Internet Lawyer Blog

As some of readers, who have active facebook profiles know, the like button is a way to express your support for a cause or idea. However, a federal judge states that, clicking it doeos not constitute constitutionally protected speech.

For example, the employees of a local police department sued their boss (Sheriff B.J. Roberts) for firing them after they supported his opponent in his 2009 re-election campaign. One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, had "liked" the Facebook page of Roberts' opponent, Jim Adams. Exactly what a "like" means - if anything is the main question. The ex-employees posit that their First Amendment rights were violated.

While public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, the United States District Judge, the Honorable Raymond Jackson, ruled that clicking the "like" button does not amount to expressive speech. Express conduct, also referred to as "symbolic speech," relates to the communication of ideas through one's conduct. Expressive conduct raises some interesting constitutional questions because it combines expression, which typically receives First Amendment protection, and conduct, which typically does not receive First Amendment protection. This dualistic nature may account for the court's position of affording expressive conduct some constitutional protection, but substantially less protection than pure speech.

Last year, the California State Legislature made various efforts to regulate commercial transactions on the Internet. These efforts provide interesting questions and concerns regarding practical and constitutional limits on a state's capability to legislate or regulate transactions on the world-wide-web (i.e., the Internet) due to its intrinsic interstate character.

One important consideration is the Dormant Commerce Clause, which stems from Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the federal Constitution. This doctrine implies that Congress only has the power to regulate interstate commerce and that the states do not have such power. Its application to the regulation of activities on the Internet is not quite developed and includes a series of judicially-created analyses. So far, the United States Supreme Court (which is the nation's highest court) has not issued any definitive rulings. In addition, we do not have authoritative decisions by federal courts regarding the capability of the states to control online privacy and data security, tax online sales, or regulate online gambling.

As mentioned in this article, the legislators in this state passed or proposed laws that would develop our state's regulatory power over transactions on the Internet which relate to the following topics: (i) privacy and data security; (ii) taxation of retail sales over the Internet; and (ii) online gambling.

California's legislation (i.e., enactment of laws) may be different from federal legislation efforts which could cause the United States Supreme Court to repeal or strike down the law. SB 761, which is "Do Not Track" bill, posits that legislation would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause since it would cause regulation of an out-of-state activity and would subject online businesses to inconsistent state regulation. As such, a state's efforts to tax online retail activity are limited by current federal laws (e.g., court decisions and/or statutes) preventing the states from taxing sales of businesses which do not have a geographic presence in the specific state. A state's power to control or regulate online gambling is still uncertain, especially because of the absence of clear federal law on the subject. Thus far, one state supreme court has upheld a state's right to ban online gambling over a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge.

The future of state regulation of Internet activity depends on various developments. For example, it depends on the standard of scrutiny which courts apply to state regulation of the Internet. Second, it depends on the arrival of new technology which can help website operators to distinguish users from different states. Third, it depends on the viewpoint of Congress towards online transactions and whether it is willing to subject activities exclusively to federal regulation or to grant states the power to regulate these type of activities.

The following is a list of new and pending legislation in California:

I. Privacy and Data Security

1. S.B. 24 (Data Security Breach Notice)
2. S.B. 445 (Library Records
3. S.B. 602 (Reader Privacy )
4. S.B. 761
a. Do Not Track
b. Un-passed

II. Taxation -- A.B. 28 ("Amazon" tax)

III. Gambling

1. S.J.R. 14 (opt out of federal regulation)
2. S.B. 40 & 45
a. State framework
b. Did not pass

In light of the circumstances, numerous states have enacted "cyberstalking" or cyberharassment" laws or currently possess laws that specifically include electronic forms of communication within more traditional stalking or harassment laws. In addition, many states have enacted "cyberbullying" laws in reaction to issues related to protecting minors from online bullying or harassment.

Cyberstalking constitutes use of the world-wide-web (i.e., the Internet), electronic mail or other electronic communications to stalk. It generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. It may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Penalties range from misdemeanor to felony. See Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7, Cal. Penal Code § 646.9.

Cyberharassment is different from cyberstalking since it may not involve a credible threat. It usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting a person. Some state legislatures have dealt with this issue by inserting provisions which address electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 422, 653.2, and 653m.

However, cyberbullying and cyberharassment are used interchangeably sometimes. Generally, cyberbullying is used for electronic harassment or bullying amongst minors in the context of schools. Recent legislation seems to show a trend of placing the burden of enforcement of such policies on school districts. Hence, the laws establish the infrastructure for schools to handle this issue by amending pre-existing school anti-bullying policies to include cyberbullying or electronic harassment among children in educational environments. Most state laws enforce sanctions for cyberbullying on school property, school buses, or school functions. See Cal. Ed. Code §§ 32261, 32265, 32270, and 48900.

On July 20, 2011, according to the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Defense Department has failed to deliver to Congress a report on cyber warfare policies which may clarify the legal authorities and rules of engagement to be used in the event of a cyber attack.

Senators Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, and John McCain, an Arizona Republican, in a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wrote as follows:

"The continued failure to address and define the policies and legal authorities necessary for the Pentagon to operate in the cyberspace domain remains a significant gap in our national security that must be addressed."

The aforesaid senators stated that by law, the Pentagon was to report to Congress by March 1, 2011 on its cyber warfare policies, outlining a number of "critical questions" that must be addressed in the new battlefield of cyberspace.

To read the letter click here.

The FBI is in the beginning stages of its probe of News Corp. (NasdaqGS: NWSA) as investigators evaluate whether United States charges can be brought over claims employees hacked into a rival's website and sought access to phone records of victims of the 9/11 attacks, a person who is familiar with the facts recently mentioned.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation plans to permit the Scotland Yard take the lead on a parallel investigation already under way in Britain. The FBI is not planning to mount an aggressive investigation into allegations that News Corp.'s payments to U.K. police officers a decade ago violated a U.S. overseas bribery law, said the officials, who prefer not be identified since they are not permitted to discuss the Justice Department's investigation.

Civil Rights - Social networking website was not "place of public accommodation" within meaning of Title III of Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Plaintiff Karen Beth Young brings this action against Defendant Facebook, Inc., alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Ca. Civ. Code § 51, et seq., the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal Civ. Code § 54, et seq., and state-law contract and negligence claims. Although Young's amended complaint describes vividly her personal experience of losing access to her online social community and the challenges she faced attempting to obtain redress through Facebook's automated customer care systems, it does not state a legal claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, Facebook's motion to dismiss will be granted.

Young opened a personal account with Facebook in February 2010.[1] She subsequently created additional Facebook pages for the "Cancer Forum," "Cartesian Plane For The Cure," "Karen Beth Young ,— Public Figure," and "Join Karen Petition Facebook Say No to 5000 Friends." Young sent "friendvites" to others she believed were interested in cancer-related issues and developed "genuine and heartfelt" relationships with those she met online. Young's personal page grew to include approximately 4,300 "friends."

In June 2010, Young's Facebook account was deactivated for the first time. According to an email from Facebook, Young's account was disabled for behavior identified as potentially harassing or threatening to other Facebook users, including sending "friend" requests to people she did not know, regularly contacting strangers, and soliciting others for dating or business purposes. Resp. Ex. A-1. She was told that the decision was final and could not be appealed. Id. Young, who states that she suffers from bipolar disorder, was upset by having the ties to her online social network severed. She made numerous email and telephone inquiries regarding the deactivation of her account, but Facebook's response did not include any "human interaction." Compl. -d 7. She then drove from her home in Maryland to Facebook's headquarters in Santa Clara, California. There, Young was told by a receptionist that she could not meet with anyone in person or by telephone. However, she was allowed to fill out a written form requesting assistance.

Two days later, in response to that written request, Young received an email stating that her account had been disabled because Facebook's security systems had determined that she had been sending "friend" requests too quickly or that her "friend" requests were being ignored at a high rate. Compl. Ex. D-4. She was told that her account would be reactivated, but she was warned that sending "friend" requests to people she did not know,—or other violations of Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,—would result in her account being disabled permanently. Id. Young responded to the email requesting clarification and a personal meeting. Receiving no response, she returned to Maryland, where after two days her account was deactivated again. She received another email informing her that her account had been disabled permanently because she had violated the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, that it would not be reactivated for any reason, and that she would not be provided further information about her violation or an opportunity to appeal. Id. Young then drove to California a second time and commenced the instant proceedings.

The Court was not without sympathy for Young's plight. Young was understandably frustrated that she could not discuss the termination of her account with a live person, and both this frustration and the loss of her access to Facebook's social network had a particularly acute impact on Young because of her bipolar condition. The Court stated that "as customer service functions increasingly are handed over to automated systems, it is important that service providers, such as Facebook, understand the implications that such practices can have for the less sophisticated and more vulnerable. However, because Young's amended complaint [did] not state a cognizable legal basis upon which relief may be granted, it must be dismissed. Because the amended complaint fail[ed] to address many of the issues identified by the Court in its previous order, and because it appears that there is no realistic possibility that further amendment could cure the deficiencies in Young's pleadings, leave to amend will be denied."

The campaign to persuade the judiciary to apply personal privacy principles to corporations has suffered two recent body blows.

On March 1st, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Federal Communications Comm. v. AT&T, Inc., 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1899 (2011) that the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act for matter within one's personal privacy was not available to business entities.

A trade association of AT&T competitors requested documents relating to an F.C.C. investigation of AT&T. The F.C.C. refused to apply on behalf of the corporation an exemption for "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" that "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Third Circuit reversed, and the U.S. Supreme Court in turn unanimously reversed the Third Circuit.

In an opinion that was largely about semantics and statutory construction concerning the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), the Court arrived at the unexceptional conclusion that the word "[p]ersonal" ordinarily refers to individuals. It noted that this conclusion was the probable intent of the statute because at the time the exemption was drafted the tort treatises were in agreement that a corporation, partnership or unincorporated association has no personal right of privacy. It also examined other portions of FOIA, noting that the word personal was used in another exemption to FOIA to refer to individuals. Justice Roberts closed his opinion by trusting that AT&T would not take the decision "personally". Thus, the attempt to expand the scope of privacy protections beyond individuals was so resoundingly defeated that it has likely been extinguished for the foreseeable future.

California Supreme Court Holds that ZIP Codes are "Personal Identification Information"

In a broadly-worded unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court recently overruled lower court decisions to hold that businesses cannot request and record ZIP codes as a condition to credit card transactions, because ZIP codes are "personal identification information" under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (the "Credit Card Act"). Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., S178241 (Cal. Supreme Court, Feb. 10, 2011). More generally, the Court implicitly recognized the impact on consumers of aggregating and matching their personal data from vast databases.

To read more go to: http://twitter.com/calbarsections

Critics of "three-strikes" laws think society risks disenfranchising large segments of the population, especially with outdated copyright laws more relevant to a world before digital distribution.

In an age of growing attempts by copyright holders to implement so-called "three-strikes" legislation to deal with online piracy, some think Internet disconnection for accused file-sharers could raise concerns over the "right to freedom of expression."

"It's a social inclusion question," says Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile.

He warns that disconnecting people from the Internet in many ways disconnects them from society, and that particularly restrictive Australian copyright laws increases the risk that it will happen.

"The number of people who could be chucked off like this is quite huge," he added.

Australian Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson says the commission hasn't considered the issue yet, but does acknowledge that Internet access may raise concerns "'relevant to the right to freedom of expression."

So far Internet access has been deemed a human right in Finland and Estonia, with calls in Greece and France to follow suit. Attempts do so in France may be somewhat difficult with that country having already enacted "three-strikes" legislation last September.

However, it is worth noting that France's Constitutional Council struck down an earlier version of the law as unconstitutional, finding that the Internet is essential for the "free communication of thoughts," and therefore full civic participation in a democratic society.

To read more go to http://www.zeropaid.com

Dated: June 4, 2010

Is text-messaging protected against surveillance by an employer? Currently, it is if the employer is a governmental entity. But for how long? The Supreme Court recently agreed to review the Ninth Circuit's panel opinion in Quon v. Arch Wireless, 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. granted sub. nom. City of Ontario v. Quon, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1011, 175 L.Ed.2d 617 (Dec. 14, 2009).

The central issue in Quon was whether a policeman who was issued a text message pager by the city for police business had a reasonable expectation that his personal messages sent over the pager would remain private. The city argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in personal messages, because it had a written policy that personal use of city computer equipment and software for personal use was considered a violation of city policy, and that use of the Internet and the email system outside the course of business was expressly deemed not confidential. Quon had acknowledged in writing having read the policy. Quon had also been informed that text messages were considered email and would be subject to audit.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed and found Quon did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal messages, on the ground that the foregoing city policy was not actually followed. Officer Quon's immediate superior had told Quon that, if Quon paid for overruns on his monthly allotment of characters, his text messages would not be audited. But in the fullness of time, Officer Quon's messages were audited when he continued to exceed his monthly limit, and it was discovered that many of his text messages were personal. Officer Quon sued, alleging that the police department and City employees who reviewed the text messages violated Quon's rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of the California constitution. The District Court and the Ninth Circuit found that Officer Quon was entitled to rely on his superior's assurances that his text messages would remain private on the conditions stated.

The implications of this decision are profound, for both public and private employers. Under Quon, employers may no longer rest assured that they may search employee communications with impunity based upon an expressly-communicated and acknowledged written policy of non-confidentiality in such communications. The Ninth Circuit opened a bolthole in that argument for the circumstance in which a supervising manager has given subordinates assurances that certain of their communications would, under certain circumstances, remain private. The Supreme Court's review should provide further guidance on this issue.

Interestingly, there is an argument that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Quon is consistent with the Court's own precedent. Under O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (l987), the Court ruled that public employees' subjective expectation of privacy could be constrained by "actual office practices." There, office practices served to curtail the public employee's expectation of privacy; but there is no reason why these workplace practices could not also serve to corroborate an employee's expectation of privacy in an appropriate case.

The Solicitor General has filed an amicus brief in support of reversal. Other amicus briefs supporting the petitioners have been filed by the National League of Cities, et al.; the League of California Cities, et al.; the National School Boards Association, et al., and Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, et al. Amicus briefs supporting the respondents are due March 23.

However the Supreme Court decides, the ruling will have ramifications throughout the cyberworld, affecting the scope of the right of privacy in cellphone texting, email, and Internet use. Respondents' briefs on the merits are due by March 16, the case has been set for oral argument on Monday, April 19, 2010, and a decision is expected before the Court's June recess.

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. -- A student who set up a Facebook page to complain about her teacher - and was later suspended - had every right to do so under the First Amendment, a federal magistrate has ruled.

The ruling not only allows Katherine "Katie" Evans' suit against the principal to move forward, it could set a precedent in cases involving speech and social networking on the Internet, experts say.

The courts are in the early stages of exploring the limits of free speech within social networking, said Howard Simon, the executive director of the Florida ACLU, which filed the suit on Evans' behalf.

"It's one of the main things that we wanted to establish in this case, that the First Amendment has a life in the social networking technology as it applies to the Internet and other forms of communication," Simon said.

In 2007, Evans, then a senior at Pembroke Pines Charter High School, created a Facebook page where she vented about "the worst teacher I've ever met."

But instead of other students expressing their dislike of the teacher, most defended the teacher and attacked Evans.

A couple days later, Evans took the page down.

But after Principal Peter Bayer found out about it, he bumped Evan from her Advanced Placement classes, putting her in classes with less prestige, and suspended her for three days.

In late 2008, Evans filed suit against the principal, asking that the suspension be ruled unconstitutional and reversed, that the documents be removed from her file at the school and that she receive reimbursement for attorney fees.

Evans, an honors student, was concerned that the suspension would tarnish her academic record and hurt her chances in graduate school and her career.

Bayer tried to get the case dismissed and asked for immunity against paying damages.

In a ruling on Friday, Magistrate Judge Barry Garber declined Bayer's request to toss the case and said the principal could be forced to pay up if Evans, now 19 and a journalism student at the University of Florida, is victorious.

"Evans' speech falls under the wide umbrella of protected speech," Garber wrote. "It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus, and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior."

The judge also noted that the principal suspended Evans two months after she had taken the page down.

"In short, the potential spark of disruption had sputtered out, and all that remained was the opportunity to punish," Garber wrote.

The judge dismissed the student's request to force Bayer to purge the records of her suspension, but gave her the opportunity to amend her complaint and make the demand of the right parties.

Bayer could not be reached for comment Monday. Pembroke Pines City Manager Charlie Dodge, who oversees the city's charter school system, declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Matthew D. Bavaro, who filed the suit with the American Civil Liberties Union on Evans' behalf, said the case helps clarify when schools can punish students for speech that doesn't take place at school.

"These days, things are done on the Internet. Socialization is done on the Internet," he said. "So the law needs to adapt and we need precedent on how courts are going to apply First Amendment principles for off-campus speech."

He said he believes the ruling "seems like a pretty strong signal" of where the case will go.

While the suit is far from resolved, legal experts say it is an important case.

"I think there has been too great a tendency in recent years for public school officials to sort of reach beyond the classroom, reach beyond the school campus very often to try to regulate or punish free speech by students in the name of protecting order," said Sam Terilli, a media law and ethics professor at the University of Miami. "While we can all understand that, post-Columbine, there are limits."

But Terilli added: "If a student is using or any other medium to threaten or even imply threats of violence, that's a different matter."

By Hannah Sampson at Miami Herald Writer

See: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/1482481.html

On January 22, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States granted unlimited corporate spending on elections. The justices overturn a century of U.S. electoral law by a 5-4 vote. Millions of extra dollars are expected to start flowing from big business to Republican candidates.

Overturning a century-old restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as much as they want to sway voters in federal elections.

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.

The ruling -- which will presumably apply as well to labor unions and other organizations -- is likely to have an impact on this year's congressional elections. Many political analysts and election-law experts predict that millions of extra dollars will flood into this fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.

President Obama called the ruling "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health-insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." He promised to seek "a forceful response to this decision" from Congress. Some Democrats talked about seeking legislation that would require corporations to get approval from their shareholders before spending money on politics.

See http://articles.latimes.com for more information

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

The Newseum, Washington, D.C.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Alberto, for not only that kind introduction but you and your colleagues' leadership of this important institution. It's a pleasure to be here at the Newseum. The Newseum is a monument to some of our most precious freedoms, and I'm grateful for this opportunity to discuss how those freedoms apply to the challenges of the 21st century.

Although I can't see all of you because in settings like this, the lights are in my eyes and you are in the dark, I know that there are many friends and former colleagues. I wish to acknowledge Charles Overby, the CEO of Freedom Forum here at the Newseum; Senator Richard Lugar* and Senator Joe Lieberman, my former colleagues in the Senate, both of whom worked for passage of the Voice Act, which speaks to Congress's and the American people's commitment to internet freedom, a commitment that crosses party lines and branches of government.

Also, I'm told here as well are Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Ted Kaufman, Representative Loretta Sanchez, many representatives of the Diplomatic Corps, ambassadors, charg/(c)s, participants in our International Visitor Leadership Program on internet freedom from China, Colombia, Iran, and Lebanon, and Moldova. And I also want to acknowledge Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute, recently named to our Broadcasting Board of Governors and, of course, instrumental in supporting the work on internet freedom that the Aspen Institute has been doing.

This is an important speech on a very important subject. But before I begin, I want to just speak briefly about Haiti, because during the last eight days, the people of Haiti and the people of the world have joined together to deal with a tragedy of staggering proportions. Our hemisphere has seen its share of hardship, but there are few precedents for the situation we're facing in Port-au-Prince. Communication networks have played a critical role in our response. They were, of course, decimated and in many places totally destroyed. And in the hours after the quake, we worked with partners in the private sector; first, to set up the text "HAITI" campaign so that mobile phone users in the United States could donate to relief efforts via text messages. That initiative has been a showcase for the generosity of the American people, and thus far, it's raised over $25 million for recovery efforts.

Information networks have also played a critical role on the ground. When I was with President Preval in Port-au-Prince on Saturday, one of his top priorities was to try to get communication up and going. The government couldn't talk to each other, what was left of it, and NGOs, our civilian leadership, our military leadership were severely impacted. The technology community has set up interactive maps to help us identify needs and target resources. And on Monday, a seven-year-old girl and two women were pulled from the rubble of a collapsed supermarket by an American search-and-rescue team after they sent a text message calling for help. Now, these examples are manifestations of a much broader phenomenon.

The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. When something happens in Haiti or Hunan, the rest of us learn about it in real time ,— from real people. And we can respond in real time as well. Americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in the supermarket are connected in ways that were not even imagined a year ago, even a generation ago. That same principle applies to almost all of humanity today. As we sit here, any of you ,— or maybe more likely, any of our children ,— can take out the tools that many carry every day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world.

Now, in many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.

For more information go to Financial Times website at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0c3bf8c-06bd-11df-b426-00144feabdc0.html

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal appeals court must decide whether "sexting" by three Pennsylvania teens amounts to child pornography or is a free-speech right.

A three-judge panel in Philadelphia is hearing arguments Friday in a case between a county prosecutor and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The prosecutor is threatening to file child-pornography charges against three girls after racy cell-phone images of them circulated through their high school. The photos show one girl topless and the others in bras.

The ACLU says the case is the first in the nation to challenge whether prosecutors can file child-pornography charges in "sexting" cases. It argues that harmless photos shouldn't be criminalized.

Wyoming County prosecutor George Skumanick Jr. hopes the appeals court will overturn a federal judge's stay of prosecution.

By: Associated Press

On June 26, 1997, in the first Internet-related U.S. Supreme Court case ever to be decided, seven justices found the disputed provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, and was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, and Thomas. Justice O'Connor filed a separate opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, concurring in the decision but dissenting in part.

Decision Highlights:

The opinion was a ringing endorsement of the Internet as a "dramatic" and "unique" "marketplace of ideas."

The Court determined that the World Wide Web is analogous to a library or a shopping mall, rejecting the government's argument that it could be viewed as more akin to a broadcast medium.

The justices found that although sexually explicit material was "widely available" online, "users seldom encounter such content accidentally."

In its First Amendment analysis, the Court explained that "the many ambiguities concerning the scope of [the CDA's] coverage render it problematic for purposes of the First Amendment," and declared that the Act "unquestionably silences some speakers whose messages would be entitled to constitutional protection."

The Court found that the lower court in this case "was correct to conclude that the CDA effectively resembles the ban on 'dial-a-porn'" invalidated in an earlier decision -- Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989).

Examining the issue of whether the rights of adults should be compromised in order to protect children, the justices declared that "in order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another...[w]hile we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials,...that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults."