TNA-GOLD 1/TNA-GOLD - Volume 1.iso/24hours/24hours1.txt

Text File | 1996-03-18 | 6KB | 112 lines

2/22/96, [e-mail], Herndon, VA USA

The 24 Hours of Democracy project has been a wonderful chance to see a true
grass-roots movement in action.



Overview

People participating in the project have been asked to write essays on the
importance of freedom of speech, democracy, and the internet. All essays
are targeted for release on February 22nd, which is George Washington's
birthday. The 24 Hours of Democracy project was designed to contrast with
the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provisions of the Telecomm bill that
passed in the United States and was signed into law.

History

The CDA is an off-shoot of Senator Exon's earlier attempts to regulate
indecent and obscene works on the internet. In Congressional hearings,
binders with "filth" from the internet were passed around so Congress
members could see just how bad the material on the internet can be.
Portions of Marty Rimm's infamous -- and blatantly incorrect -- internet
sex study were read into the congressional record. Supporters warned of the
dangers of minors getting access to the more adult parts of the 'net.

In addition to regulations against indecency, there are also provisions
(based on the Comstock act) that limit discussion of abortion-related
topics. The indecency provisions are very broad and are not targeted toward
minors. Those against the CDA point to these issues as reasons why they
feel the authors of the Telecomm bill were intent on internet censorship,
and simply used children as an excuse. Many people would prefer a voluntary
rating system and access-limiting software to assist concerned parents.

In some ways the current situation is rich with irony. The "Republican
revolution" focused on getting government to stop intruding on individual's
lives, yet Gingrich is one of the few new Republicans to speak out against
the CDA. The right wing supports the CDA, yet it was Senator Exon, a
Democrat, who worked so hard on this legislation. The radical religious
faction takes credit for the addition of the Comstock provisions and yet
they publish articles supporting a strong First Amendment -- when they find
it supports their anti-abortion agenda. Even more ironic: some early
estimates are that as much as 75% of the banned abortion material is
pro-life. Censorship cuts both ways.

Who cares?

While I was ranting about how disheartened I was to hear the CDA had been
signed into law, a friend said, "Oh, so you're upset because you won't be
able to download any more nude pictures." He completely (and no doubt
intentionally) missed the point.

I've been on the 'net for about 7 years now. I still think of myself as a
newcommer, and remember all of the posts about how the 'net was over
flowing with newbies without a clue. One could say the same today. And yet,
the 'net still continues to thrive. It's growing at a remarkable pace. When
my mother sent me a smiley face (with no coaching from me), I knew a
critical threshold had been passed. URLs are listed in all manner of ads.
email addresses are printed on resumes and business cards. The 'net is no
longer just a cute toy, a haven for geeks, or a virtual community -- though
it is still all of those things. It's also a business place. It's a new
media. It's a testimony to American enterprise and an advertisement for
democracy.

There are enough arguments as to why the CDA is illegal and
unconstitutional. It certainly is, and more eloquent people have made that
point. I wish the ACLU, et. al. luck in their legal actions. It would be
nice to think Congress will repeal sections of the telecomm act, but I'm
not terribly hopeful.

On a personal level, I've used the 'net in ways that would be illicit. I've
had occasion to research breast cancer, and the information I found on-line
helped me face some very difficult choices. But in our brave, new world,
the word "breast" is too naughty for some internet providers because of
Germany's restrictions on speech. After giving the Germans' hell about
trampling the rights of American citizens, and invoking the memory of NAZI
restrictions, the internet community is having a wonderful time laughing at
how we've just adopted draconian standards ourselves. Ah, America.

When China was in the midst of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the
government enforced a "news black out." Yet news managed to get to American
journalists. In some cases, it was because journalists risked their lives
to get the story. In many other cases, it was because members of the
Chinese university community made their voices heard by fax and by
internet. I've heard claims that Times reporters conducted interviews
through email. In China, faxes must be licensed. As of last week, all
internet users must register with the government. The United States has
historically claimed to be the "land of the free and the brave," and U.S.
citizens are justifiably proud of their freedom. We have lost the way on
this piece of legislation.

What Now?

Please contact a targeted list of congressional members to let them know
you're unhappy with the current laws.

Support ACLU vs. Reno. and

Stay informed; check the EFF early and often.

And last but certainly not least:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

-- Cynthia Melcher

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