Resumen
This article presents views of authors for and against the U.S. Supreme Court's decision declaring the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional. In favor of the law one of the author says that the CDA could never have stopped foreign-based smut or porn. Yes, the law went too far by not explicitly exempting content of educational or artistic value. Yes, the law would have imposed unclear burdens on Internet users and lawsuits on companies trying to make a profit. According to him Congress and the U.S. President approved content-curbs on the Internet because that's what the people wanted it. It insults many voters' sense of what is right and wrong, and should be tempered by some method or other. However the second author argues the Court was rightly concerned the CDA would have a profound negative impact on important, critical areas of speech such as "birth control practices, homosexuality," and "the consequences of prison rape," not to mention Gonzo journalism as practiced by many on the Internet. Next, the Court saw right through the linguistic shell game the CDA supporters tried to pull in attempting to conflate the meaning of "obscenity" with "indecency."