June 27, 1997

Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously held that cyberspeech is entitled to full First Amendment protection. Hallelujah! I am extremely pleased that the Court acknowledged the important role that the Internet plays in promoting the exchange of ideas. And, I applaud their recognition of the potential destructive impact that undue government intervention would have on this vibrant medium.

The base conclusions of the Court's decision are worthy of special note. The Court clearly held that the government interest in protecting the rights of children -- as important as that goal may be -- it is not a carte blanche for intruding upon First Amendment rights. Rather, as I have continually argued during my tenure at the FCC, government regulation of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. This is a principle that we must keep in mind for all media content regulation, including the broadcast media.

I was struck by Justice Stevens' statement that "we presume that government regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it." I think this statement should apply not just in cyberspace, but across all media. It should send a special message to me and my colleagues at the FCC -- regulation of media content should be a last resort. We should not be seeking new ways to control media content. Instead, we should be looking for ways to minimize government regulation wherever possible.

We must be careful not to tread upon the important values preserved by the First Amendment. As Senator Daniel Inouye said at my confirmation hearing -- it is the First Amendment that sets us apart from the rest of the world. The Supreme Court's momentous decision should remind us that we all must work to preserve the important rights that the First Amendment provides.