E. Conclusion 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.[23] 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. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, : CIVIL ACTION et al. : : v. : : JANET RENO, Attorney General of : the United States : NO. 96-963 ________________________________________________________________ AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC., : CIVIL ACTION INC., et al. : : v. : : UNITED STATES DEP'T OF : JUSTICE, et al. : NO. 96-1458 ORDER AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 1996, upon consideration of plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction, and the memoranda of the parties and amici curiae in support and opposition thereto, and after hearing, and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the accompanying Adjudication, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The motions are GRANTED; 2. Defendant Attorney General Janet Reno, and all acting under her direction and control, are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing, prosecuting, investigating or reviewing any matter premised upon: (a) Sections 223(a)(1)(B) and 223(a)(2) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("the CDA"), Pub. L. No. 104- 104, § 502, 110 Stat. 133, 133-36, to the extent such enforcement, prosecution, investigation, or review are based upon allegations other than obscenity or child pornography; and (b) Sections 223(d)(1) and 223(d)(2) of the CDA; 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), plaintiffs need not post a bond for this injunction, see Temple Univ. v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 220 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Snider v. Temple Univ., 502 U.S. 1032 (1992); and 4. The parties shall advise the Court, in writing, as to their views regarding the need for further proceedings on the later of (a) thirty days from the date of this Order, or (b) ten days after final appellate review of this Order. BY THE COURT: ______________________________ Dolores K. Sloviter, C.J. U.S. Court of Appeals For the Third Circuit ______________________________ Ronald L. Buckwalter, J. ______________________________ Stewart Dalzell, J.