INTERNET DECENCY LAW OVERTURNED.

Byline: Peter H. Lewis The New York Times

A three-judge federal panel in Philadelphia on Wednesday declared unconstitutional key parts of a new law designed to regulate indecent material on the global computer network and blocked the law's enforcement.

In a unanimous decision that celebrated the Internet as ``the most participatory marketplace of mass speech that this country - and indeed the world - has yet seen,'' the three judges called government attempts to regulate content on the Internet a ``profoundly repugnant'' affront to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

They granted a temporary restraining order that prohibits the Justice Department from enforcing, or even investigating, violations of the Communications Decency Act's ban on indecent and ``patently offensive'' speech.

The judges said the Internet deserves as least as much, if not more, protection under the First Amendment as printed material receives. The government had argued that cyberspace should be subject to the stricter regulation imposed on television and radio.

``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,'' Judge Stewart Dalzell of Federal District Court wrote. He said he had no hesitation in holding that the act was ``unconstitutional on its face.''

The Communications Decency Act was passed overwhelmingly by Congress earlier this year as part of the broader Telecommunications Act of 1996 and was signed by President Clinton on Feb. 8. Lawmakers said the intent of the act was to halt the flow of pornography and other objectionable material on the Internet, a vast collection of computer networks now used by tens of millions of people around the globe, including children.

The law makes it a felony, punishable by prison terms and large fines, to make indecent or patently offensive materials available on computer systems where children might see them.

However, lawmakers anticipated a constitutional challenge to the law and specifically inserted a provision allowing swift appeals, first to a three-judge panel, then, if necessary, directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Justice Department, which agreed not to prosecute any cases under the new law until its constitutionality was determined, is reviewing the decision to determine whether to appeal to the Supreme Court, a department spokesman said. An appeal must be filed in 20 days.

Before Wednesday's ruling, government lawyers said they would appeal any adverse opinion to the Supreme Court. ``We believe the statute can be applied in a constitutional manner to assist parents in protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Internet,'' the Justice Department spokesman said.

The three judges in Philadelphia - Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and Federal District Judges Ronald Buckwalter and Dalzell - reaffirmed that unprotected speech, including obscenity and child pornography, is outlawed on the Internet as well as on other media.

But they concluded that with the technology now available - including filtering software for personal computers - broad attempts by the government to limit the flow of indecent, offensive but constitutionally protected material to children who use the Internet would place unacceptable restrictions on what adults can publish or see as well.

At the conclusion of an extraordinarily long court order in which each judge issued an opinion, Dalzell made clear that he believed the Internet deserves at least as much protection under the First Amendment as printed material. Earlier court rulings have placed more restrictions on speech delivered electronically, especially in radio and television.

``As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion,'' he wrote.

More than half of the decision was essentially an Internet primer, a detailed discussion of the chaotic nature of the Internet, explanations of its technology, and how it differs from earlier forms of communication including radio, television, books and newspapers.

As a symbol of the importance that the judges place on the Internet's role as a communications medium, the court's decision was distributed on computer diskettes and published on the court's computer bulletin board system.

Within minutes, the text of the court's ruling - more than a quarter megabyte in computer terms, well over 200 pages if printed on paper - was copied by computer users and distributed worldwide on the Internet's World Wide Web.

As news of the court's decision spread in the cyberspace community through electronic mail, computer bulletin boards and on the global Web, victory rallies were scheduled in several cities including New York, Pittsburgh, Washington and San Francisco.

``We think this is a significant victory for the Internet and for free speech in the 21st century,'' said Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology and a coordinator for the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, one of more than 50 computer, cyberspace and civil liberties organizations that joined in the lawsuit against the Communications Decency Act.

``It was as complete a victory as we could have hoped for,'' said Christopher Hansen, counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which, along with the American Library Association, led the legal challenge.