500 MB Nyheder Direkte fra Internet 5

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ 500 MB Nyheder Direkte fra Internet 5 / 500 MB nyheder direkte fra internet CD 5.iso / start / progs / text / eff.txt < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1995-06-17 | 58KB | 1,145 lines

*--* 06-17-95 - 04:16:34 *--* Date: 17-Jun-95 03:17 CDT From: INTERNET:editor@eff.org Subj: EFFector Online 08.10 * EFF Analysis of Senate Comm. Decency Act Sender: owner-effector@eff.org Received: from eff.org by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id EAA12021; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 04:02:47 -0400 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by eff.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id BAA29156 for effector-coma-exploder; Sat, 17 Jun 1995 01:29:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 00:06:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199506170406.AAA26500@eff.org> Subject: EFFector Online 08.10 * EFF Analysis of Senate Comm. Decency Act From: editor@eff.org Reply-To: editor@eff.org Admin: bugs@eff.org Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.politics.datahighway,misc.legal,misc.leg al.computing,alt.activism,alt.activism.d,alt.censorship,comp.org.cpsr.talk,alt.s ociety.civil-liberty,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.bbs.allsysop X-EFF_Membership_Queries_To: membership@eff.org X-EFF_General_Info: info@eff.org X-URL: http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/ Keywords: EFF EFFector activism activist Electronic Frontier Foundation Sen. Senator Exon Leahy Coats S.652 S. S 652 S652 S.314 S314 314 censor censorship free speech intellectual freedom of expression Internet Communications Decency Act Telecommunication! s Reform Telecomm Telecom Deregulation indecency obscenity Summary: Consitutional problems of Exon/Coats bill; next steps against CDA Precedence: list To: effector@eff.org (effector mailing list) X-Proccessed-By: mail2list ========================================================================= ________________ _______________ _______________ /_______________/\ /_______________\ /\______________\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||||||||||||||| / //////////////// \\\\\________/\ |||||________\ / /////______\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\/____ |||||||||||||| / ///////////// \\\\\___________/\ ||||| / //// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||| \//// ========================================================================= 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 Calendar of Events Quote of the Day What YOU Can Do 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Calendar of Events --------------------------- This schedule lists EFF events, and those we feel might be of interest to our members. EFF events (those sponsored by us or featuring an EFF speaker) are marked with a "*" instead of a "-" after the date. Simlarly, government events, such as deadlines for comments on reports or testimony submission, are marked with "!" in place of the "-" after the date. If you know of an event of some sort that should be listed here, please send info about it to Stanton McCandlish (mech@eff.org) The latest full version of this calendar, which includes material for later in the year as well as the next couple of months, is available from: ftp: ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/calendar.eff gopher: gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF, calendar.eff http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/calendar.eff Updated: Jun. 13, 1995 1995 ---- June 17- 19 - NECC'95: Emerging Technologies and Lifelong Learning: 16th Annual National Educational Computing Conf., sponsored by International Society for Technology in Education; Baltimore, Maryland. VP Gore and Sec'y. of Labor Robert Reich invited as keynote speakers. Other speakers include: John Phillipo (CELT), Frank Knott (MGITB) Contact: +1 503 346 2834 (voice), +1 503 346 5890 (fax) Email: necc95@ccmail.uoregon.edu June 18- 21 - ED-MEDIA'95; Graz, Austria. A world conference on educational multimedia and hypermedia. Sponsor: The Association for the Advancement of Computing. Contact: +1 804 973 3987 (voice) Email: aace@virginia.edu. June 24- 28 - Workshop on Ethical & Professional Issues in Computing; Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY. Deadline for submissions: Apr. 15. Contact: +1 518 276 8503 (voice), +1 518 276 2659 (fax) Email: cherkt@rpi.edu June 27- 29 - Women in Technology Conference: Channels for Change; Santa Clara Conv. Ctr., Santa Clara, Calif. Speakers include: Gloria Steinem. Sponsored by Int'l. Network of Women in Technology (WITI). Contact: +1 818 990 1987 (voice), +1 818 906 3299 (fax) Email: witi@crl.com June 28- 30 - INET '95 Internet Society 5th Ann. International Networking Conf.; Honolulu, Hawaii. Sponsored by Internet Society (ISoc). See Jan. 13 for proposal deadline Contact: +1 703 648 9888 (voice) FTP: ftp.isoc.org, /isoc/inet95/ Gopher: gopher.isoc.org, 1/isoc/inet95 WWW: http://www.isoc.org/inet95.html Email: inet95@isoc.org July 5- 7 - Key Players in the Introduction of Information Technology: Their Social Responsibility & Professional Training; Namur, Belgium. Sponsored by CREIS. Email: nolod@ccr.jussieu.fr, clobet@info.fundp.ac.be July 5- 8 - Alliance for Community Media International Conference and Trade Show. [See Jan. 31 for proposal submission deadline info]. Contact: Alliance c/o MATV, 145 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148 Fax: (617) 321-7121; Voice: Rika Welsh (617) 321-6400 Email: matv@world.std.com July 5- 8 - 18th International Conf. on Research & Development in Information Retrieval; Sheraton Hotel, Seattle, Wash. Email: sigir95@u.washington.edu July 6- 7 ! Interoperability & the Economics of Information Infrastructure; Freedom Forum, Rosslyn, Virginia. IITF/NSF/Harvard/FFMSC joint workshop to "analyze and evaluate economic incentives and impediments to achieving interoperability in the National Information Infrastructure. The goal is to help agencies, associations, the Administration, and the Congress to develop sound policies for realizing the vision of a seamless, interoperating NII. Deadline for proposals: Mar. 17. Deadline for submissions: June 15. Contact: +1 617 495 8903 (voice), +1 617 495 5776 (fax) Email: kahin@harvard.edu July 11- 15 - '95 Joint International Conference: Association for Computers and the Humanties, and Association for Literacy and Linguistic Computing; UCSB, Santa Barbara, Calif. Will highlight the development of new computing methodologies for research and teaching in the humanities Contact: Eric Dahlin, +1 805 687 5003 (voice) Email: hcf1dahl@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu July 22- 26 - Syllabus'95; Sonoma State U., Rohnert Park, Calif. "The premier conference covering the use of technology in the curriculum" Contact: 1-800-773-0670 (voice, US-only), +1 408 746 200 (voice, elsewhere) Email: syllabus@netcom.com ------------------------------ Subject: Quote of the Day ------------------------- "This is nothing less than thought control." - Constitutional law scholar Lawrence Tribe, on the U.S. government's crusade against "indecency". Find yourself wondering if your privacy and freedom of speech are safe when bills to censor the Internet are swimming about in a sea of of surveillance legislation and anti-terrorism hysteria? Worried that in the rush to make us secure from ourselves that our government representatives may deprive us of our essential civil liberties? Join EFF! Even if you don't live in the U.S., the anti-Internet hysteria will soon be visiting a legislative body near you. ------------------------------ Subject: What YOU Can Do ------------------------ * The Exon Bill (Communications Decency Act) The Communications Decency Act poses serious threats to freedom of expression online, and to the livelihoods of system operators. Business/industry persons concerned should alert their corporate govt. affairs office and/or legal counsel. Everyone should write to their own Representatives and ask them to support the "Child Protection, User Empowerment, and Free Expression in Interactive Media Study Act, sponsored by Rep. Ron Klink (D-PA), currently attached to the House telecom reform bill, and to oppose any Internet censorship legislation, such as the Communications Decency Act (HR1004). Explain, quickly, clearly and politely, why you feel the Klink/Leahy language is a good alternative to censorship measure which threatend First Amendment rights. S.652, the Senate telecom deregulation bill, now contains Sen. Exon's "Communications Decency Act" (formerly S.314.), and was passed a few days ago in a landslide vote. For more information on what you can do to help stop this and other dangerous legislation, see: ftp.eff.org, /pub/Alerts/ gopher.eff.org, 1/Alerts http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/ If you do not have full internet access, send your request for information to ask@eff.org. * Find Out Who Your Congresspersons Are Writing letters to, faxing, and phoning your representatives in Congress is one very important strategy of activism, and an essential way of making sure YOUR voice is heard on vital issues. EFF has lists of the Senate and House with contact information, as well as lists of Congressional committees. These lists are available at: ftp.eff.org, /pub/Activism/Congress_cmtes/ gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Issues/Activism/Congress_cmtes http://www.eff.org/pub/Activism/Congress_cmtes/ The full Senate and House lists are senate.list and hr.list, respectively. Those not in the U.S. should seek out similar information about their own legislative bodies. EFF will be happy to archive any such information provided. If you do not know who your Representatives are, you should contact you local League of Women Voters, who typically maintain databases that can help you find out. * Join EFF! You *know* privacy, freedom of speech and ability to make your voice heard in government are important. You have probably participated in our online campaigns and forums. Have you become a member of EFF yet? The best way to protect your online rights is to be fully informed and to make your opinions heard. EFF members are informed and are making a difference. Join EFF today! For EFF membership info, send queries to membership@eff.org, or send any message to info@eff.org for basic EFF info, and a membership form. ------------------------------ Administrivia ============= EFFector Online is published by: The Electronic Frontier Foundation 1667 K St. NW, Suite 801 Washington DC 20006-1605 USA +1 202 861 7700 (voice) +1 202 861 1258 (fax) +1 202 861 1223 (BBS - 16.8k ZyXEL) +1 202 861 1224 (BBS - 14.4k V.32bis) Membership & donations: membership@eff.org Legal services: ssteele@eff.org Hardcopy publications: pubs@eff.org General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@eff.org Editor: Stanton McCandlish, Online Services Mgr./Activist/Archivist (mech@eff.org) This newsletter printed on 100% recycled electrons. 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. ------------------------------ End of EFFector Online v08 #10 Digest *************************************