Produced by and

(CNN) -- Lauren Gelman, director of public policy for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), joined Law Chat on Wednesday, September 20, to discuss free speech and the Internet. EFF is a 10-year-old organization that serves as a watchdog for rights of individuals using the Internet. Law Chat is presented by FindLaw. CNN provided a typist for Gelman. The following is an edited transcript of the chat:

Chat Moderator: What impact will the recent New York federal court decision -- that source code for unscrambling DVDs is not speech -- have on the Internet?

Lauren Gelman: I think the first important thing to remember is that we are still going to appeal this decision, so it's not over yet. However, if Judge Kaplan's decision stands, it could have an extremely chilling effect on the use and spread of content through all electronic media.

Chat Moderator: Can you explain the goals of the Electronic Frontier Foundation?

Lauren Gelman: The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been around for 10 years fighting to protect individual freedoms in the Internet age. Our goals are first to make sure that all rights individuals have in the real world are protected in the online world. We also fight for a number of specific issues including making sure free speech is protected online. And we have been involved in this issue since our organization was founded, including being plaintiff in the first major First Amendment challenge online, the Communications Decency Act case.

Question from Sunny1: How are our freedoms in danger on the Internet?

Lauren Gelman: Because this is a new technology, there is a lot of fear that it will be used in bad ways instead of a focus on all of the positive ways the Internet can affect our lives. Because of this there has been a rush to regulate the Internet and in that rush there have been a number of instances where traditional freedoms have been jeopardized.

For example, in the rush to protect copyright online, there has been little attention paid to protecting copyright use.

Question from SarahGator: What kind of content does the court decision affect?

Lauren Gelman: In a narrow sense, this decision affects the DeCSS computer program which allows users to circumvent a copyright protection system in order to gain access to the content protected by the system. In a broad sense, it affects all content because if the creator of the content uses such a system and individuals cannot gain access to that content, then the balance shifts greatly in favor of the creator to choose whom they wish to see the content.

Question from SarahGator: What are some of the "bad ways" that this technology can be used, and how are our Fourth Amendment rights affected?

Lauren Gelman: There are two ways to answer that question. The movie industry would say that if the user is able to access a movie that he or she didn't pay for by using this code, that is a bad way. I would argue that another bad way that the technology can be used is if the movie industry prevents individuals from exercising their fair use rights on their rightfully purchased movies by banning this technology. This particular code doesn't implicate the Fourth Amendment, it is really an argument about the balance between copyright law and the First Amendment -- which has existed for many years -- and how we are going to maintain that balance in the electronic age.

Question from James01: In your opinion, at what point will public policy affect freedom of speech on the Internet?

Lauren Gelman: I think it already has. This case is a good example because if people lose their fair use rights then, for example, newspapers lose the ability to link to content that could enhance their readers' understanding of a story. The whole issue of pornography and how it's disseminated on the Internet has led policy makers to pass laws that could broadly sensor all types of material on the Internet. For example, a chat room at AOL was shut down where breast cancer suffers had gathered to discuss the disease. AOL re-opened the chat room when the users noticed that it was the very difficult to discuss breast cancer without using the word breast.

Question from Rixsta: Where was EFF when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed, outlawing the circumvention of copyright protections, in most cases, no matter how insecure they were?

Lauren Gelman: EFF was right there trying to prevent the DMCA from being passed. We wrote numerous letters and spoke to a lot of people from the very beginning about our concerns on the impact of this legislation on fair use. However, we lost that battle in Congress. That's why we've stepped forward now to have the legislation found unconstitutional by the courts.

Question from SarahGator: What kind of compromise would you suggest, then, between protecting the intellectual property rights of the creator while not impinging upon fair use rights?

Lauren Gelman: I think we've reached a very good balance after looking at this issue over the past 200 years. The problem is that the movie industry and other content industries are no longer happy with that balance because they see the new technology as being able to give them more rights. What we are trying to do is to protect that same balance online that we currently have in the outside world.

Question from Freelancer: How do current constitutional issues concerning the Internet differ from those during the implementation of media in a different age -- as in the advent of radio, television or the printing press -- and why are constitutional issues different in modern times?

Lauren Gelman: That's a good question. And my answer to that is that you are correct. Every time a new technology emerges, it's good for society to figure out the possible constitutional implications. The Supreme Court developed a standard for looking at the First Amendment in newspapers, then radio, and then television. In the Communications Decency Act case, the court said that those standards were appropriate for those media but created a new standard for the Internet. Each technology is different, and each technology requires a fresh look. The goal is to adhere to the same principles and maintain the same constitutional balance across all technologies.

Question from Gervese: It's good to see someone protecting our rights in cyberspace. How can we get more involved?

Lauren Gelman: The first thing you could do is to join EFF or any other organization that is working on these issues. It is important for all individuals to stay involved and follow the development of these issues. Let the policy makers know that you care. They hear a lot from the big companies. It is very important that they also hear from individuals who care about the Internet becoming a free place.

Question from Writer9554: In your opinion what should or should not be acceptable when it comes to free speech. In other words what kind of guidelines should there be, if any?

Lauren Gelman: I think as a base line one should be allowed to say anything on the Internet that one is allowed to say on television or on the radio. In addition, because on the Internet users have greater control over what information they access, there should be material available on-line that all people want. So, for example, people are able to purchase Playboy Magazine. Playboy Magazine should be able to put that same information online.

Chat Moderator: Do you have any final thoughts for our audience?

Lauren Gelman: I hope that those of you who really care about these issues -- and obviously a lot of you do -- will get involved and stay involved in trying to make the Internet the kind of place that you think it should be. It's really important for all individuals to let policy makers know how they feel about these very important issues.