Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 13:33:18 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <owner-comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V6#056
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 20 Jun 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 056
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
EFF Analysis of Senate Comm. Decency Act
Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Date: 17 Jun 1995 13:53:23 -0400
Subject: EFF Analysis of Senate Comm. Decency Act
Begin forwarded message:
[moderator: This is just one (large) portion of the EFFector Online
Volume 08 No. 10 June 16, 1995 editors@eff.org A Publication of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424]
IN THIS ISSUE:
EFF Analysis of Communications Decency Act as Passed by Senate
Next Steps in Opposing the Communications Decency Act
Background
The Latest News
What You Can Do Now
For More Information
List Of Participating Organizations
[...]
Administrivia
* See http://www.eff.org/Alerts/ or ftp.eff.org, /pub/Alerts/ for more
information on current EFF activities and online activism alerts! *
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: EFF Analysis of Communications Decency Act as Passed by Senate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY AMENDMENT:
A LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS BY THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
INTRODUCTION
On June 14, 1995, the United States Senate approved by a vote of 84-16
an amendment to the Senate's omnibus telecommunications-deregulation
bill that raises grave Constitutional questions and poses great risks
for the future of freedom of speech on the nation's
computer-communications forums.
Sponsored by Sen. Jim Exon (D-Nebraska), the amendment originated as an
independent bill titled Communications Decency Act of 1995 (CDA), and
is intended, according to its sponsor, both to prohibit "the [computer]
equivalent of obscene telephone calls" and to prohibit the distribution
to children of materials with sexual content.
As drafted, however, the legislation not only fails to solve the
problems it is intended to address, but it also imposes content
restrictions on computer communications that would chill
First-Amendment-protected speech and, in effect, restrict adults in the
public forums of computer networks to writing and reading only such
content as is suitable for children.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CDA
The Communications Decency Act would change the language of Title 47,
United States Code, Section 223, a section that primarily does two
things:
1) it prohibits "obscene or harassing" phone calls and other, similar,
abusive uses of the telephone, and
2) it imposes regulation (promulgated and administered by the Federal
Communications Commission) on telephone services that provide so-called
"indecent" content and prohibits those services from providing legally
obscene content.
The amending language drafted by Sen. Exon and passed by the Senate
substantially restructures and alters the provisions of this section in
an effort to bring computer communications under the statute. If the
Senate-approved language becomes law, provisions in the amended statute
will:
(a) Expand the scope of the statute from telephones to "telecommunications
devices" (such as computers, modems, and the data servers and conferencing
systems used by Internet sites and by commercial providers like America
Online and CompuServe);
(b) Define as a criminal offense any communication that is legally obscene
or indecent if that communication is sent over a telecommunications device
"with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person";
(c) Penalize any person or entity who, by use of a telecommunication
device, "knowingly ... makes or makes available" any content or material
that is legally obscene; and
(d) Penalize any person or entity who "knowingly ... makes or makes
available" to a person under the age of 18 any content or material that is
"indecent."
The CDA outlines affirmative defenses for persons or entities who might
otherwise be liable under the statute's criminal provisions.
In spite of the efforts of Sen. Exon to address in this revision of his
legislation those criticisms and constitutional issues raised by earlier
drafts of it, the language of the CDA as passed by the Senate is riddled
with flaws that threaten the First Amendment rights both of online service
providers and of individual citizens.
THE CDA WOULD CRIMINALIZE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH.
None of the CDA's prohibitions of "obscene" communications raise any
constitutional issues; it is well-settled law that obscene content is not
protected under the Constitution. In contrast, CDA's restrictions on
"indecent" speech are deeply problematic.
What is "indecent" speech and what is its significance? In general,
"indecent" speech is nonobscene material that deals explicitly with sex
or that uses profane language. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated
that such "indecency" is Constitutionally protected. Further, the Court
has stated that indecent speech cannot be banned altogether -- not even
in broadcasting, the single communications medium in which the federal
government traditionally has held broad powers of content control.
The section of the CDA dealing with "obscene or harassing"
communications penalizes not only the sending of "obscene"
communications, but also those that are "indecent." This prohibition of
indecent content, even though limited somewhat in application by the
section's intent requirement, is unconstitutional on its face.
In Sable Communications v. FCC (1989), a case involving dial-in
phone-sex services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, even though a ban
on *obscenity* in "dial-a-porn" services is constitutional, a ban on
*indecency* is not. Citing earlier holdings, the Court said that
"[t]he government may not reduce the adult population to only what is
fit for children."
What are some examples of "indecent" content? The most famous example
probably is the George Carlin comedy monologue that was the basis of
the Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation (1978). In that
monologue, Carlin discusses the "Seven Dirty Words" that cannot be
uttered in broadcast media. Other examples of "indecency" could include
passages from John Updike or Erica Jong novels, certain rock lyrics,
and Dr. Ruth Westheimer's sexual-advice column. Under the CDA, it would
be criminal to "knowingly" publish such material on the Internet unless
children were affirmatively denied access to it. It's as if the manager
of a Barnes & Noble outlet could be sent to jail simply because
children could wander the bookstore's aisles and search for the racy
passages in a Judith Krantz or Harold Robbins novel.
The Supreme Court has consistently held, both before and after its
landmark obscenity decision in Miller v. California (1973), that while
sexual material and profane language can be regulated in some
specifically defined contexts (e.g., the FCC can require that
"indecent" content in broadcasting be limited to certain hours of the
broadcasting schedule when children are less likely to be exposed), in
general indecency is fully protected by the First Amendment. The Court
has even recognized that profane language may be essential to political
speech, since the emotional power of particular words may be as
important as their intellectual content. As Justice Harlan commented in
Cohen v. California (1971), "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric."
It's important to note that not every application of this part of the
CDA would be unconstitutional. If the "obscene or harassing" offense
language been limited to instances in which the speaker intends to
"threaten," it would have raised no constitutional problems. (A threat
of blackmail or physical violence, for example, is not protected
speech.) But the CDA goes beyond threats -- it criminalizes the use of
"indecent" language even when the speaker merely intends for his
content to be "annoying," and this
prohibition treads squarely on speakers' First Amendment rights. After
all, the First Amendment was drafted to protect offensive, annoying,
and disturbing speech -- there is little need for protection of
pleasant and uncontroversial speech, since few people feel impelled to
ban it. As Justice Douglas observed in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949),
free speech "may best serve its high purpose when it induces a
condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they
are, or even stirs people to anger." For example, a citizen offended by
the passage of the CDA who shouts an indecent comment at his U.S.
Senator may very well intend to annoy the Senator -- nevertheless, such
expression is protected under the First Amendment. It is
constitutionally absurd that speech that would be protected if shouted
on the street would turn the speaker into a felon if sent by e-mail.
BY GRANTING THE FCC REGULATORY CONTROL OVER THE CONTENT AND
AVAILABILITY OF COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS, THE CDA VIOLATES THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
Is it constitutional for Congress to declare that computer
communications are a medium like broadcasting, where it is allowable
for the FCC to impose content-related regulations? Clearly not. Prior
to Sen. Exon's proposed changes to Section 223, the FCC has had content
control over only two specific types of communications media:
(1) broadcasting media like TV and radio (and broadcasting-related
technologies, such as cable TV), and
(2) the narrow class of telephone-based commercial services that
requires the assistance and support of government-regulated common
carriers.
In no other communications medium does the government have the
constitutional authority to impose broad regulation of indecent
content.
The justification for the federal government's special role in
regulation of broadcasting is twofold. The first rationale for such a
broad regulatory role was the "scarcity of frequencies" argument, which
appears the Supreme Court's decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v.
FCC (1969). In that case, the Court held that there is a finite number
of workable broadcasting frequencies, and that the scarcity of this
important public resource entails that the airwaves be allocated and
supervised by the federal government in order to best serve the public
interest. The second rationale for a special government role in
broadcasting appears in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (the "Seven Dirty
Words" case discussed above). In this case the Court argued that
broadcasting is an especially "pervasive" medium that intrudes into the
privacy of the home, creating a constant risk that adults will be
exposed to offensive material, and children to indecent material,
without warning.
The justification for regulation of the telephone-based services is
grounded in the government's special role in supervising common
carriers. Since the telephone systems of this country, many of which
amount to monopolies, are common carriers, they are appropriately under
the jurisdiction of the FCC. It makes sense for phone-sex services,
which rely on the cooperation of common carriers, to fall under FCC
jurisdiction as well.
*Neither the broadcasting rationales nor the common-carrier rationale
support government content control over computer communications.*
First of all, the new medium of computer-based communications -- which
may take place over everything from large-scale Internet access
providers and commercial conferencing systems to the PC-based
bulletin-board system running in a hobbyist's basement -- isn't
afflicted with "scarcity." Computing hardware itself is increasingly
inexpensive, for example, and one of the basic facts of modern computer
communication is that whenever you add a computer to the Internet, you
*increase* the Internet's size and capabilities.
Secondly, computer-based communications aren't "pervasive" as that term is
used in the Pacifica case. In the world of broadcasting, content is
"pushed" at audiences by TV and radio stations and broadcasting networks
-- audiences are primarily passive recipients of programming. In computer
communications, in contrast, content is *pulled* by users from various
locations and resources around the globe through the Internet or from the
huge data servers maintained by services like Prodigy and American Online.
Exposure to content is primary *driven by user choice*. For users with
even minimal experience, there is little risk of unwitting exposure to
offensive or indecent material.
Finally, online service providers aren't common carriers and don't want
to be -- it is the nature of this kind of service that providers must
reserve the right to make certain basic choices about content. In
contrast, a common carrier like AT&T or BellSouth has to "take all
comers." (If online service providers were treated as common carriers,
we might imagine a day when the FCC requires that an NAACP-sponsored
BBS carry hateful messages from members of the Ku Klux Klan.)
In sum, the narrow constitutional justifications for content regulation
of two specific types of media do not extend to the traditional print
media, films or oral conversations. Clearly, there is no Constitutional
rationale for extending intrusive content-regulatory control to online
communications. This means that the CDA's "shoehorning" of online
communications into the jurisdiction of the FCC is itself
unconstitutional.
It is clear that Congress could not constitutionally grant the FCC the
power to tell The New Yorker not to print profane language -- even
though *children* might come across a copy of The New Yorker. Surely it
is equally clear that Congress cannot grant the FCC the authority to
dictate how providers like Netcom and CompuServe handle content that
contains such language.
COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS POSE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS AND REQUIRE DIFFERENT
SOLUTIONS FROM THOSE OF OTHER MEDIA.
Even if the federal government had the constitutional authority to
regulate indecency in computer communications, it would be required by
the First Amendment to employ only the "least restrictive means" in
doing so. In the Sable case, Court noted that there are less
restrictive means than a total ban for protecting children from
indecent content on phone-sex services. These include such measures as
requiring various procedures to verify customers' ages and to deny
services to minors.
The Exon language creates an affirmative defense for online service
providers who implement the same types of procedures that the FCC now
requires of phone-sex services. But what works for phone-sex services
clearly would not work for computer-communications services. In this
fundamentally different medium, those FCC-enforced procedures are not a
"least restrictive means" -- in fact, they are potentially among the
most restrictive.
The language that penalizes anyone who "makes or makes available"
indecent content to a minor would require an access provider like
Netcom to cease carrying the entire alt.sex.* hierarchy, the great
majority of which is First-Amendment-protected speech. Suppose Netcom
tried to avail itself of legal immunity for transmitting indecency by,
say, limiting subscriber access to the "indecent" Usenet newsgroups to
Netcom subscribers age 18 or over. Since Netcom, like all Internet
access providers, is also a Usenet distribution node, *the company
would still be liable*, since, by passing "indecent" Usenet traffic
through, it would "make available" that indecent content to minors
elsewhere on the Net who aren't Netcom customers.
Note: this analysis is not meant to imply that *no* government
regulation of computer communications would meet the "least restrictive
means." As a practical matter, this medium is *uniquely suited* to
measures that simultaneously protect sensitive users and children from
offensive content and allow the full range of constitutionally
protected speech on the Net. Since both the computers that users employ
to read the Net and those that providers use to administer the Net are
highly intelligent and programmable devices, it is relatively easy to
design tools that individuals can use to filter offensive content and
that parents can use to screen content for their children. The
government's promotion of the development and implementation of such
tools, if done in a way consistent with First Amendment guarantees,
would likely qualify as a "least restrictive means."
Furthermore, there are constitutional reasons for favoring policies
that empower individuals and families to make their own content
choices. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court acknowledged
that the right of parents to determine what is appropriate for their
children is constitutionally protected. Filtering tools could be the
fundamental means of preserving family values while exploring global
computer networks.
ADULTS SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO ONLY WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN.
The effect of the CDA's provisions regarding indecent content and
minors would be both dramatic and disastrous. If enacted, the CDA would
effectively turn all the public areas of the Net -- and all of the
distributed global conferencing system known as Usenet -- into the
equivalent of the Children's Room at the public library. Traditionally,
every large public library has a Children's Room -- a confined area of
the library with content deemed safe for children. Outside of the
Children's Room, the rest of the library is geared toward, and
available to, adults.
The Exon language would turn the Net as a whole into the *inverse* of
the public library -- the public spaces, including Usenet, would be
regulated as safe for children, while adults would have to talk about
adult content (detailed discussions of sexual content in the work of
James Joyce, explanations of Shakespeare's bawdy puns, or descriptions
of proper techniques for safe sex, to name some examples) in confined,
nonpublic (and probably non-global) subforums or "rooms." There would
be no more wide-ranging debates with the full set of potential
international participants about the merits of THE SATANIC VERSES --
after all, that book has indecent content. We'd have to be content with
the narrower range of participants we could lure to an "adult" room on
CompuServe or AOL -- a small group of paying subscribers rather than a
large population of discussants from commercial and noncommercial
systems alike. The CDA would diminish and perhaps destroy the
intellectual diversity and vibrancy of the Net.
CONCLUSION
The CDA represents the kind of "top-down," government-centered attempt
to regulate the content that demonstrates a lack of understanding of
the nature of this new medium. Legislation like the CDA -- particular
when based on regulatory approaches for wholly different media -- are
certain to create more practical and constitutional problems than they
solve. It is especially ironic that the Exon amendment, which would
chill the development of online services and communities and "dumb
down" the content of the Net's public spaces to a grade-school level,
has been attached to a bill deregulating communications infrastructure.
This deregulation has been presented as a boost to the pace of
development of the very technology to support these services and
communities.
EFF believes that parents, not Congress or the FCC, have the primary
right and responsibility to determine what is appropriate for their
children to see. Furthermore, it is clearly wrong for Congress to
attempt to make outlaws out of adults for engaging in public speech
that may not be suitable for minors. As Supreme Court Justice Felix
Frankfurter ruled in Butler v. Michigan (1957):
"The State insists that, by thus quarantining the general reading
public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order to
shield juvenile innocence, it is exercising its power to promote the
general welfare. Surely this is to burn the house to roast the pig. The
incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population of
Michigan to reading only what is fit for children."
And a legislative approach that was bad for the adult population of
Michigan nearly 40 years ago is surely just as bad for the adult
population of the Net today.
For More Information Contact:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Mike Godwin Shari Steele (voice) +1.202.861.7700
******************************************************************
COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY AMENDMENT -- FULL TEXT OF FINAL LANGUAGE PASSED BY
THE U.S. SENATE ON JUNE 14, 1995
The text of the Communications Decency Amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jim
Exon (D-Nebraska).
This language was passed by the US Senate on June 14th.
-------------------------------------------------------
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;
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 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."
------------------------------
Subject: Next Steps in Opposing the Communications Decency Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/GORTON COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
(SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END)
Update: -The Latest News: The Senate voted to attach the
Communications Decency Act to the Telecom Reform bill.
Leahy's alternative was not attached to the Telecom
Reform bill.
-What You Can Do Now
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
June 14, 1995
PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL June 25, 1995
REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS
Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org)
________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Background
The Latest News
What You Can Do Now
For More Information
List Of Participating Organizations
________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The Communications Decency Act (sponsored by Sen. Exon and Gorton) would
criminalize many forms of expression on online systems. Many believe
it to be unconstitutional, and a fight to oppose it has been waged
since its introduction. It was recently attached to the fast-tracked
Telecommunications Deregulation bill, which is moving quickly through
Congress.
[EFF Note: The telecom "deregulation" bill passed the Senate on the 15th.]
________________________________________________________________________
THE LATEST NEWS
Right up until the last minute, callers reported weary Senatorial
staffers continued to report a deluge of incoming calls, almost all
against the Exon/Coats bill and supporting the Leahy alternative. The
Senate debated the Exon/Coats/Gorton Communications Decency Act and the
Leahy alternative today (June 14, 1995) starting at about 3:30pm EST
for 90 minutes.
The debate was opened by Senator Exon who read a prayer to protect
against computer pornography. Senators Exon (D-NE) and Coats (R-IN)
spoke in favor of their position. Senator Gorton (R-WA) was
mysteriously absent from the debate.
Exon referred those that signed the petition to prevent his censorship
bill as "selfish". Exon presented letters from many groups in support
of his bill, including the Christian Coalition, the Family Research
Council, the National Law Center for Families. He also stated that
75% of computer owners have refused the join the Internet because the
obscene material they feared on the Internet.
Senators Byrd (D-WV) and Heflin (D-AL) cosponsored the Exon bill at
the last minute.
Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Feingold (D-WI) spoke passionately about the
First Amendment and the Internet. Feingold warned against the dangers
of chilling free speech. Leahy brought out the monster petition in
support of his alternative (it looks pretty impressive on television)
and proceeded to try to debunk the myths Exon promulgated about the
Internet. He also trumpeted the success of the Internet, and pointed
out it wouldn't have been nearly as successful if the US government had
tried to micro-manage it.
Both Exon and Leahy then gave back extra debating time and went to a vote
on the bill. The Exon bill was successfully attached to the Telecomm
Reform bill (84-16). The Leahy alternative was not attached to the
Telecom Reform bill.
Questions and answers:
Q: What does this mean?
A: It means we lost this round. The unconstitutional Exon Communications
Decency Act was attached to the Telecomm Reform bill.
Q: What's the next step?
A: Next, we need to ensure that a House equivalent to the Exon
Communications Decency Act is not attached to the House Telecomm Reform
bill.
Q: Where can I find more information about the bill?
A: Check below.
________________________________________________________________________
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW -- U.S. and non-U.S. citizens
1. Familiarize yourself with the version of the bill that passed,
and the transcript of the Senate debate. (directions to obtain
these are below)
2. Check the voting list below. It wouldn't hurt to send a nice
letter, email, or fax to the Senators that voted to defeat the
Communications Decency Act. Hateful mail to Senators who did
not vote your way is not only *bad form*, but likely to become illegal
soon anyway, under the Communications Decency Act.
In other words, take some time to cool off.
3. If you don't receive Coalition alerts reliably through mail or news,
join the mailing list by sending mail to listproc@vtw.org with
"subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname". We'll have to fight
this battle in the House soon and you should be informed.
4. Relax, it's not the end of the world. We still have this battle to
fight in the House of Representatives and then in the conference
committee. This is a setback, but we haven't lost yet.
________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS OF THE SENATE VOTE
Senators who voted to defeat the Communications Decency Act
(A polite letter to congratulate them for defending your free speech
rights would be appropriate.)
D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax
= == ================== ============== ==============
D CT Lieberman, Joseph I. 1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750
D DE Biden Jr., Joseph R. 1-202-224-5042 1-202-224-0139
D IL Simon, Paul 1-202-224-2152 1-202-224-0868
senator@simon.senate.gov
D IL Moseley-Braun, Carol 1-202-224-2854 1-202-224-2626
D MA Kennedy, Edward M. 1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417
senator@kennedy.senate.gov
D MI Levin, Carl 1-202-224-6221 na
D MN Wellstone, Paul 1-202-224-5641 1-202-224-8438
D NM Bingaman, Jeff 1-202-224-5521 na
Senator_Bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
D NY Moynihan, Daniel P. 1-202-224-4451 na
D OH Glenn, John 1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983
R RI Chafee, John H. 1-202-224-2921 na
D VA Robb, Charles S. 1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689
Senator_Robb@robb.senate.gov
vascr@CapAccess.org
D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
R VT Jeffords, James M. 1-202-224-5141 na
D WA Murray, Patty 1-202-224-2621 1-202-224-0238
D WI Feingold, Russell 1-202-224-5323 na
russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Senators who voted to support the (CDA) Communications Decency Act
(They voted for the CDA and to curtail your free speech rights.
Writing them an impolite and nasty letter would be a bad idea, and
may soon be illegal under the CDA anyway. Take some time to cool down.)
D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax
= == ================== ============== ==============
R AK Murkowski, Frank H. 1-202-224-6665 1-202-224-5301
R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
D AL Heflin, Howell T. 1-202-224-4124 1-202-224-3149
R AL Shelby, Richard C. 1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
D AR Bumpers, Dale 1-202-224-4843 1-202-224-6435
D AR Pryor, David 1-202-224-2353 1-202-224-8261
R AZ Kyl, Jon 1-202-224-4521 1-202-228-1239
R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-602-952-8702
D CA Boxer, Barbara 1-202-224-3553 na
D CA Feinstein, Dianne 1-202-224-3841 1-202-228-3954
R CO Campbell, Ben N. 1-202-224-5852 1-202-225-0228
R CO Brown, Henry 1-202-224-5941 1-202-224-6471
D CT Dodd, Christopher J. 1-202-224-2823 na
R DE Roth Jr. William V. 1-202-224-2441 1-202-224-2805
D FL Graham, Robert 1-202-224-3041 1-202-224-2237
R FL Mack, Connie 1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022
D GA Nunn, Samuel 1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072
R GA Coverdell, Paul 1-202-224-3643 1-202-228-3783
D HI Akaka, Daniel K. 1-202-224-6361 1-202-224-2126
D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
D IA Harkin, Thomas 1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431
R IA Grassley, Charles E. 1-202-224-3744 1-202-224-6020
R ID Craig, Larry E. 1-202-224-2752 1-202-224-2573
R ID Kempthorne, Dirk 1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893
R IN Coats, Daniel R. 1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964
R IN Lugar, Richard G. 1-202-224-4814 1-202-224-7877
R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952
R KS Kassebaum, Nancy L. 1-202-224-4774 1-202-224-3514
D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046
R KY McConnell, Mitch 1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
D LA Breaux, John B. 1-202-224-4623 na
D LA Johnston, J. Bennett 1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
D MA Kerry, John F. 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525
D MD Mikulski, Barbara A. 1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858
D MD Sarbanes, Paul S. 1-202-224-4524 1-202-224-1651
R ME Snowe, Olympia 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-6853
R ME Cohen, William S. 1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693
R MI Abraham, Spencer 1-202-224-4822 1-202-224-8834
R MN Grams, Rod 1-202-224-3244 na
R MO Bond, Christopher S. 1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
R MO Ashcroft, John 1-202-224-6154 na
R MS Cochran, Thad 1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576
R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
D MT Baucus, Max 1-202-224-2651 na
R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594
R NC Faircloth, D. M. 1-202-224-3154 1-202-224-7406
R NC Helms, Jesse 1-202-224-6342 1-202-224-7588
D ND Conrad, Kent 1-202-224-2043 1-202-224-7776
D ND Dorgan, Byron L. 1-202-224-2551 1-202-224-1193
D NE Kerrey, Bob 1-202-224-6551 1-202-224-7645
D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213
R NH Gregg, Judd 1-202-224-3324 1-202-224-4952
R NH Smith, Robert 1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353
D NJ Bradley, William 1-202-224-3224 1-202-224-8567
D NJ Lautenberg, Frank R. 1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
R NM Domenici, Pete V. 1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
D NV Bryan, Richard H. 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867
D NV Reid, Harry 1-202-224-3542 1-202-224-7327
R NY D'Amato, Alfonse M. 1-202-224-6542 1-202-224-5871
R OH Dewine, Michael 1-202-224-2315 1-202-224-6519
R OK Inhofe, James 1-202-224-4721
R OK Nickles, Donald 1-202-224-5754 1-202-224-6008
R OR Hatfield, Mark O. 1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
R OR Packwood, Robert 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-3576
R PA Santorum, Rick 1-202-224-6324 na
R PA Specter, Arlen 1-202-224-4254 1-717-782-4920
D RI Pell, Claiborne 1-202-224-4642 1-202-224-4680
D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
R SC Thurmond, Strom 1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300
D SD Daschle, Thomas A. 1-202-224-2321 1-202-224-2047
R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259*
R TN Thompson, Fred 1-202-224-4944 1-202-228-3679
R TN Frist, Bill 1-202-224-3344 1-202-224-8062
R TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776
R TX Gramm, Phil 1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856
R UT Bennett, Robert 1-202-224-5444 1-202-224-6717
R UT Hatch, Orrin G. 1-202-224-5251 1-202-224-6331
R VA Warner, John W. 1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295
R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393
D WI Kohl, Herbert H. 1-202-224-5653 1-202-224-9787
D WV Byrd, Robert C. 1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 na
R WY Simpson, Alan K. 1-202-224-3424 1-202-224-1315
R WY Thomas, Craig 1-202-224-6441 1-202-224-3230
________________________________________________________________________
FOR MORE INFORMATION
We will be archiving the version of the Communications Decency Act
that passed, the roll call vote that went with it, and the transcript
of the Senate debate.
We will make these available through the methods below as soon as
they are available through the Government Printing Office (this usually
takes about 24 hours). Please try to use the Web or Gopher sites first
before using our email server.
Web Sites
URL:http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon/
URL:http://epic.org/
URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html
FTP Archives
URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/policy/freespeech/00-INDEX.FREESPEECH
URL:ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
Gopher Archives:
URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon
URL:gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/Alerts
Email:
vtw@vtw.org (put "send help" in the subject line)
cda-info@cdt.org (General CDA information)
cda-stat@cdt.org (Current status of the CDA)
________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have
joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the
Communications Decency Act.
American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association *
American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association
of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Californians
Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology *
Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation
* Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Computer Communicators Association *
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection *
Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens'
Movement * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation
* Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers
Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New
Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free
Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against
Censorship * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands
Off! The Net * Human Rights Watch * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle
Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications * Internet
On-Ramp, Inc. * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project *
Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * MindVox * National Bicycle Greenway *
National Coalition Against Censorship * National Public Telecomputing
Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public
Access Internet * People for the American Way * Rock Out Censorship *
Society for Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network *
The WELL * Voters Telecommunications Watch
(Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities,
not EFF chapters or divisions.)
________________________________________________________________________
End Alert
[...]
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed
articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce
signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express
permission. Press releases and EFF announcements may be reproduced individ-
ually at will.
To subscribe to EFFector via email, send message body of "subscribe
effector-online" (without the "quotes") to listserv@eff.org, which will add
you to a subscription list for EFFector.
Back issues are available at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/
To get the latest issue, send any message to effector-reflector@eff.org (or
er@eff.org), and it will be mailed to you automagically. You can also get
the file "current" from the EFFector directory at the above sites at any
time for a copy of the current issue. HTML editions available at:
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/HTML/
at EFFweb.
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 1994 10:50:22 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of
technology on privacy or vice versa. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated).
Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@uwm.edu and administrative
requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu.
This digest is a forum with information contributed via Internet
eMail. Those who understand the technology also understand the ease of
forgery in this very free medium. Statements, therefore, should be
taken with a grain of salt and it should be clear that the actual
contributor might not be the person whose email address is posted at
the top. Any user who openly wishes to post anonymously should inform
the moderator at the beginning of the posting. He will comply.
If you read this from the comp.society.privacy newsgroup and wish to
contribute a message, you should simply post your contribution. As a
moderated newsgroup, attempts to post to the group are normally turned
into eMail to the submission address below.
On the other hand, if you read the digest eMailed to you, you generally
need only use the Reply feature of your mailer to contribute. If you
do so, it is best to modify the "Subject:" line of your mailing.
Contributions to CPD should be submitted, with appropriate, substantive
SUBJECT: line, otherwise they may be ignored. They must be relevant,
sound, in good taste, objective, cogent, coherent, concise, and
nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome, but not personal attacks. Do
not include entire previous messages in responses to them. Include
your name & legitimate Internet FROM: address, especially from
.UUCP and .BITNET folks. Anonymized mail is not accepted. All
contributions considered as personal comments; usual disclaimers
apply. All reuses of CPD material should respect stated copyright
notices, and should cite the sources explicitly; as a courtesy;
publications using CPD material should obtain permission from the
contributors.
Contributions generally are acknowledged within 24 hours of
submission. If selected, they are printed within two or three days.
The moderator reserves the right to delete extraneous quoted material.
He may change the SUBJECT: line of an article in order to make it
easier for the reader to follow a discussion. He will not, however,
alter or edit or append to the text except for purely technical
reasons.
A library of back issues is available on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18].
Login as "ftp" with password identifying yourid@yoursite. The archives
are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy".
People with gopher capability can most easily access the library at
gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Older archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133].
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest
Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu
| Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu
levine@cs.uwm.edu | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V6 #056
******************************
.