  In the rather long discussion that follows, I argue that the <em>Pacifica</em> case is the most closely applicable precedent on the issue of the constitutionality of the Decency Act.  A panel of three District Court judges basically disagreed with this view and distinguished <em>Pacifica</em>, in <a href=http://www.eff.org/Alerts/HTML/960612_aclu_v_reno_decision.html><em>ACLU v Reno</em></a>.  The primary ground for holding the Act unconstitutional derived from the nature of the Internet as a widespread, distributed medium for communication.  The panel did not believe the "indecency" term was necessarily unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.  I've written a perhaps rather slanted <a href=http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/eric/Update.html>summary</a> of the decision.  <H2>
