The Washington Post, February 5, 1996, p. A8. Language on 'Indecency' Sparks Telecommunications Bill Protest By John Schwartz Provisions in the overhaul of the nation's telecommunications laws that call for regulating adult materials on the Internet have sparked a storm of anger and protest on that medium. "This is the kind of legislation you'd see from a lot of senators and congressmen who have never logged on," said Michael Godwin, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group. "The Christian Right thinks they've hit a home run here, but the inning isn't over." The provisions, proposed by Sen. J. James Exon (D-Neb.), have gained momentum with support from religious conservative organizations. The legislation would make it illegal to make "indecent" material available to minors via computer, with penalties of two years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. Exon called passage last week "a victory for children and families," adding, "We've come to a successful closing of the 'peep show' doors to our youth." President Clinton has said he will sign the bill. Those opposed to the regulations, however, said the "indecency" standard, which has been used in broadcast regulation cases, is too vague and would seriously restrict the potential of the emerging on-line medium. "I am concerned this legislation places restrictions on the Internet that will come back to haunt us," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). He warned that quoting from such works as "Catcher in the Rye" and "Ulysses" in on-line discussions could court prosecution and said that making it illegal to "make available" indecent language would outlaw posting of messages or images that a child might see. "Imagine if the Whitney Museum ... were dragged into court for permitting representations of Michelangelo's David to be looked at by kids." But John McMickle, an aide to Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), said drafters rejected the idea that Userious works of redeeming value" would fall within the law, which he said would apply only to "patently offensive" material. McMickle said the bill "is not a Comstock-type effort to wipe out literature or political speech." The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other organizations are preparing a lawsuit challenging the indecency provisions on constitutional grounds. Other legal actions are in the works. An on-line publication, American Reporter, has announced it will soon publish a column by a Texas judge denouncing the legislation intentionally salted with "indecent" language; Randall Boe, a Washington attorney for the American Reporter, said he would immediately sue after publication. "We want to move promptly to have this statute set aside as unconstitutional," Boe said. "The longer it's in place, the greater the harm done to the Internet and to the First Amendment." Boe's firm, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, was defense council in the landmark "seven dirty words" case, which set the legal standard for indecent language in broadcasting based on a monologue by comedian George Carlin. Cathleen Cleaver, director of legal studies for the Family Research Council, said yesterday she expected such suits and that her conservative organization, which has pushed for on-line regulation, would fight to uphold it. The Justice Department has stated that the legislation would be vulnerable to attack on constitutional grounds. But in response to a letter from Grassley, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois noted last week that the department is defending the indecency standard in legislation "and will continue to defend similar statutes against constitutional challenges, so long as we can assert a reasonable defense consistent with the Supreme Court rulings in this area." -----