789 lines
33 KiB
Plaintext
789 lines
33 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 26, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 24
|
|
ISSN 1004-042X
|
|
|
|
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
|
|
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
|
|
Semi-retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
|
|
Intelligent Agent: David Smith
|
|
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
|
|
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
|
|
Ian Dickinson
|
|
Monster Editor: Loch Nesshrdlu
|
|
|
|
CONTENTS, #7.24 (Sun, Mar 26, 1995)
|
|
|
|
File 1--"Communications Decency Act" Update
|
|
File 2--EFF Statement on Gorton/Exon "Comm Decency" Amendment
|
|
File 3--Commentary on "Indecency Bill" from CDT
|
|
File 4--B. Meeks commentary on Exon Bill (From CyberWire Dispatch)
|
|
File 5--Additional Commentary on the Exon Legislation
|
|
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Mar, 1995)
|
|
|
|
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
|
|
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:45:05 -0500
|
|
From: ACLU Information <infoaclu@ACLU.ORG>
|
|
Subject: File 1--"Communications Decency Act" Update
|
|
|
|
March 23, 1995
|
|
A Cyber Liberties Alert
|
|
From the ACLU
|
|
|
|
Senate Committee Backs Cyber Censorship, and Imposes Criminal
|
|
Penalties
|
|
|
|
WHAT JUST HAPPENED
|
|
|
|
The Senate Commerce Committee adopted late this morning a modified
|
|
version of the Exon bill, the so-called "Communications Decency Act"
|
|
(originally introduced as Senate Bill 314). Senator Slade Gorton
|
|
(R-WA), who had cosponsored S. 314 with Senator James Exon (D-NE),
|
|
proposed the amendment in Exon's absence. It was adopted on voice
|
|
vote as an amendment to the Telecommunications Competition and
|
|
Deregulation Act of 1995.
|
|
|
|
The amendment would subject on-line users to scrutiny and criminal
|
|
penalties if their messages were deemed to be indecent, lewd,
|
|
lascivious or filthy -- all communications that are protected by the
|
|
Free Speech Guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States
|
|
Constitution. Although protecting children from pornography is its
|
|
most often cited rationale, this is really a "bait and switch" with
|
|
your rights at stake. Note that the amendment in fact goes way beyond
|
|
child pornorgaphy. It's like the opponents of TV violence who first
|
|
said children should be protected and then made "Murder She Wrote"
|
|
with Angela Landsbury their number one target. Or like the censors
|
|
who banned "Huckleberry Finn," "Where's Waldo?" and even Webster's
|
|
Dictionary (it has "bad" words in it, after all). The Exon/Gorton
|
|
Amendment would invite active interference in the basic speech of
|
|
everyone using any telecommunication device -- simply because some
|
|
government bureaucrat somewhere thought the speech was indecent or
|
|
lascivious.
|
|
|
|
All senators on the committee had been informed that the Exon/Gorton
|
|
amendment would violate the Constitution, assault the liberties of net
|
|
users, stifle development of new technologies (many of which offer
|
|
greater choice and control by all users -- including parents), and
|
|
spawn expensive litigation -- while not succeeding at reducing access
|
|
by children to pornography. A coalition of civil liberties
|
|
organizations -- including the ACLU -- and numerous commercial
|
|
companies warned against adopting the Exon/Gorton amendment, which
|
|
originally would also have made all online service providers (in fact,
|
|
anyone transmitting an offensive message) criminally liable.
|
|
|
|
Some commercial companies offered Exon and Gorton language exempting
|
|
themselves from liability while still letting their subscribers be
|
|
prosecuted. Today Senator Gorton said that the amendment had been
|
|
modified to exempt those merely "transmitting" the message. The
|
|
amendment would, however, still cover anyone who originates a message
|
|
deemed indecent, lascivious etc.
|
|
|
|
WHAT YOU CAN DO
|
|
|
|
1. Contact the senators from your state, and all senators on the
|
|
Commerce Commitee expressing your disappointment with this morning's
|
|
action. Thank Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Larry Pressler
|
|
(R-SD) for not including the Exon/Gorton amendment in his proposed
|
|
bill, and urge him to support action on the Senate floor to remove the
|
|
anti-cyber amendment.
|
|
|
|
2. Contact your online service providers and ask them what they have
|
|
been doing about this Exon/Gorton assault on your liberties. Some
|
|
providers are still standing up for your rights; others may not
|
|
have.Urge them, not to support any legislation that protects them, but
|
|
violates your free speech rights. Urge them to oppose the modified
|
|
Exon/Gorton amendment.
|
|
|
|
3. Contact all the other senators and urge them to support deletion
|
|
of the Exon/Gorton amendment when the bill comes to the Senate floor.
|
|
|
|
4. Stay tuned for further information and action items for both House
|
|
and Senate.
|
|
|
|
The American Civil Liberties Union is a nationwide, nonpartisan
|
|
organization of over 275,000 members. Now in its 75th year, the ACLU
|
|
is devoted exclusively to protecting the civil liberties guaranteed by
|
|
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, whereever these liberties
|
|
are at risk--in a bookstore, in school, on the street, in cyberspace,
|
|
wherever. The ACLU does this through legislative action, public
|
|
education and litigation.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Send your letter by e-mail, fax, or snail mail to:
|
|
|
|
Senator Larry Pressler, S.D.
|
|
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
|
|
SR-254 Russell Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-6125
|
|
(202) 224-5842 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-1259 (fax of Commerce Committee)
|
|
e-mail: larry_pressler@pressler.senate.gov
|
|
|
|
To maximize the impact of your letter, you should also write to the
|
|
members of the Senate Commerce Committee and to your own Senators.
|
|
|
|
Majority Members of the Senate Commerce Committee
|
|
-------------------------------------------------
|
|
Senator Bob Packwood, Ore.
|
|
SR-259 Russell Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-3702
|
|
(202) 224-5244 (phone)
|
|
(202) 228-3576 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator Ted Stevens, Alaska
|
|
SH-522 Hart Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-0201
|
|
(202) 224-3004 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-1044 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator John McCain, Ariz.
|
|
SR-111 Russell Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-0303
|
|
(202) 224-2235 (phone)
|
|
(202) 228-2862 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator Conrad Burns, Mont.
|
|
SD-183 Dirksen Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-2603
|
|
(202) 224-2644 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-8594 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator Slade Gorton, Wash.
|
|
SH-730 Hart Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-4701
|
|
(202) 224-3441 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-9393 (fax)
|
|
e-mail: senator_gorton@gorton.senate.gov
|
|
|
|
Senator Trent Lott, Miss.
|
|
SR-487 Russell Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-2403
|
|
(202) 224-6253 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-2262 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Tex.
|
|
SH-703 Hart Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-4303
|
|
(202) 224-5922 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-0776 (fax)
|
|
e-mail: senator@hutchison.senate.gov
|
|
|
|
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
|
|
SR-174 Russell Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-1903
|
|
(202) 224-5344 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-6853 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator John Ashcroft, Mo.
|
|
SH-705 Hart Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-2504
|
|
(202) 224-6154 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-7615
|
|
|
|
Minority Members of the Senate Commerce Committee
|
|
-------------------------------------------------
|
|
Senator Ernest F. Hollings, S.C.
|
|
SR-125 Russell Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-4002
|
|
(202) 224-6121 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-4293 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii
|
|
SH-772 Hart Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-1102
|
|
(202) 224-3934 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-6747 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator Wendell H. Ford, Ky.
|
|
SR-173A Russell Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-1701
|
|
(202) 224-4343 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-0046 (fax)
|
|
e-mail: wendell_ford@ford.senate.gov
|
|
|
|
Senator J. James Exon, Neb.
|
|
SH-528 Hart Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-2702
|
|
(202) 224-4224 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-5213 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, W. Va.
|
|
SH-109 Hart Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-4802
|
|
(202) 224-6472 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-1689 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator John F. Kerry, Mass.
|
|
SR-421 Russell Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-2102
|
|
(202) 224-2742 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-8525 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator John B. Breaux, La
|
|
SH-516 Hart Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-1803
|
|
(202) 224-4623 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-2435 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator Richard H. Bryan, Nev.
|
|
SR-364 Russell Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-2804
|
|
(202) 224-6244 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-1867 (fax)
|
|
|
|
Senator Byron L. Dorgan, N.D.
|
|
SH-713 Hart Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington, DC 20510-3405
|
|
(202) 224-2551 (phone)
|
|
(202) 224-1193 (fax)
|
|
|
|
You can also write or fax your own Senator at:
|
|
|
|
The Honorable ______________________
|
|
U.S. Senate
|
|
Washington, D.C. 20510
|
|
|
|
Senate directories including fax numbers may be found at:
|
|
|
|
gopher://ftp.senate.gov:70
|
|
gopher://una.hh.lib.umich.edu:70/0/socsci/polscilaw/uslegi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional information about the ACLU's position on this issue and others
|
|
affecting civil liberties online and elsewhere may be found at:
|
|
|
|
gopher:\\aclu.org:6601
|
|
OR request our FAQ at infoaclu@aclu.org
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
ACLU Free Reading Room | American Civil Liberties Union
|
|
gopher://aclu.org:6601 | 132 W. 43rd Street, NY, NY 10036
|
|
mailto:infoaclu@aclu.org| "Eternal vigilance is the
|
|
ftp://ftp.pipeline.com | price of liberty"
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@EFF.ORG>
|
|
Subject: File 2--EFF Statement on Gorton/Exon "Comm Decency" Amendment
|
|
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 13:32:34 -0500 (EST)
|
|
|
|
Communications Decency Act Passes Senate Judiciary Committee
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Electronic Frontier Foundation - March 25, 1995 - Distribute widely
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 23, 1995, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed telecom legislation
|
|
that included an amended version of the Communications Decency Act of
|
|
1995, commonly known as "the Exon Amendment." This draft was introduced
|
|
by Sen. Slade Gorton (R-VT). The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
|
|
opposes the inclusion of the "decency" provisions in this legislation for
|
|
the following reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The bill places operators of smaller systems at risk.
|
|
|
|
While the new version of the bill seems to attempt to protect large
|
|
information service providers by including a list of available defenses,
|
|
smaller bulletin board systems (BBSs) and other information services
|
|
that cannot afford to assert these defenses in court are left without any
|
|
protection at all. Operators of smaller, local systems will be unable to
|
|
test the line where constitutional speech ends and criminal speech begins.
|
|
These small businesses of the online world are put at a competitive
|
|
disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
Also, protections such as lack of editorial control (Section 402[d][2])
|
|
may not apply to the majority of bulletin board systems and many other
|
|
online services that provide content as well as conduit, nor to systems that
|
|
present certain types of moderated forums.
|
|
|
|
The ambiguity of the coverage and defenses leaves gaps that raise
|
|
serious constitutional issues. In 1989, the Supreme Court in
|
|
_Sable_Communications_v._FCC_ established that indecent material cannot be
|
|
banned entirely, and that prohibiting indecency to protect minors
|
|
is an unconstitutional violation of the free speech rights of adults.
|
|
The prohibition of "filthy" speech has no legal authority whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
The Gorton/Exon amendment may fail to distinguish between consensual and
|
|
non-consensual activities, and between private and public communications.
|
|
A steamy love note sent privately between spouses could be a criminal
|
|
violation of this statute, and there may be a potential for system
|
|
operators to be held liable for failing to label users' private email as
|
|
"filthy".
|
|
|
|
Finally, the Communications Decency bill attempts to apply to online
|
|
media many restrictions that do not apply to printed or verbal expression.
|
|
Transmitting an online version of a "lascivious" book could subject the
|
|
sender to unreasonable fines and imprisonment, while mailing the book in
|
|
hardcopy or reading aloud from the book would be protected under the
|
|
First Amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The bill is vague and leaves system operators open to prosecution under
|
|
diverse community standards.
|
|
|
|
The bill does not define "obscene" communications, leaving individual
|
|
states to assert their own definition of community standards and to prosecute
|
|
system operators maintaining systems anywhere in the country.
|
|
|
|
_U.S._v._Thomas_, a case currently under appeal in Memphis federal
|
|
court - in which two system operators running a BBS in California were
|
|
convicted of obscenity charges after a federal officer dialed in from
|
|
Tennessee and downloaded material from the BBS - clearly illustrates the
|
|
danger of leaving terms like "obscenity" undefined in an online world.
|
|
|
|
Also, passages such as "to provide users with the means to restrict
|
|
access to communications" (Section 402[d][3][A]) are so vague that the
|
|
entire Internet is already either in violation or in compliance,
|
|
depending upon interpretation. Such failures to express clearly the
|
|
extent and nature of the defenses would allow prosecutors to claim and
|
|
"prove" virtually any lack of such means to restrict access given a
|
|
sympathetic court, leaving system operators attempting to comply with the
|
|
law little guidance on how to avoid being brought up on criminal charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The bill would negate the rights of adults to choose what to read and
|
|
with whom to associate, as well as the rights of parents to decide what
|
|
is and is not appropriate for their own children.
|
|
|
|
EFF supports the ability of online communities to establish their own
|
|
standards and to self-regulate content as a more reasonable and realistic
|
|
model of dealing with potential problems of online subject matter.
|
|
Parents can direct their children to areas of age-appropriate material
|
|
online, where participants, including parents, engage in "neighborhood
|
|
watch" activities to limit possibly offensive content. "Filtering"
|
|
technologies already in development and use by online services can further
|
|
help to ensure that parents can restrict their own children's access to
|
|
electronically-distributed materials.
|
|
|
|
In general, passing restrictive laws is not the way to solve problems with
|
|
rapidly evolving technologies like telecommunications - particularly when
|
|
the laws are based on obsolete regulations of wholly different media.
|
|
It is ironic that the Gorton/Exon amendment, which would chill the
|
|
development of online services and communities, 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 right and
|
|
responsibility to determine what is appropriate for their children to
|
|
see, and we do not think Congress should make outlaws out of adults for
|
|
engaging in speech that may not be suitable for minors. As Supreme
|
|
Court Justice Felix Frankfurter ruled in _Butler_v._Michigan_ in 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For amendment text, updates and action alerts, see:
|
|
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Alerts/
|
|
gopher.eff.org, 1/Alerts
|
|
http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
|
|
|
|
For more information, contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation
|
|
ask@eff.org
|
|
+1 202 861 7700 (voice), +1 202 861 1258 (fax)
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 21:29:05 -0600
|
|
From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
|
|
Subject: File 3--Commentary on "Indecency Bill" from CDT
|
|
|
|
CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
CDT POLICY POST 3/23/95 Number 5
|
|
|
|
CONTENTS: (1) Exon Indecency Bill Approved by Sen. Commerce Committee
|
|
(3) About the Center For Democracy and Technology
|
|
|
|
This document may be re-distributed freely providing it remains in
|
|
its entirety.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
EXON INDECENCY BILL APPROVED BY SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE
|
|
|
|
The Senate Commerce Committee voted unanimously today to adopt S.
|
|
314, Senator Exon's "Communications Decency Act", as an amendment to
|
|
the Senate telecommunications reform legislation. The amendment was
|
|
introduced by Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) on behalf of himself an
|
|
Exon (D-NE). It received no significant debate and was unanimously
|
|
approved on a voice vote.
|
|
|
|
The bill was amended from its original form to limit liability for
|
|
telecommunications carriers and online service providers, but users
|
|
and content providers would still be criminally liable for any
|
|
communications that are deemed "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
|
|
indecent". An analysis of these provisions by CDT, as well as the
|
|
full text of the bill will be posted later today.
|
|
|
|
On initial analysis, CDT still believes that the bill is an
|
|
unconstitutional violation of the free speech and privacy rights of
|
|
network users and content providers.
|
|
|
|
Although the Commerce Committee did vote to send the
|
|
Telecommunications reform legislation to the Senate floor, there are
|
|
still serious disputes about the entire package. Because of this,
|
|
there are still many opportunities to remove the "Indecency
|
|
Provision" as the bill moves to the floor.
|
|
|
|
Stay tuned for further analysis and additional information from CDT.
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
|
|
|
|
The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public
|
|
interest organization. The Center's mission is to develop and
|
|
advocate public policies that advance constitutional civil liberties
|
|
and democratic values in new computer and communications
|
|
technologies.
|
|
|
|
Contacting us:
|
|
|
|
General information on CDT can be obtained by sending mail to
|
|
<info@cdt.org>
|
|
|
|
www/ftp/gopher archives are currently under construction, and should
|
|
be up and running by the end of March.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 21:29:10 -0600
|
|
From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
|
|
Subject: File 4--B. Meeks commentary on Exon Bill (From CyberWire Dispatch)
|
|
|
|
CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1995 //
|
|
|
|
Warning: This article contains material that is potentially criminal in
|
|
nature and could be considered "indecent" under certain provisions of the
|
|
proposed Senate Telecommunications reform bill. You have been warned.
|
|
|
|
Jacking in from the "You Can't
|
|
Fool All the People All The Time" Port:
|
|
|
|
Washington -- The brain-dead, ill-named Communications Decency Act
|
|
(S.314) was, as expected, folded into the Senate's telecommunications
|
|
reform package today, which was approved on a 17-2 vote by the
|
|
Commerce Committee.
|
|
|
|
This bill, sponsored by Senator James Exon (D-Neb.), who is punching
|
|
out of the Senate after his term ends this year, would essentially
|
|
make criminals of anyone sending messages ambiguously defined as
|
|
"indecent" across the Internet.
|
|
|
|
The bill makes no distinction between consensual or nonconsensual: If
|
|
you're given to sending the occasional lusty message to that someone
|
|
special, under this bill, you're fucked. In fact, under the language
|
|
of the bill, that last sentence could land me a cozy jail cell and tap
|
|
my checkbook for a cool $100,000 in fines.
|
|
|
|
The bill has whipped up a firestorm of controversy, resulting in what
|
|
amounts to a virtual uprising among Internet users. The day before
|
|
the Senate committee vote, an Internet driven petition that garnered
|
|
more than 100,000 "signatures" was presented to Commerce Committee
|
|
Chairman Larry Pressler (R-S.D.). The petition apparently fell on
|
|
deaf ears.
|
|
|
|
The bill, added as an amendment to the Telecommunications Competition
|
|
and Deregulation Act of 1995 was passed on a voice vote; there were
|
|
no dissenters.
|
|
|
|
The bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), gave lip service
|
|
to the concerns raised by civil liberties groups, saying that because
|
|
our "kids have access to all this junk" on the Internet, the amendment
|
|
was needed. Gorton said Exon had sufficiently addressed the
|
|
"outcries" of the Internet community by changing language in the bill
|
|
that would have held Internet service providers, commercial
|
|
information systems such as America Online, CompuServe and Prodigy and
|
|
telecommunications carriers libel by the mere fact that they were
|
|
party to the "indecent speech" because it was swept through their
|
|
electronic veins.
|
|
|
|
Apparently, only the individual sending the message is now held
|
|
criminally responsible. Well, fuck that. (Damn, that's two counts of
|
|
indecency... quick, delete this from your system or you, too, may be
|
|
held accountable...)
|
|
|
|
Just how much Exon has changed the bill isn't known; his staff didn't
|
|
circulate the amendment's new language. Regardless, the bill is bad
|
|
blood. "We absolutely still oppose this bill," said Jerry Berman,
|
|
ex-EFF director who's now heading his own policy group, the Center for
|
|
Democracy and Technology. Even if the bill has been "narrowed" to
|
|
sting only individuals, "it's still unconstitutional," Berman said.
|
|
|
|
Berman's group has floated a proposal that relies on technological
|
|
advancements that would enable parents to keep their innocents from
|
|
being virtually violated by the Internet's sometimes rough and tumble
|
|
language.
|
|
|
|
The bill is flawed from the outset. While a 12-year-old can sneak a
|
|
peek at Playboy at this local 7-11 or drool while reading the graphic
|
|
descriptions of blow jobs in a Daniel Steele novel at Crown Books, the
|
|
same type of material will land you in jail under this bill.
|
|
|
|
And now, instead of being able fight the bill as a stand alone item,
|
|
it's now wrapped into the broader telecommunications reform package, a
|
|
piece of legislation that everyone in the industry with a heart beat
|
|
has a hard on for. To defeat this beast now will require procedural
|
|
surgery when the reform bill hits the Senate floor for debate.
|
|
|
|
The moronic stance of this bill can be illustrated by taking a short
|
|
stroll to men's restroom, the one just down the all from where this
|
|
august body of lawmakers was holding forth on how to shape the future
|
|
of telecommunications. Once inside the men's room, a left turn into
|
|
any of the several stalls reveals entire walls of graffiti that looked
|
|
like they were plucked from Alt.Sex.Suck-My-Dick.
|
|
|
|
Here you'll find phone numbers with invitations to get personal with
|
|
someone's "Big 10 inch." There are anatomically correct -- if
|
|
slightly exaggerated -- sketches of homoerotic acts. And in another
|
|
stall, someone has even clipped what appears to be photos from a
|
|
sexually explicit gay men's magazines and pasted them to the walls and
|
|
toilet paper dispensers.
|
|
|
|
Exiting the restroom, a youngster, no more than 10, visiting his
|
|
"lawmakers in action" pushed passed me to the stalls, a pained, urgent
|
|
look on his face...
|
|
|
|
Leaving the restroom I turned to check for a warning sign, something,
|
|
anything that would have warned my urgent young stranger about the
|
|
experience he was about to partake of in the pursuit of a moment of
|
|
freedom. There was no warning. No sign. I made a note and dropped it
|
|
off at Exon's office. I was going to Email him, but he doesn't have
|
|
it... and I doubt he'd accept it from an "indecent message trafficker"
|
|
such as myself anyway.
|
|
|
|
Meeks out...
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 22:51:01 EDT
|
|
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com>
|
|
Subject: File 5--Additional Commentary on the Exon Legislation
|
|
|
|
The "Communication Indecency Act" has received considerable media
|
|
attention, and little of it favorable. Little wonder--there is
|
|
nothing of redemptive value in the Bill, and reasonable observers
|
|
recognize it as a threat to Constitutional speech protections
|
|
or--worse--a potential mechanism for over-zealous moral entrepreneurs
|
|
to engage in witch hunts for "objectionable" or offensive material not
|
|
to their liking.
|
|
|
|
One of the greatest dangers in the legislation is that it risks making
|
|
the lowest threshold of tolerance the national standard. Speech
|
|
content that one jurisdiction finds "offensive," even if not legally
|
|
obscene, risks felony prosecutionn. Successful passage of the law could
|
|
make it a felony to transmit public federal documents across the Nets.
|
|
Who, for example, could not cringe when reading the Jacob Baker
|
|
"snuff" extracts from his public federal indictment? Who would want
|
|
their 12 year old to read the prosecutor's vivid descriptions of the
|
|
Amateur Action BBS indictment?
|
|
|
|
More complicates is what counts as offensive or objectionable? There
|
|
is no historical justification to believe that prosecutors would not
|
|
expand the wording of the law to include a wide range of expressions
|
|
that were either socially unproper or that or of value as political
|
|
currency to ambitious politicians and prosecutors.
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, the legislation has not escaped media attention. For
|
|
example, Peter Lewis, writing in the March 26, 1995 (CYBERSEX STAYS
|
|
HOT, DESPITE A PLAN FOR COOLING IT OFF) notes:
|
|
|
|
"My major concern is to make the new Internet and
|
|
information superhighway as safe as possible for kids to
|
|
travel," said Sen. Jim Exon, D-Neb., author of the proposed
|
|
Communications Decency Act of 1995, in a telephone interview
|
|
on Saturday.
|
|
|
|
The proposal, which cleared the Senate Commerce Committee on
|
|
Thursday without dissent, would impose fines of as much as
|
|
$100,000 and two-year prison terms on anyone who knowingly
|
|
transmits any "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
|
|
indecent" communications on the nation's telecommunications
|
|
networks. The law would apply to telephone systems, cable,
|
|
and broadcast television systems, and public and private
|
|
computer networks, including the global Internet.
|
|
|
|
.......................
|
|
|
|
"The potential danger here is that material that most
|
|
rational and reasonable people would interpret as
|
|
pornography and smut is falling into the hands of minors,"
|
|
Exon said. "The information superhighway is in my opinion a
|
|
revolution that in years to come will transcend newspapers,
|
|
radio, and television as an information source. Therefore, I
|
|
think this is the time to put some restrictions or
|
|
guidelines on it."
|
|
|
|
The proposals for restrictions have been met with
|
|
incredulity and outrage by Internet users, legal experts,
|
|
and civil libertarians, who contend that efforts to halt the
|
|
flow of information in cyberspace - where, in effect, every
|
|
computer is both a bookstore and a printing press - are
|
|
futile on both technical and legal grounds.
|
|
|
|
.......................
|
|
|
|
So attempting to filter out sex-related material from the
|
|
torrent of digital bits passing through tens of thousands of
|
|
computer networks "is like shooting an ICBM at a gnat," said
|
|
David Banisar, a lawyer for the Electronic Privacy
|
|
Information Center, a lobbying group in Washington. "It
|
|
can't be done without the absolutely most Draconian methods
|
|
being used."
|
|
|
|
Dan L. Burk, visiting assistant professor of law at George
|
|
Mason University, in Fairfax, Va., noted that courts had
|
|
required earlier attempts to protect minors from
|
|
objectionable information, as in telephone "dial-a-porn"
|
|
cases, to use the "least restrictive means" to accomplish
|
|
the goal. A comprehensive ban on such material on computer
|
|
networks, he said, could restrict material that courts have
|
|
ruled legal to disseminate to adults through more
|
|
conventional outlets.
|
|
|
|
"If the burden becomes too high for protected adult speech,
|
|
then the statute clearly is not going to pass muster" in the
|
|
federal courts, Burk said.
|
|
|
|
Stephen Chapman, an editorialist for the Chicago Tribune (March 26,
|
|
1995: Sect. 4, p. 3) argued that the proposed legislation uses a
|
|
"scattershot approach" to ban the transmission of not only anything
|
|
that is legally obscene, "a very narrow category, but anything that is
|
|
'indecent,' an exceedingly broad term that could implicate even
|
|
G-rated fare. He identifies two major problems with Exon's proposal:
|
|
|
|
The first is that it may expose on-line services to criminal
|
|
liability just for letting adults willingly converse, or
|
|
exchange material, on sexual subjects of interest to both of
|
|
them."
|
|
|
|
............
|
|
|
|
The second problem is that the measure curtails not only the
|
|
access of children to adult fare, but the freedom of adults
|
|
to see and read what they choose. Most of us have no
|
|
interest in participating in a discussion of weird sexual
|
|
practices, but that's no reason to gag the people who do.
|
|
We don't restrict such voluntary, private communications if
|
|
they take place on the phone or face-to-face; why should the
|
|
Internet be treated differently?
|
|
|
|
Coincidentally, the Chicago Tribune also began on Sunday a
|
|
substantial four part series on the Internet, extolling its
|
|
virtues. If the legislation proposed by Exon survives, the
|
|
chilling effect of either direct or indirect censorship will
|
|
subvert some of the most significant virtues--namely, the
|
|
freedom to express ideas, even outrageous and offensive ones.
|
|
|
|
Few would argue that children should be given unrestricted access to
|
|
some of the excesses of Internet expressivity. The battle is over how
|
|
to implement safeguards. The primary flaw with the Exon proposal is
|
|
that it confuses restricting access with restricting speech, pursuing
|
|
the latter and ignoring the former. Legislators are not known for
|
|
their techno-literacy. But, there is some irony in the fact that a
|
|
Congress that advocates "getting government off our backs" seems so
|
|
willing to invoke government power to suppress speech rather than find
|
|
ways to accommodate to the freedom of expression while restricting
|
|
access to some forms of expression to minors.
|
|
|
|
Stephen Chapman, hardly known for liberalism has it right:
|
|
|
|
Freedom can be a scary thing for lawmakers who think they
|
|
have a right to police our thoughts, but freedom has been
|
|
the lifeblood of computer communications. Sacrificing that
|
|
freedom is likely to stifle communications, and progress,
|
|
without appreciably improving our morals.
|
|
|
|
The Exon proposal, the text of which I have received via E-mail from a
|
|
federal source, is truly offensive. If the legislation passes, the
|
|
authors and purveyors are the CuD candidates for the first prosecutions.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 22:51:01 CDT
|
|
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
|
|
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Mar, 1995)
|
|
|
|
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
|
|
available at no cost electronically.
|
|
|
|
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
|
|
|
|
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
|
|
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
|
|
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
|
|
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
|
|
60115, USA.
|
|
|
|
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB <your name>
|
|
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
|
|
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
|
|
|
|
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
|
|
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
|
|
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
|
|
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
|
|
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
|
|
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
|
|
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
|
|
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
|
|
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
|
|
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
|
|
|
|
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
|
|
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189
|
|
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
|
|
|
|
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
|
|
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
|
|
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
|
|
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
|
|
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
|
|
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
|
|
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
|
|
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
|
|
|
|
JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD
|
|
ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD
|
|
|
|
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
|
|
Cu Digest WWW site at:
|
|
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest
|
|
|
|
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
|
|
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
|
|
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
|
|
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
|
|
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
|
|
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
|
|
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
|
|
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
|
|
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
|
|
unless absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
|
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
|
|
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
|
|
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
|
|
violate copyright protections.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
End of Computer Underground Digest #7.24
|
|
************************************
|
|
|