The Court has recessed for the day after a long day of education on the nature of the Internet, the effectiveness of parental control software, and testimony on the potential impact of the Communications Decency Act on small, independent content providers. Testimony resumes at 9:30 am ET Friday March 22.
After hearing about the workings of the Internet from Scott Bradner of the IETF this morning (see CIEC Afternoon Edition 3/21), the Court was given a visual demonstration of the World Wide Web by SurfWatch's Ann Duvall. After briefly describing the Internet and the basic steps one must take to get online (including purchasing a computer and modem, and subscribing to an Internet Service Provider or Online Service), Duvall logged on and took the Court on a trip around the Net. Duvall visited a site sponsored by the City of Philadelphia (the setting of the trial) and checked the schedule for upcoming Phillies games, then jumped to London for a quick tour of a Museum before returning to the United States for a demonstration of Yahoo's new site for Kids (yahooligans). She also showed the court how her daughter had found information on Fragile X syndrome for a research paper.
Duvall then illustrated the effectiveness of SurfWatch, and parental control technology generally, by attempting to access several adult oriented sites (including Penthouse Magazine) with SurfWatch engaged. She also illustrated how SurfWatch blocks attempts to search for terms like "sexy" and "erotica" using common search engines. Each attempt was greated with a "blocked by SurfWatch" message.
Despite expectations that the Justice Department might attempt to use the Internet demonstration to show that some sexually explicit Internet sites may not be blocked by SurfWatch, the DOJ attorneys did not do so, and offered no examples of sexually explicit sites to the Court. Instead, they concentrated their efforts on the number of sites SurfWatch blocks (approximately 5000, plus key words like "sex") in an apparent attempt to show that there is are a large number of such sites on the Net. They also suggested SurfWatch may not be effective because sites on the Internet change frequently and new sites regularly come on line.
The Judges appeared extremely interested in Duvall's testimony, and asked a number of questions. They seemed particularly taken with the demonstration of the World Wide Web and the variety of information available. In an important question wich may help to illustrate the potential weeknesses of the CDA, Judge Dalzel focused on Duvall's statement that approximately 30% of the sites SurfWatch blocks are outside the United States.
SMALL, INDEPENDENT CONTENT PROVIDERS WILL SUFFER UNDER THE CDA
The Court next heard from Kiyoshi Kuromiya, Director of the Critical Path AIDS Project. Kuroimya, called by the ACLU attorneys, testified that he maintains a World Wide Web site which contains information on how to avoid the AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases. Kuromiya stated that some of the materials on his site use explicit terms which may violated the "indecency" and "patently offensive" provisions of the CDA. In response to a question from Judge Dalzel, Kuromiya stated that he would not want to alter the materials he posts, or deny access to the site, in order to avoid prosecution under the CDA.
The Court also heard form Patricia Warren an author and publisher who maintains a Web site containing excerpts from her books, some of which deal with Gay and Lesbian subject matter. Warren stated that she fears prosecution under the CDA because some in the United States consider the subject matter she addresses to be 'indecent'. During her testimony, one of the Judges, apparently understanding the vast potential of the Internet to make every user a publisher, asked if it is easier to publish a magazine online than in printed form. Warren responded by suggesting that because distribution and production costs are significantly lower on the Net, publishing online is an important outlet for small publishers with limited resources.