I really enjoyed reading that. Took me a while to find it, but here it is:
Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered the hearing
testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending
worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA,
interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass
speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from
governmental intrusion.
True it is that many find some of the speech on the Internet to
be offensive, and amid the din of cyberspace many hear discordant voices
that they regard as indecent. The absence of governmental regulation of
Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one
of plaintiffs' experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: What
achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength
of the Internet is that chaos.
Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the
First Amendment protects.
For these reasons, I without hesitation hold that the CDA is
unconstitutional on its face.
---------------------
I would love to hear something along those lines again in regards to 2257!
