eff.org visited on 3/1798.
This document includes a detailed description of the specific provisions of the CDA. Included in an attached file is the specific language of the bill. This document also describes the manner in which the CDA violates the First Amendment, listing a difference in media and the statement that free speech for all can not be curtailed to make the internet "safe" for children.

All of the following articles were received from regular publications on the Internet...


3) Editor & Publisher Company. 1995. Lawmakers Agree That the First Amendment Doesn’t protect "Fire". received from WebLUIS 3/18/98
This document reviews both the pro and con sides of the CDA as viewed by US Senators. It especially deplores the use of the Internet to disseminate hate speech and instructions for creating bombs.

4) Greenhouse, Linda. What Level of Protection for Internet Speech? Cybertimes, The New York Times, March 24, 1997. http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/032497decency.html visited on 3/18/98.
This article briefly analyzes the Supreme Court decision in ACLU vs. Reno that made the CDA unconstitutional. It alludes to the CDA’s violations of both the First and Fourth Amendments.

5) Hernandez, Deborah. CDA Declared Unconstitutional. Editor & Publisher Co. 1996. received from WebLUIS 3/18/98.
This article discusses the Philadelphia judges decision in the case ACLU vs. Reno, which eventually led to the Supreme Court review of the same case. It reviews the penalties of the CDA and the 3 separate opinions of the federal judges involved. Although all three judges decided the CDA is unconstitutional, they each had different reasons for their decision.

6) Johnson, Nicholas. Jefferson on the Internet. Federal Communications Law Journal. Spring ‘97. vol.47, no.2 pp281-290.
This article supports free speech for all citizens throughout the Internet. The author uses the ideals of Thomas Jefferson for justification as well as the technological advances that have allowed Americans more and more freedoms.

7) Johnson, Peter. Pornography Drives Technology: Why Not to Censor the Internet. Federal Communications Law Journal. Fall ‘97. vol.49, no.1, pp 217-226.
The author of this article uses the contrived logic that the first use of each new communications technology was the mass dissemination of pornography. Therefore, he reasons, that the prevalence of pornography on the Internet simply helps to make it a legitimate media.

8) Kaplan, Carl S. Childrens’ First Amendment Rights Lost in the Filtering Debate. Cybertimes, The New York Times. March 6, 1998. visited 3/18/98.
This article discusses the view that children have limited First Amendment rights and suggests guidelines for Internet access at libraries.

9) Kaplan, Carl S. The Year Saw Many Milestones in Cyberlaw. Cybertimes, The New York Times. January 1, 1998. visited 3/18/98.
This article briefly discusses five Internet based court cases in the year of 1997. One of which was ACLU vs. Reno.

10) Lappin, Todd. Aux Armes, Netizens! Censorship of the Internet. The Nation Company. 1996. received from WebLUIS 3/17/98.
This article describes the effects of the language "indecent" included in the CDA. The author explains why he thinks it is unacceptable language and the best way to change this language.

11) Lewis, Peter H.Judges Turn Back Law Intended to Regulate Internet Decency. Cybertimes, The New York Times. June 13, 1996. visited 3/18/98.
This article records the reactions of those opposed to the CDA following the Philadelphia court decision naming the CDA uncinstitutional.Highlighted are the opinions of the ACLU and the American Library Association.

12) Levy, Steven. In a Cyber Showdown, the Indecency Act reaches the Supreme Court. Newsweek. 1997. received from WebLUIS 3/17/98.
This article reveals some of the transcript/sound bytes provided by Supreme Court Justices during ACLU vs. Reno. It also presents opinions from those both for and opposed to the CDA.

13) Levy, Steven. On the Net, Anything Goes. Newsweek. 1997. received form WebLUIS 3/17/98.
This article proposes an Internet version of the v-chip to replace the now defunct CDA. This is both supported and opposed by players form both sides of the CDA argument.

14) Mendels, Pamela. ACLU seek Rapid Decency Act Decision. Cybertimes, The New York Times. November 1, 1996.
This article presents ACLU vs. Reno that went before the Philadelphia court in 1996. At the time, this was the first case to test the CDA.

15) Mendels, Pamela. Supreme Court Throws Out Communications Decency Act. Cybertimes, The New York Times. June 26, 1997. visited 3/18/98.
This article announces the landmark Supreme Court decision which declared the CDA unconstitutional. It also gives reasons why the Internet cannot be regulated the same way as other telecommunications technologies.

16) Mendels, Pamela. 3 Judges. 3 Voices. 1 conclusion. Cybertimes, The New York Times. June 13, 1996. visited 3/18/98.
This article describes the courtroom antics of the three federal judges in Philadelphia while they were surfing the net in order to help themselves understand the parameters of the medium.

17) Quittner, Joshua. Home Pages for Hate: A Campaign to Limit the Voices of White supremacists on the Internet Has Defenders of the First Amendment Worried. Time. 1996. received from WebLUIS 3/17/98.
This article describes the methods of a hate group that uses the Internet and chat rooms as their forum to spread their message of white supremacy. It discusses the pro’s and con’s of the proposed CDA, and the meaning of the word indecent and obscene.

18) Schiesel, Seth. How Internet Smut is Regulated May Depend on the Tools to Filter It. Cybertimes, The New York Times. March 24, 1997. visited 3/18/98.
This article discusses the merits of software designed to filter pornography and other types of information from the Internet. Designed to be used by parents, in order to help the protect their children, these programs are part of a growing market of parent friendly computer aids.

19) Time 1997. received from Web LUIS 3/17/98.
This article is an editorial which comes out in favor of the Supreme Court decision declaring the CDA to be unconstitutional. Quotes from both sides of the issue are presented.

20) Webb, William. Too Much Porn on the Internet -- or In the Press? Editor & Publisher. 1995. received from WebLUIS 3/17/98.
This article discusses the Cyberporn study conducted by Carnegie Mellon researchers which viewed over 300 pornographic sites on the www and categorized them for further research.