(316) Fri 16 Jun 95 21:41 By: LARRY SITES To: ALL Re: Senate censors net @EID:bbe2 1ed0ad2

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

(316) Fri 16 Jun 95 21:41 By: LARRY SITES To: ALL Re: Senate censors net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:bbe2 1ed0ad20 CDT Policy Post No. 18 -- June 14, 1995


---------------------------------------------------------------------
---
   ******    ********    *************
  ********   *********   *************
  **         **      **       ***               POLICY POST
  **         **      **       ***
  **         **      **       ***               June 14, 1995
  **         **      **       ***               Number 18
  ********   *********        ***
   ******    ********         ***

  CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---
  A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---
CDT POLICY POST Number 18                       June 14, 1995

CONTENTS: (1) Senate Passes CDA -- Battle Moves to House
          (2) About CDT/Contacting Us

This document may be re-distributed freely provided it remains in its
entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----

(1) Senate Passes Exon/Coats -- Battle Moves to House

The First Amendment was thrown out of cyberspace by the United 
States 
Senate today by a vote of 84 to 16 on passage of the Exon/Coats 
Communications Decency Act.

CDT remains adamantly opposed to this legislation, and we will 
continue 
to fight it as the bill moves to the House of Representatives. A 
House 
vote is expected in mid July.

In his effort to defeat the Exon amendment, Senator Leahy cited the 
over 35,000 signatures on the Internet petition, as well as the 
serious 
First Amendment and privacy concerns raised by the Exon proposal. 
Senator Feingold (D-WI) also spoke in opposition to the Exon 
amendment, 
and asked that the Senate consider the unique features of 
interactive 
media. 
Unfortunately, these efforts to protect the Internet from 
unnecessary and 
repressive censorship were not successful.

A full analysis of the Senate passed bill, as well as a description 
of 
the events that occurred today on the Senate floor will be posted 
in the 
next few days. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
------
--

(2) About The Center For Democracy And Technology/Contacting Us

The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public 
interest
organization. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public
policies that advance constitutional civil liberties and democratic
values in new computer and communications technologies.

Contacting us:

To subscribe to CDT's news distribution list (to receive future 
Policy 
Posts
directly), send email to  with a subject of 
'subscribe
policy posts'.

** NOTE TO THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY REQUESTED TO BE ADDED TO CDT's 
DISTRIBUTION
   LIST:  We are still working to build our listserv -- you will 
begin
   receiving Policy Posts on this list very soon. We appreciate your 
patience!

General information on CDT can be obtained by sending mail to
 

CDT has set up the following auto-reply aliases to keep you 
informed on the
Communications Decency Act issue.

For information on the bill, including
CDT's analysis and the text of Senator
Leahy's alternative proposal and
information on what you can do to
help                                         -- cda-info@cdt.org

For the current status of the bill,
including scheduled House and
Senate action (updated as events
warrant)                                     -- cda-stat@cdt.org

World-Wide-Web:

   http://www.cdt.org/

ftp:

   ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/

gopher:

   CDT's gopher site is still under construction and should be 
operational
   soon.

snail mail:

Center For Democracy and Technology
1001 G Street, NW Suite 700 East
Washington, DC 20001
voice: +1.202.637.9800
fax:   +1.202.637.9800
                                  ###


Return to the CDT Publications Page
Return to the CDT Home Page Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery ___ * WR 1.31 # 398 * Find Jesus? I didn't know he was LOST!!! --- FMailX/386 1.0g * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 25 31 SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50 @PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (317) Fri 16 Jun 95 21:46 By: LARRY SITES To: ALL Re: Senate censor text 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:193b 1ed0adc0 Exon/Coats Communications Decency Act as passed by the US Senate 6/14/95

This strikes all of Title IV of S. 652 and replaces it with the 
following:

Sec.___ OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 
UNDER
        THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934

Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended --

   (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof:

 ``(a) Whoever--
       ``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or 
     foreign communications
       
        ``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly--
      
          ``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
          ``(ii) initiates the transmission of,

     any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other 
     communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or 
     indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass 
     another person;
      
         ``(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a 
     telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or 
     communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and 
     with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person 
     at the called number or who receives the communication;
     
          ``(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly 
     or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at 
     the called number; or
      
         ``(D) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly 
     initiates communication with a telecommunications device, 
     during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to 
     harass any person at the called number or who receives the 
     communication; or
      
         ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility 
     under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by 
     paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for
     such activity,

     shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more 
     than two years, or both.''; and

   (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:

      ``(d) Whoever--

       ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign 
     communications with the United States by means of 
     telecommunications device makes or makes available any
     obscene communication in any form including any comment,
     request, suggestion, proposal, image, regardless of whether the 
     maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the 
     communications; or

       ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility 
     under such person's control to be used for an activity 
     prohibited by subsection (d)(1) with the intent that it be 
     used for such activity;


 Larry Sites  JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 
 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery
___
 * WR 1.31 # 398 * REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot Universe ? (Y/N/Q)
--- FMailX/386 1.0g
 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924  (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 
9 25 31
SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50
@PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851


----------------------------------------------------------------------
(318)   Fri 16 Jun 95 21:51                             
By: LARRY SITES
To: ALL
Re: Senate censor text 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:187b 1ed0ae60
     shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more 
     than two years or both.


       ``(e) Whoever--

       ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign 
     communications with the United States by means of 
     telecommunications device makes or makes available
     any indecent comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image
     to any person under 18 years of age 
     regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed 
     the call or initiated the communication; or

       ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility 
     under such person's control to be used for an activity 
     prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used 
     for such activity,

     shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more 
     than two years or both.


       ``(f) Defenses to the subsections (a), (d), and (e), 
     restrictions on access, judicial remedies respecting 
     restrictions for persons providing information services and 
     access to information services--

        (1) No person shall be held to have violated subsections (a),
     (d), or (e) solely for providing access or connection to or
     from a facility, system, or network over which that person
     has no control, including related capabilities which are
     incidental to providing access or connection.  This subsection
     shall not be applicatable to an individual who is owned or
     controlled by, or a conspirator with, an entity actively
     involved in the creation, editing or knowing distribution of
     communications which violate this section.

        (2) No employer shall be held liable under this section for
     the actions of an employee or agent unless the employee's or
     agent's conduct is within the scope of his employment or agency
     and the employer has knowledge of, authorizes, or ratifies the
     employee's or agent's conduct.

        (3) It is a defense to prosecution under subsection (a), 
(d)(2),
     or (e) that a person has taken reasonable, effective and
     appropriate actions in good faith to restrict or prevent the
     transmission of or access to a communication specified in such
     subsections, or complied with procedures as the Commission may
     prescribe in furtherance of this section.  Until such 
regulations
     become effective, it is a defense to prosecution that the 
person 
     has complied with the procedures prescribed by regulation 
pursuant
     to subsection (b)(3).  Nothing in this subsection shall be
     construed to treat enhanced information services as common
     carriage.

        (4) No cause of action may be brought in any 
     court or any administrative agency against any person on 
account 
     of any action which in not in violation of any law punishable
     by criminal penalty, which activity the person has taken in good
     faith to implement a defense authorized under this section or
     otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or 
access to,
     a communication specified in this section.

         (g) no state or local government may impose any liability 
     for commercial activities or actions by commercial entities in
     connection with an activity or action which constitutes a 
violation
     described in subsection (a)(2), (d)(2), or (e)(2) that is
     inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions
     under this section provided, however, that nothin herein shall
     preclude any State or local government from enacting and 
enforcing 
     complementary oversight, liability, and regulatory systems, 
     procedures, and requirements so long as such systems, 
procedures,
     and requirements govern only intrastate services and do not 
result
     in the imposition of inconsistent rights, duties or 
obligations on 
     the provision of interstate services.  Nothing in this 
subsection
     shall preclude any State or local government from governing 
conduct
     not covered by this section.

         (h) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), (e), or (f) or in the
     defenses to prosecution under (a), (d), or (e) shall be 
construed
     to affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other
     Federal law.

         (i) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this
     section shall not impose new obligations on (one-way) broadcast
     radio or (one-way) broadcast television operators licensed by 
the
     Commission or (one-way) cable services registered with the
     Federal Communications Commission and covered by obscenity and
     indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act.

         (j) Within two years from the date of enactment and every 
two
     years thereafter, the Commission shall report on the 
effectiveness
     of this section.

Sec. ____ OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION.

        Section 639 (47 U.S.C> 559) is amended by striking "10,000" 
and 
inserting "$100,000"

Sec. ___ BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON THE RADIO.

        Section 1466 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking out "$10,00" and inserting "$100,000".

Sec. ___ SEPARABILITY

        "(a) If any provision of this Title, including amendments 
to this 
Title or
the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held 
invalid, the 
remainder of this Title and the application of such provision to 
other 
persons 
or circumstances shall not be affected thereby."


Return to the CDT Communications Decency Act Page
Return to the CDT Home Page Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery ___ * WR 1.31 # 398 * A closed mind doesn't need drugs. It is already wasted. --- FMailX/386 1.0g * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 25 31 SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50 @PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (319) Fri 16 Jun 95 21:57 By: LARRY SITES To: ALL Re: Fundis no on censor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:15bf 1ed0af20 Morality In Media Press Release

Copyright 1995 PR Newswire Association, Inc.    
March 28, 1995, Tuesday

MORALITY IN MEDIA CALLS FOR REJECTION OF SENATOR EXON'S 
'COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT'

Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, today called for 
rejection 
of 
Senator Exon's "Communications Decency Act Of 1995," which was 
reported out 
of 
the SenateCommerce Committee on March 23.  Mr. Peters said:

"A Communications Decency Act of 1995 is needed and, clearly, 
Congress can 
control 'cyberspace' to prohibit obscenity entirely, irrespective 
of a 
commercial 
purpose and irrespective of whether 'consenting adults only' are 
involved, 
and to 
restrict indecency.

"Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, and is already 
prohibited on 
broadcast, cable and satellite TV and by means of telephone.  
Restrictions 
on 
indecency have also been upheld in the broadcast media and by means 
of 
telephone.  

"But Senator Exon's bill has serious constitutional problems and 
does a
disservice to the American people.  It is a giant step backwards"

Among the bill's defects cited by Mr. Peters are the following:

* It may very well prevent the United States, or any state, from 
  prosecuting much non-commercial computer obscenity in that a 
person 
  who makes obscenity available cannot be held responsible if it is 
the
  recipient who "initiates" the transmission (even if that 
recipient is 
  a child).

* By attempting to ban non-commercial indecent telephone calls and 
other  
  telecommunications transmissions to adults, the bill violates the 
1989 
  united States Supreme Court Sable case, thus rendering
  unconstitutional any protections for children.

* It reduces the protection of the existing Dial-A-Porn law by among 
  other things requiring that commercial violators have actual 
knowledge 
  of the content of obscene or indecent communications -- a 
condition 
  easily evaded -- and providing a new "defense" for some commercial 
  providers of obscene telephone communications.

* A provision of the bill aimed at pornography on cable TV speaks to
  programs "unsuitable for children" -- a vague standard suggested 
to be
  unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its Erzoznik case, in 
which
  the Court said: "Speech that is neither obscene to youths or 
subject 
  to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely 
to 
  protect the young from ... images a legislative body thinks 
unsuitable   
  for them."
   
 Mr. Peters added:

"Yet other provisions in this bill send a clear message to America's
telecommunications industry that the new Congress will place little 
if
any responsibility on it for the obscenity available on its systems,
even in circumstances where it 'knows' that such material is 
available
and has 'editorial control.'
 
"On-line services are not common carriers but despite lip service to
that fact in the Exon bill, on-line services are provided with
protections which should only be available, if at all, to common
carriers."
 
CONTACT: Ed Hynes of Morality in Media, 212-870-3222



Return to the CDT Home Page Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery ___ * WR 1.31 # 398 * Women do come with instructions; ask them. --- FMailX/386 1.0g * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 25 31 SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50 @PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (320) Fri 16 Jun 95 22:16 By: LARRY SITES To: ALL Re: S. bill illegal 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:a1af 1ed0b200 Recent Court Decision Further Demonstrates Unconstitutionality of Exon Bill

Memorandum

DATE:   June 7, 1995
TO:     Interested Senators and Telecommunications Staff
FROM:   Jill Lesser, People For the American Way Action
Fund    Danny Weitzner, Center for Democracy & Technology
RE:     The Communications Decency Act is clearly unconstitutional
        under Alliance for Community Media v. FCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-

        Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District 
of Columbia issued an en banc decision in the case of  Alliance for
Community Media v. FCC, (Docket #93-1169).  That decision clearly
established that, if enacted, the Communications Decency Act would
be held unconstitutional.  The court stated that a ban on
indecency would be unconstitutional and that any regulation of
indecent speech must be accomplished in the least restrictive
manner possible, as established by a legislative record.  While
the court upheld the FCC's regulations, the decision was narrowly
based on the fact that there was no state action in the statute. 
However, it is indisputable that the proposed ban in the
Communications Decency Act constitutes state action. We believe
that members of  the Senate should reject the Communications
Decency Act and refuse to engage in the futile charade of enacting
legislation that would undoubtedly be held unconstitutional. 

The Facts of the Alliance Case
==============================

        The Alliance case concerns a challenge to the FCC's 
implementing regulations of  Section 10 of the Cable Television 
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. That section 
permitted cable operators to refuse to carry PEG and leased access
programming that the operator "reasonably believes describes or
depicts sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently
offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards
for the cable medium." (sections 10(a) and 10(c)).  The
regulations authorized cable operators to refuse to carry
"indecent programming on leased access.  Section 10(b) and the
implementing regulations then required a cable operator that
determined to carry indecent programming, to segregate on a single
channel and block the programming and satisfy a subscriber's
request to received such a blocked channel within thirty days of a
written request.

Unlike the Communications Decency Act Sections 10(a) and (c) do
Not Constitute State Action
===========================

         Judge Randolph, writing for the majority, upheld the
constitutionality of Sections 10(a) and 10(c) and their
implementing regulations based upon the determination that the
permissive language in the statute did not constitute state
action, and therefore was not subject to any First Amendment
scrutiny.  The Court found that Congress, in giving cable
operators editorial discretion, was merely shifting the editorial
control over leased and PEG access programming to cable operators
from cable programmers.  While the Court therefore did not have to
pass on the constitutionality of an indecency ban, it nonetheless
took the opportunity to state the following quite specifically:
While the government may [ ] restrict the showing of indecent
programs, it may do so only in a manner consistent with the First
Amendment.  See Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC,
492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989)[setting forth the least restrictive means
test and striking down legislation totally banning indecent
interstate commercial telephone messages].  If decisions of cable
operators not to carry indecent programs on leased or PEG access
channels, decisions section 10(a) and 10 (c) permit, were treated
as decisions of the government, the Commission and the United
States would be hard put to defend the constitutionality of these
provisions (emphasis added).


 Larry Sites  JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 
 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery
___
 * WR 1.31 # 398 * Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's 
ignorance.
--- FMailX/386 1.0g
 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924  (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 
9 25 31
SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50
@PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851


----------------------------------------------------------------------
(321)   Fri 16 Jun 95 22:18                             
By: LARRY SITES
To: ALL
Re: S. bill illegal 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:a0ef 1ed0b240
        This language confirms the long-standing constitutional 
principle
that a wholesale ban on indecency is unconstitutional.  As this
court emphasized, "[o]bscenity has no constitutional protection,"
but indecency is constitutionally protected.  Thus the
Communications Decency Act, which seeks to establish a government
mandated prohibition on indecent communications, would clearly be
held unconstitutional. 

The Constitutionality of Section 10(b) Upheld Based on Nature of
the Technology and Least Restrictive Means
==========================================

        The D.C. Circuit then went on to consider the 
constitutionality
of the requirements established in subsection 10(b) and its
implementing regulations.  The question here was not whether this
was considered government regulation of speech, but whether in
regulating non-obscene speech, the FCC's regulations withstood the
exacting level of scrutiny required.  The court first compared the
decision in Pacifica Foundation v. FCC, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) with
the Sable decision and made two important observations: 
"First, the constitutionality of indecency regulation in a given
medium turns, in part, on the medium's characteristics.  Second,
in fashioning such regulation, the government must strive to
accommodate at least two competing interests: the interest in
limiting children's exposure to indecency and the interest of
adults in having access to such material."

        While the court found that under the record established by
Congress and the FCC the cable medium had much more in common with
the broadcast medium than the telephone medium, it made no such
determination for other media.  In fact, in the context of the
on-line computer networks that the Communications Decency Act
seeks to reach, no such congressional finding has been made and
there has been no examination of the unique nature of  the medium
at all.  The lack of such a record would make it impossible for a
court to do anything but strike down any regulation on non-obscene
computer based communications.  

        In the second observation above, the court emphasized the
importance of the rights of adults to have access to indecent
material, and it therefore applied the least restrictive means
test to the FCC's regulations pursuant to subsection 10(b).  While
some might disagree with the court's determination that the
segregation, blocking and waiting period established by the FCC
was the most effective and therefore "least restrictive means" for
protecting children from access to indecency on cable television,
it is indisputable that the Communications Decency Act indicates
no attempt to establish a least restrictive system that would
preserve the rights of adults to have access to certain material.

Exon Bill Fails Least Restrictive Means Test Because Congress has
not Explored Alternatives
=========================

        The Communications Decency Act attempts to amend existing 
rules
relating only to telephone and audiotext services, while adopting
the same goal of protecting minors.  However, interactive media is
materially different than analog telephone and audiotext
technology in that is offers users the ability to exercise control
over precisely what information one accesses.  Given the dramatic
difference between telephone technology and interactive services
such as the Internet and other online services, blocking by the
carrier as demanded by  223 and the Communications Decency Act
would not meet the "least restrictive means" test.  Just as the
Sable court found broadcast indecency regulations inapplicable to
the telephone system because of differences in the medium,
regulations designed for audiotext services in the telephone
system are constitutionally inapplicable to new interactive media.

        Technologies already exist that enable users to access 
certain
information based on a variety of characteristics, or, to exclude
certain types of information from access.  With such filtering
technology, users, instead of the government or network operators,
can exercise control over the information content that they
receive in an interactive network environment.  User control could
be exercised in two ways.  First, one could screen out all
messages or programs based on information in the header.  If a
parent wanted to prevent a child from seeing a particular movie or
from participating in a particular online discussion group, then
the computer or other information appliance used by the child
could be set by the parent to screen out the objectionable
content.  Such features can often be protected with passwords
which would be assigned, for example, by the responsible adults in
the house.  Second, the same systems can be used to enable
blocking of content based on third-party rating systems.  For
example, those parents who accept TV Guide's judgment about the
presence of nudity and/or violence in particular programs, could
program their interactive TV sets to screen out all programs that
TV Guide has classified as violent.  The Senate has made no
attempt to review the existence or sufficiency of these technical
capabilities or their empowering characteristics for parents.
  


 Larry Sites  JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 
 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery
___
 * WR 1.31 # 398 * That which exists is allowed.
--- FMailX/386 1.0g
 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924  (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 
9 25 31
SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50
@PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851


----------------------------------------------------------------------
(322)   Fri 16 Jun 95 22:19                             
By: LARRY SITES
To: ALL
Re: S. bill illegal 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:602e 1ed0b260
Conclusion 
==========

        The Alliance for Community Media decision has already been
reported widely in the press as a defeat for the civil liberties
community and a broadening of the government's ability to restrict
indecency in the media.  This, unfortunately, is true. However,
the decision also clearly establishes the unconstitutionality of
the Communications Decency Act and makes a good case for the study
proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy -- S. 714 The Child Protection,
User Empowerment, and Free Expression in Interactive Media Study
Bill.  That provision would permit a study of the means available
to protect children while maintaining a commitment to the First
Amendment rights of adults. 

        The two attached letters include lists of organizations that 
have
taken a position against the Communications Decency Act and in
support of the Leahy alternative.

For more information contact:
People For the American Way: (202) 467-4999
Jill Lesser -- jlessern@counsel.com
Leslie Harris -- laharris@tmn.com
Center for Democracy & Technology: (202) 637-9800
Daniel Weitzner -- djw@cdt.org
Jerry Berman -- berman@cdt.org

====================================================================

                                        April 27, 1995

Dear Senator:

        We write on behalf of a diverse coalition of civil liberties,
education, library,  other civic organizations, as well as
commercial producers and distributors of entertainment, 
information and works of art and journalists to express our strong
belief that the Communications Decency Act of 1995 (the "Act")
(currently sections 401 through 408 of S. 652) violates the First
Amendment rights of all Americans.  In the name of protecting
children, the Act which was added as an amendment to
telecommunications reform legislation, criminalizes the exchange
of First Amendment-protected material between adults and restricts
the broad range of material available by computer to only that
which is deemed appropriate for children.

        We agree with the sponsors of  the legislation that there are
many  problems inherent in allowing access by our nation's
children to material that may be physiologically or emotionally
harmful.  And we recognize that the computer age has brought with
it many new questions about the ways in which parents can protect
their own children.  However, the Communications Decency Act will
not accomplish the goals of  protecting children, will stifle the
development of new technology empowering users, including parents
to define their limits in cyberspace and, instead, will virtually
destroy the exploding world of on line communications.  

        Grafted onto a twenty-five year old provision of the
Communications Act of 1934 which was designed for the specific
purpose of preventing children's access to dial-a-porn services
and protecting people from harassing phone calls, the
Communications Decency Act  fails to accomplish the goals being
advanced by its sponsors, and it is unconstitutional on its face. 
The Act makes it a crime to produce or distribute by
telecommunications device any "indecent" communications that may
be accessible by a minor.  It also bans the dissemination of  "any
comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other
communications which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or
indecent."  These crimes are punishable by up to two years in jail
and a fine of up to $100,000.

        Contrary to the implications of much of the media coverage, 
the
Act is not merely about sex and pornography.  It covers virtually
all areas of speech.  It is also not just about cyberspace -- it
covers every "telecommunications device" and every organization,
large or small, with e-mail.  It would affect much more than
children by restricting private e-mail communications between
consenting adults. The Communications Decency Act also violates
the First Amendment rights of adults to see, hear and read
material -- as they choose -- that is not legally obscene.  There
is a broad range of material with sexual content that is
inappropriate for minors but important for adults, including
novels, sex education material, movies, videos and recordings. 
Adults do not lose their First Amendment rights because these
works are being transmitted in a new medium. 
          
        We recognize that the rapid spread of computer technology has
made it more difficult for parents to stop their children from
gaining access to inappropriate material, but computer experts are
already developing tools to help them.  This technology will put
the power to censor in the only place that it belongs -- in the
hands of parents. In addition,  legislation already exists in all
50 states, as well as on the federal level, to ensure that
material that is harmful to minors does not get into the hands of
minors.  To the extent that any additional legislative tools are
needed to help enforce existing laws in the information age, they
must be the result of careful analysis and public debate.

        The fast-paced development of the Internet and the immense
opportunities it holds for economic development, education and
civic participation have captured the nation's imagination.  The
freedom with which ideas flow on the Internet is unprecedented in
human history.  The Communications Decency Act attacks this
freedom.  Like the United States, the Internet cannot survive
without free speech.



 Larry Sites  JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 
 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery
___
 * WR 1.31 # 398 * Creationists prove the universe is winding down.
--- FMailX/386 1.0g
 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924  (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 
9 25 31
SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50
@PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851


----------------------------------------------------------------------
(323)   Fri 16 Jun 95 22:20                             
By: LARRY SITES
To: ALL
Re: S. bill illegal 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:a26f 1ed0b280
        We urge you to oppose the Communications Decency Act and to
demand careful  consideration of the important issues it tries to
address.

Sincerely,

ACLU
Alliance for Community Media
American Arts Alliance
American Association of Law Libraries
American Association of University Professors
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Library Association
American Society of Journalists and Authors
Association of American Publishers Inc.
Association of Performing Arts Presenters
Association of Research Libraries
Author's Guild
Center for Democracy and Technology
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Council of American Literary Magazines and Presses
Dance-USA
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Feminists for Free Expression
Freedom to Read Foundation
Human Rights Watch
Index on Censorship
Institute for Justice 
Literary Network
Magazine Publishers of America
Media Access Project
Media Alliance
National Alliance of Media Arts and Culture
National Association of Artist Organizations
National Campaign for Freedom of Expression
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Federation of Community Broadcasters
National Writer's Union
OMNI Magazine
OPERA America
PEN American Center
People for the American Way Action Fund
Periodical and Book Association of America Inc.
Recording Industry of America
Software Publishers Association
Theater Communications Group
The Society of Professional Journalists

==================================================================

Delivered to the U.S. Senate:

                                                        May 22, 1995

Dear Senator______:

We write to urge you to support S. 714, the "Child Protection, 
User Empowerment, and Free Expression in Interactive Media Study 
Bill" (S. 714) introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).  The 
legislation would require the Department of Justice and Commerce 
Departments to conduct a study of how to limit childrens' access 
to "violent, sexually-explicit, harassing, offensive, or 
otherwise unwanted material" consistent with the First Amendment 
and the free exchange of ideas.

As communications and computer firms, content providers, 
advertisers, trade associations and public interest organizations 
who have been working on various aspects of this issue, we 
believe that new interactive media raise many difficult, 
challenging issues regarding the protection of free speech, 
privacy, and access to controversial material.  Thus, we stand 
ready to work with the Administration and the Congress to explore 
all aspects of this issue as outlined in S. 714.

Legislation affecting the Internet and other new media is 
difficult to craft because of the need to reconcile a panoply of 
competing interests.  Among the interests that we believe must be 
satisfied are:

1.      Free speech and free press in interactive media  The 
First Amendment rights of both private individuals and commercial 
information providers must be fully protected;

2.      Child protection technology means should be available to 
enable parents to control children's access to material which 
parents find inappropriate;

3.      Service provider liability to assure the free flow of 
information and remove incentives to invade user's privacy, law 
must not force service providers into the position of being 
private censors.

4.      Privacy Individuals have both a free speech and privacy 
right to conduct private communications that may be considered 
offensive to others.

S. 714 identifies a number of critical questions that we believe 
deserve thorough study and  discussion.  First, is current law 
adequate to enable prosecution of child pornography and 
distribution of obscenity in online environments?  As has 
recently come to light, the Justice Department claims that it is 
vigorously prosecuting child pornographers and those who violate 
obscenity law.  Is more needed? Second, does law enforcement need 
more resources to investigate and prosecute under current law?

Finally, how can interactive technology itself help to resolve 
the issue.  As you may know,  there are technological means and 
user controls to enable parents to block access to objectionable 
materials, including material that is "violent, 
sexually-explicit, harassing, offensive, or otherwise unwanted."  
 Are such technologies and user controls available widely enough? 
 Are they easy enough for parents to use?  What steps can be taken
 to encourage the development of easy-to-use blocking technology. 
 We believe that interactive technology, in combination with 
voluntary industry standards, public education, and law, can 
resolve these access issues. 

For the above reasons, we urge you and others in the Senate to 
support S. 714. We believe the study will help both to develop 
broad understanding of the social, policy and technology 
challenges of new media as well as help policy makers formulate 
alternatives which best serve the public interest.  We are 
anxious to work with you to achieve these goals.


Sincerely,

American Advertising Federation
American Association of Advertising   
    Agencies
American Library Association
American Society of Newspaper Editors
Association of National Advertisers, Inc.
Association of Research Libraries 
Business Software Alliance
Center for Democracy and Technology
Computer and Communications Industry 
   Association
Direct Marketing Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Feminists For Free Expression
Magazine Publishers of America
Media Access Project
National Public Telecomputing Network
Newspaper Association of America
People For the American Way Action Fund
Recreational Software Advisory Counsel
Software Publishers Association
Times Mirror      


Return to the Communications Decency Act Page
Return to the CDT Home Page Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery ___ * WR 1.31 # 398 * Zen Buddhist Pizza: "Make me one with everything!" --- FMailX/386 1.0g * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 25 31 SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50 @PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (324) Fri 16 Jun 95 22:26 By: LARRY SITES To: ALL Re: Exon's "blue" book ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:562b 1ed0b340 ======== Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female Subject: Re: MORE ON EXON'S ANTI SMUT BILL (THE NOOSE TIGHTENS) From: hatch@widomaker.com (Hank Hatch) Date: 16 Jun 1995 13:45:36 GMT In article <3rnusd$eot@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, frplayguy@aol.com says... > >This transcript is from the Omaha World Herald (6/14/95): > > >EXON 'BLUE BOOK' BOLSTERS CASE FOR INTERNET PORN BILL > > Washington--As Sen. J.J. Exon,D-Neb.,seeks Senate passage of his bill >to clean up the Internet,one of his most effective tools is a loose-leaf >binder he calls "the blue book". > The binder contains copies of pornographic photographs and other >materials that Exon says are readily available on the global computer >network. Exon said Tuesday that he has shown the blue book in private to >about a dozen senators to illustrate the need for his Communications >Decency Act. > All have reacted with "total shock",he said. > "I really don't believe (most senators) understand the depths of >depravity that's available",Exon said. "They think it's just pictures of >naked women". > Exon's legislation is part of a larger bill to overhaul federal >telecommunications law and to eliminate many existing regulations. His >proposal,however,would impose new rules on the unregulated Internet,making >it a crime to transmit obscene or indecent material using a computer. > The Senate is expected to vote soon on the issue. Meanwhile,Exon >reached agreement Tuesday with Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind. on changes designed >to solidify support from conservative and religious groups. > "This is'nt a cure-all",Exon said. "But it's an important step in the >right direction". > Exon's "blue book" includes a lengthy index of computer "bulletin >boards" that Internet users can access on particular sexual topics. The >book also includes some of the explicit photographs of sexual organs and >sexual acts,including bondage and bestiality,that computer users can >download and view. > Sen. Bob Kerry, D-Neb.,is one senator who has been influenced by Exon's >presentation. He said he initially did not support Exon's proposal because >of concern it would restrict free speech. > But after Exon showed him the binder Friday,kerry said,he became >convinced that something is needed to prevent children from obtaining >access to computer-distributed pornography.He said he expects that he will >support the final version of Exon's plan,which has been modified several >times. > > > > > >******************************************************************** ****** >******************************************************************** ****** * >*********** > > >FIX PROPOSED FOR CYBERPORN > > As Congress takes up a new telecommunications law and accompanying >proposals to ban pornography from cyberspace,a group of companies has >proposed a technical fix. > Software giant Microsoft Corp. has joined with Netscape Communications >and a small Seattle-based company,Progressive Networks,to develop a >software standard to enable parents to shut off children's access to >computer porn,which is widely available as photos and text on the >Internet. > One way the system might work is that ratings of content would be >provided voluntarily by host computers putting information on the >Internet,Rob Glaser,chief executive of Progressive Networks,said Tuesday. >Parents could adjust software on their home computers to permit access >only to what does'nt offend them. > Glaser sad groups such as the National Education Association or The >Christian Coalition might be called on to issue such ratings. Dozen's of >group' views could be included. > The three companies expect to have a report on standards by the end of >the year. > Some critics say legislation,not voluntary and blocking software,is >needed. > > > >******************************************************************** ****** >******************************************************************** ****** * >*********** > > >Normally,I would'nt throw in my 2 cents worth,but these events are so >frightening,I just HAVE to say something (while I'm still allowed to). >People,this is an obvious move to control what is the last remaining truly >free forum available to the human race. They claim to want to provide >protection for the children,but in doing so,they consider you ALL as >children who need to be protected from themselves. The previous text >obviously shows that the "powers that be" are frightened of the Internet >because it is not under their control. So to "correct" that,the government >sets out to literally rewrite the very structure of the Internet,so that >it and all that goes on it can be monitored and controlled. >Meanwhile,megabillion dollar corporations plan to join forces with the >Christain Coalition, (which is run by "700 Club" televangelist Pat >Robertson and his minions) to decide what shall be deemed "good" or "bad" >for you to see or read (they claim that they will consult with other >groups,but what that means is that they will work with various >pro-censorship groups--it is safe to assume that none of YOUR views will >be listened to). > >People,not to overdramatize the situation,but this really IS our darkest >hour. Are you just going to sit there while they make slaves out of you? >The Internet as it now stands is free in more ways than one. If the >polititions,corporations,and religious activists get their way,the net >will not be free under ANY definition of the word! > > >******************************************************************** ** ********************************************************************* * Wedenesday I took my visitors to Washington DC on a siteseeing tour. We stepped into the capitol and toured the building. Then we visited the Senate Chambers where the current discussion was the internet and the EXON bill. I was amazed at the fact that in this room there was a small group of older conservative senators deciding the fate of our internet. As I listened it was immediately obvious that the majority had "NO CLUE" as to what is on the internet and what it can be used for. Exon offered his blue book and showed a chart of a child accessing the pornography bbs's. Being a netsurfer and frequenting all area's of the internet this was all of great interest. How long are these old conservative people going to keep our country repressed and from advancing technologically. The other amazing thing is that out of the 100+ senators which will cast their vote 10 at most were present. I noticed 1 or 2 of them just sitting reading magazines. Others were clearly researching and/or reading something else! Those absent will rush back in to cast their vote depending on who has paid for what back home, never once using the internet themselves. What a show!! Get ready!!! Your federal internet tax is due right around the corner!! Good thing for those poor children!! If you want to send porn you can still buy a stamp and "UNCLE" will send it anywhere for you!! Maybe they will find a way to use a stamp system for every email!! If you want to look at the human body you can go down to your local drug store and buy a magazine and kill some tree's. But don't use this "NEW" computer stuff in the comfort of your own home!! If you want to talk dirty pay your irc tax!!! Or use a 900 number instead!!! Soon "UNCLE" will be knocking at my door for writing something like this!! Good Luck to all!! Surf hard now!! "UNCLE" is about to pull the plug!!! For us americans anyway!!! Will "UNCLE" try to screw it up for the rest of the world too!! Maybe they will take some young american boys from "The body pool" and we can fight a war for internet control!! Maybe on my next visit to DC I can visit the Internet War Memorial!! This is just the beginning!! ********************************************************************* ** Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery ___ * WR 1.31 # 398 * Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change --- FMailX/386 1.0g * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 25 31 SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50 @PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (325) Sat 17 Jun 95 0:00 By: LARRY SITES To: ALL Re: Senate saves? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @EID:ecc8 1ed10000 Just what the hell are the dumbfucks in the Senate trying to do, besides suck up to the religious right, that is? Well supposedly they are trying to "save" the young from the evils of porn, right. Wouldn't it be logical to determine if there WERE ANY to start with? Just like the fundis who claim their god does this or that without first establishing that it exists. It is obvious to me that this "evil" of porn is nothing but the religious "tradition" of depreciating sex from the free expression of a normal physical act to an intregrated set of rules for controlling every aspect of peoples lives. But on to the issue at hand. Supposedly there have been a few cases where kids were "lured" into the evils of sex by the nets. The 6-13-95 San Diego _Union-Tribune_ ComputerLink page 3 carried an AP article, "FBI warns parents after teens run away" about 2 teens that ran away from home after being "lured" away by people they met in on-line chat rooms. The latest case was a 13 year old girl who went from Louisville, Ky to Hollywood, Ca. The FBI said, "This case...demonstrates the need for parents to provide oversight and guidance to their children in the use of computers". She left home about 2 months after getting a computer with America OnLine and Prodigy. After she left her mom spent "hours on end" looking for clues on the computer. She found "sexually explicit images that had found their way across the family's modem during the dozens of hours her daughter spend on the computer". Give me a fucking break, what kind of reporter writes this crap? And THEN, the mom is quoted as saying, "I'm like, 'How can this stuff be on a computer?" And the local police chief says, "The computer - that's what started this problem." AOL has "parental controls" to prevent kids from using the chat rooms. The article said that the mom "said she hadn't known about them." I happened to catch this girl being interviewed on tv where she said something to the effect that men promise you anything but they are after only one thing. Now I ask you, is this closing the barn door after the horse is gone or what? I'm like, how can parents be so fucking dumb? If we REALLY wanted to protect kids, we ought to require a parenting test before they are ever spawned. Airhead mom can find "hours on end" to delve into the binary bowels of that evil pc AFTER her kid is run off but can't take 5 FUCKING minutes to read the damn warning labels! Hell the supposed dangers of the net are on the 5 o'clock news almost every night these days, yet it never entered her mind to PREVENT them! And just what the hell kind of parent doesn't warn their 13 year old daughter about "men that promise anything but want only one thing"? Now because idiots like this should not EVEN BE PARENTS, adults have to act like kids in sunday school to FUCKING "protect" them! The problem is not porn. The problem is not computer access, services like AOL ALLREADY have the tools for parents to control what their kids are exposed to. The PROBLEM is the FUCKING PARENTS FAILURE to be RESPONSIBLE! Now if the religious REALLY wanted to "protect" kids they ought to go after the problem. But NO, that might backfire and harm their desire to be just as irresponsible to educate their kids in logical thinking vs dogmatic superstitious morality and besides if they go after porn they can ENFORCE THEIR PRUDISH PERVERTED so called morality upon ADULTS that would choose otherwise if given the choice. And the DUMBFUCK senators bought into it! They pass some vague "decency" law that prohibits " any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person" so they can buy religious votes paid for with public funds used to determine the thing unconstitutional and then they will blame it's demise on the liberals and the ACLU. Just think Fundi fools, if this thing becomes law, it would even prevent you from quoting your WHOLLY BABBLE to "threaten" unbelievers with hell or justify your "abusive" categorization of them as "sinners". Your Babble could no longer be legally on-line because it contains such "filthy and indecent" descriptions of piss, dung, donkey dicks, "coming unto and knowing" aka as fucking, spilling your "seed" aka sperm on the floor to avoid pregnancy, and referring to people as worm dirt and "filthy rags" aka used Kotex. Get a fucking clue, you can no longer force everyone to believe in your superstition. Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery ___ * WR 1.31 # 398 * I am Jesus of Borg. Prepare to be saved. --- FMailX/386 1.0g * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 850 851 861 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 25 31 SEEN-BY: 280/45 53 115 135 333 343 378 398 290/627 396/1 3615/50 @PATH: 202/212 203 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 851

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank