Cyberporn



	As I noted in that article, the Web, unlike traditional media, only sends information out when a user requests it. Despite this, the CDA is worded so as to punish people who make material available, not those who request it. My role in all of this was to present to the Court a vision of the society that has formed on the net and the position of free speech in that society, and to counter the Government's assertion that forcing content providers to label their content, under penalty of law, would not violate our civil rights.
	WILLIAM CLAY SHIRKY, called as a witness by the government, having been duly sworn in, testified as follows:

		Being in a trial is like being in a particle accelerator experiment, as one of the particles. Your ideas get smashed up against other people's idea's, and only afterwards can you see from the fragments what was revealed. My testimony and cross-examination came and went in a blur, and it was only later that I was able to understand what had happened. In the aftermath of the trial (it has now ended, and lawyers for both sides have filed post-trial motions - a decision could come any day) several things have come clear to me.

	CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HOFFMAN [U.S. Attorney]: Mr. Hoffman: Good afternoon, Mr. Shirky. Mr. Shirky: Good afternoon. Judge Cotes: Mr. Shirky, I'm having difficulty hearing you, is your mike on? Mr. Shirky: I'm sorry, let me move it closer. Is that better?

		First of all, the CDA is nothing more than a ploy by the venal to score points with the fearful. Americans, famously the dumbest people in the industrialized world, have always had a love/hate thing with technology, and that makes them a natural target for election year pledges which promise to bring new technologies to heel. The politicians on the Telecommunications committee who did this to the country (the amendment was added at the 11th hour, squeaking into the final bill on a vote of 17-16) have nothing but contempt for this medium, or for freedom of speech. Worse, they are currently being abetted by the Justice Department, who is defending the CDA in two cases (this one and another one in Philadelphia) without regard to its serious constitutional difficulties.
	Mr. Hoffman: Sir, sometimes URL's can be deceptive, too, can't they? Mr. Shirky: Deceptive is a strange word. Mr. Hoffman: That is fair enough, sir. Can be deceptive in terms of what actually might be on that site? Mr. Shirky: URLs are not always an indication of the page, yes.