In 1996, the United States enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace.

In 1978, in a ruling commonly known as the "seven dirty words" case, the Court upheld the commission's authority to regulate indecency.

B10 The Court heard arguments on whether the Government can regulate indecency on the Internet.

And the new Telecommunications Act of 1996, an overhaul of current law that President Clinton signed earlier this month, is already under attack in Federal court for provisions regulating indecency.

Then why doesn't the availability of the V-chip, which allows parents to block out pornography on television, make it unconstitutional to regulate pornography, or even indecency, on broadcast TV?

It was, after all, a pretty dramatic modification of Pacifica vs. FCC (1978), in which the government promised that it would regulate indecency with the utmost probity and caution.

Because the agency's powers to regulate indecency rarely receive a court hearing, the case could be an important one.

First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace.

But proponents of the library policy say that the Federal Government's failure to come up with a law to regulate indecency in cyberspace makes it all the more crucial for local governments to adopt their own safeguards.

Following are excerpts from the Supreme Court's decision today upholding part of 1992 law regulating indecency on cable television while striking down two other provisions of that law.