Chodorow says telecom law may 'chill' free speech

In a post to the upenn.talk newsgroup, Provost Stanley Chodorow called for rapid action regarding the Communications Decency Act of the recent telecommunications reform law. "Penn believes the constitutional challenges [to the CDA] are important and should be resolved quickly because we believe the Act may chill the free exchange of ideas and information that is central to the University's mission," Chodorow wrote. Civil liberties groups challenged the constitutionality of some provisions of the CDA immediately after it was signed into law three weeks ago and filed lawsuits in federal court to block their enforcement. Chodorow's post went on to add that the University opposes the CDA since it may also restrict development of new forms of electronic communication. It also explained the implications of the law, stating that the provision prohibiting transmission of "obscene or indecent" communication to anyone known to be under 18 was deemed unconstitutional by a federal court in Philadelphia last week. But the CDA's other provisions -- including one barring depiction or descriptions of sexual activities -- are still in place. In light of the law, Chodorow warned members of the University community to exercise caution in deciding what to put on their World Wide Web home pages. The provost said the University cannot prevent information on newsgroups and home pages from becoming available to minors, and thereby possibly coming under federal scrutiny. Chodorow explained that the University will not be responsible for individuals who utilize its computing resources. Director of Information Technology Architecture Noam Arzt posted the message on Chodorow's behalf. Engineering senior Michael Mirmak -- who helped organized last week's student protest of the CDA -- said he was pleased with Chodorow's response. "I think as a University administrator, he has a responsibility to warn people," Mirmak said. "It is excellent that the provost is presenting the University community with the fact that this will affect them." Mirmak was also pleased that the University came out against the law, but he questioned what the shape of future policy on student free speech on the Internet will be. He also wondered why the post came at the time it did. "The timing is curious," he said. "It does come after Gore's arrival, but the University was probably poring over the law and the resulting lawsuits to see how they will be affected by it." Mirmak also commended Chodorow's release of the information by newsgroup, saying that it made sense to inform the people most affected by the law first. But not all cheered the provost's response. Some newsgroup replies questioned the practical meaning of his statements for PennNet users, while others tested the new law, using some "indecent" adjectives to describe Chodorow.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.