The Internet provides all of its users information that was once relegated to the backroom shelves of the Library of Congress. Citizen-entitled government information that once took weeks and even months to assimilate, produce and deliver to your mailbox, can now be viewed almost instantaneously via the 'Net. Legislative and judicial decisions can be published via the World Wide Web with remarkable speed and allow us all to debate more intelligently and separate what we heard was said from what was actually said.

On Thursday, June 26, 1997 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Communications Decency Act violates the First Amendment.

Addressing the issue of censorship of the Internet, the court stated "The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."

This decision, (RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al., No. 96-511) is a landmark in terms of the free speech on the Internet, but has been viewed harshly by some CDA supporters.

According to Family Research Council Legal Policy Director Cathy Cleaver (a CDA proponent),"[The June 26] ruling means that pornographers can open their doors to children on the Internet."

In order to see what the full text of what the justices wrote and to help for your own, educated opinions about the decision, you can visit Cornell University's LII/Hermes Web site.

According to the site, "The Legal Information Institute offers Supreme Court opinions under the auspices of Project Hermes, the court's electronic-dissemination project." LII/Hermes maintains "all opinions of the court issued since May of 1990" including number 96-511.

If you are looking for a detailed history of this ruling, including the cases that lead up to this one and major press releases from both sides, be sure and visit Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition.

Admittedly, the CIEC was one of the organizations that fought the CDA, however, the site has all the unchanged, unbiased documents.

You can read the original "Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief" filed against the Department of  Justice and Janet Reno and almost every pro and con, publicly-filed document related to the cases all the way up to and including the Supreme Court.

Whether you are for or against the Supreme Court ruling, the ultimate decision for children always comes back to the parents.

One of the big reasons that the justices declare that the government need not interfere with the Internet is the proliferation of Internet censoring and filter software.  They specifically mention Microsystem Software's Cyber Patrol as an alternative that parent's have to control what information their children can view.

As for our family, my wife and I choose to decline the need for excessive governmental influence and regulations and take it in to our own hands using proper education and effective censoring and filtering software to protect our children.