The Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The government may not, through the [Communications Decency Act], interrupt that conversation. . . . As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion. . . . The government, therefore, implicitly asks this court to limit both the amount of speech on the Internet and the availability of that speech. This argument is profoundly repugnant to First Amendment principles.
Source: 1996, ACLU, et al., v Janet Reno, 96-963 and ALA, et al., v Dept of Justice, 96-1458
Contributed by: Zaady