Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in ApolloMedia v. Reno (the annoy.com case) does not in any way diminish the Internet free speech precedent established in ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court's landmark 1997 case striking down provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as unconstitutional. (Gee! A little defensive! At least we got them to admit that it was just provisions of the CDA that were originally struck down. Their headline reads "Supreme Court Rules Communications Decency Act Unconstitutional!" Our question is are they deliberately lying or just confused?)

On Monday, April 19, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling upholding a different provision of the CDA dealing with harassing speech. (Actually, it was the "intent" to "annoy" component we challenged. Harassment is another issue). The lower court held that the provision of CDA criminalizing a communication "which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person" is not unconstitutional on its face with respect to *obscene* communications communications (sic - newer technology provides the benefit of a spell-check!) only.

This ruling does not in any way affect the broader findings and conclusions of the Supreme Court in ACLU v. Reno -- that the Internet is deserving of the highest level of First Amendment protection and that the portion of the CDA restricting "indecent" communications among adults violated the First Amendment. (No, but it affects the inaccuracy evident in your headlines, no? And the Supreme Court did not rule in ACLU v. Reno anyway.)

Several points distinguish the annoy.com case from the 1997 ACLU v. Reno decision:

One more point: Like ACLU v. Reno, the annoy.com case was a facial challenge, meaning annoy.com was not charged with any violation but was asking the Court to rule in advance that there was no possible constitutional application of the intent to harass section of the law. (Intent to "annoy". We have to ask why the CDT released a statement by someone who has so sleazy and inadequate an understanding of the law. A first-year undergraduate would fail if this were a test.) If annoy.com is ever charged under the harassment section, it still can challenge the constitutionality of the law as applied in light of the specific facts.

It was with a mixture of horror and yet a certain sense of predictable resignation that I read the Center for Democracy and Technology's press release commenting on the Supreme Court decision in ApolloMedia v. Reno. (http://www.cdt.org/press/042099press.shtml)

It appears that the author of the release neither read nor understood the decision, or its implications.

First, the release categorically states that ApolloMedia fought an obscenity provision. We did not. The whole point was that an 'indecency' provision remained (and still does although now clarified thanks to ApolloMedia) on the books.

ApolloMedia sued to establish that the government had no power to outlaw "indecent" speech online, with or without an intent to "annoy" anyone. This was the net effect of the district court's decision. And one that the Supreme Court upheld. In fact, the majority acknowledged that "indecent speech which is not obscene falls within the protection of the First Amendment." The statute was so blatantly unconstitutional, however (Janet Reno never sought to defend it as written), that it should have been condemned forthrightly rather than "construed" to save it from that fate.

The CDT's focus on "harassment" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what ApolloMedia fought for and achieved. We never sought to challenge the 'harassment' component of the law. It was the 'annoying' part we found unconstitutionally vague. Your annoying understanding of the law and interpretation of the decision couldn't clarify the distinction more clearly.

The result of the Court's decision and the lazy and sloppy interpretations as are evident in your press release leaves the online public justifiably confused. If users take the trouble to look up the law, the language will and should frighten them. On its face it covers dirty words and much else, and there's no practical way for users to discover that the law doesn't mean what it says and that it has been rendered completely toothless owing to ApolloMedia v. Reno.

You may want to update your readers, and modify your "Supreme Court Rules Communications Decency Act Unconstitutional" headline on your site. Clearly, it didn't. Headlines in almost every major publication render the very statement ridiculous (http://annoy.com/appeal_coverage.html), and while it's appropriate to rejoice over the Reno v. ACLU decision, it does no one any good to overstate its reach or ignore the areas of law that the Communications Decency Act continues to regulate. Especially in areas regarding libel, defamation, third-party liability for content providers and of course, obscenity.

Since the CDT testifies before congress on such issues as communications on the Internet, and many media outlets may consider the CDT a reliable source you need to seriously examine the extent to which your statements and understanding of the law place the First Amendment in a more precarious position than it already is, and explain how and to what end you could release such a shoddily researched and ill-informed statement. Have any of you even looked at the court documents? Or did you speak with our attorneys? (http://annoy.com/case.html)

I have included in this letter a very rare handful of journalists and writers who do understand these issues so that you may let them know directly why, in light of this sort of blatant and somewhat dangerous misinformation, they should afford your organization the credibility and respect you seek. In the meanwhile, we will continue to expend our time and resources explaining to people who paid attention to your release that our objective never has been, and never will be, to use the medium for harassment.