EPIC is both a plaintiff and co-counsel in the litigation. The lengthy ruling consists of separate opinions authored by the three members of the federal court panel. While the three judges differed in their approaches to the legal issues raised in the case, they were unanimous in their strong conclusions that the CDA constitutes a clear violation of the First Amendment. When Congress decided that material unsuitable for minors was available on the Internet, it could have chosen to assist and support the development of technology that would enable parents, schools, and libraries to screen such material from their end. Instead, in the CDA Congress chose to place on the speakers the obligation of screening the material that would possibly offend some communities.
Prosecutors come and go.
Even federal judges are limited to life tenure. The First Amendment remains to give protection to future generations as well. I have no hesitancy in concluding that it is likely that plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of their argument that the challenged provisions of the CDA are facially invalid under both the First and Fifth Amendments. Words cannot define conduct with mathematical certainty, and lawyers, like the bright and intelligent ones now before us, will most certainly continue to devise ways by which to challenge them. This rationale, however, can neither support a finding of constitutionality nor relieve legislators from the very difficult task of carefully drafting legislation tailored to its goal and sensitive to the unique characteristics of, in this instance, cyberspace.