WAR:State of New Jersey Censors content of BBSes The article below describes a law on the verge of passing in New Jersey, which would allow state censorship of information transmitted over computer systems. You could be sent to jail for 18 months for sending over the modem any information the state considers obscene. If the law is fully enforced, it could send people to jail for having obscene material on a bulletin board, even a private board. It might even apply to two people linked up in chat mode, as it refers to 'home personal computers.' If you believe in freedom of expression, and if you believe in the First Amendment, then upload this file to every BBS you log on to. If you live in New Jersey, get in touch with your representatives. If any of your local lawmakers might be considering imposing such censorship, call them and write them now, while you still have your freedom of expression. Print this file out, sign the bottom, and send it in to the state. Copyright (C) 1989, by BBS PRESS SERVICE, INC. ----------------------------- \\ MMMM // INFO-MAT MAGAZINE \\\ MM /// TABLE OF CONTENTS \\\\MM//// Vol. 5, No. 11 \\ \MM/ // May 16, 1989 \\ MMMM // Whole #204 ----------------------------- ================== THE EDITOR SPEAKS: ================== by Alan R. Bechtold ------------------------ The Same Old Question... ------------------------ I thought Boston would have done it first, but it looks like lawmakers in New Jersey win the "blue nose" award. They are now considering a bill that would make it illegal to transmit "obscene" sexually-explicit material over home computer systems (A NETWORKER'S JOURNAL -- File 8). The measure has already been unanimously approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. A $7,500 fine and a prison sentence of up to 18 months is imposed for computer distribution of materials defined by state law as obscene. I would like to ask Assemblyman Louis Gill what, exactly, IS obscene? By Webster's definition of obscenity, some Doctor's journals are obscene to ME. The bill says the states definition of obscenity should be applied to electronically-transmitted material, but I have never seen a state's definition of obscenity I could fully agree with. I would also like to know for sure that the new law isn't going to ban AIDS information networks that are now doing such a great job of disseminating frank, SEXUALLY EXPLICIT information to SAVE LIVES. I am also concerned about the mention of "home personal computers" in the proposed law. Does this mean I could be busted for sending a dirty joke to my neighbor's computer, in a PRIVATE TRANSMISSION between just our two computers? It appears to me that New Jersey computer users have a LOT of important calls to make -- especially to Assemblyman Louis Gill and his ilk! I am one of the first to criticize the current availability of sexually explicit material to my children. I am only in favor, however, of controlling UNDERAGE CHILDREN'S access to obscene materials. Period. Consenting adults should have access to ANY and ALL information that can be distributed, by whatever means are available. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER DEFINITION OF FREEDOM! What these people are doing is attempting to BAN the INFORMATION ITSELF, NOT the ACT of making it accessible to under-age children. Therein lies the danger. Once you ban ONE type of information, it becomes just that much easier to ban other types later. I would hate to see computers used as the next excuse to inhibit the totally free exchange of information among the people of this country. It's a LOT like the old argument against banning ANY type of gun. Surely, access to INFORMATION, to NEWS and THOUGHTS and FEELINGS, whatever their content, should be as important to the preservation of this free nation as the right to bear arms. Are you going to make those calls? Are you going to distribute this file? Do you believe in the First Amendment?