From a draft to be posted shortly at http://www.zdnet.com/intweek By Will Rodger Wahington Bureau Chief Inte@active Week The Department of Justice will appeal to the Supreme Court a federal court decision that stayed enforcement of a controversial Internet indecency law, sources close to the court challenge told Inter@ctive Week Thursday. Department of Justice lawyers gave Sen. J. James Exon, D-Nebr. news of the appeal in a three-line letter delivered to the law's chief sponsor Wednesday. A copy of the letter was obtained by Inter@ctive Week. Exon welcomed the news. "We needed the Justice Department to make a final decision on the appeal, which I am pleased that they have done with the full support of the White House," Exon said. "This will now go to the Supreme court and I believe we will get a more thoughtful decision out of the top court than what the court in Philadelphia ruled." Attorneys on the other side seemed equally pleased. "This is wonderful news because it means the Supreme Court will have a chance to speak on these issues," said Mike Godwin, staff counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "We feel certain the Supreme Court will uphold the lower court's finding that the statute is unconstitutional." The Communications Decency Act, passed as part of telecommunications reform legislation last February, would have banned indecent images and speech from any areas open to minors on the Internet. Under the law, operators of Internet sites would have been required to segregate indecent content into adults-only areas that required a credit card or other form of positive identification for access. Drafters based their restrictions in large part on regulations governing broadcast media which still prohibit indecency over the airwaves, as well as some local ordinances which require segregation of indecent materials from others. But a coalition of civil liberties groups, for-profit and non-profit organizations challenged the Act in a consolidated suit before a federal court in Philadelphia. The law, plaintiffs claimed, was unconstitutional since it set up restrictions on indecent but constitutionally protected speech. The CDA, moreover, would place a "chilling effect" on free speech as Internet users unnecessarily limited their speech in order to comply with an impermissibly vague law, plaintiffs claimed. In place of the CDA, plaintiffs suggested evolving technologies in the hands of responsible parents would better protect children while preserving adults' First Amendment rights. The Philadelphia Court agreed with the plaintiffs on all counts, striking down the law June 12. In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel found that the democratic nature of the Internet entitled it to at least as much protection as print, traditionally the least regulated of all media. The court also found that the statue was impermissibly vague and would thus unnecessarily restrict speech. The court also ruled the government had failed to show the law was enforceable with current technology. Cheers. Will