----------------------------------------------------------------- October 25, 1995 ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE A bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies at the state and federal level. ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THIS ISSUE: * Universities Censor Student Internet Use * Conferees Named for Federal Online Indecency Legislation * Search for Plaintiffs Continues in Suit to Challenge Online Indecency Legislation * Effect of Telco Bill on Universal Access * Conferences ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE PAGE (Legislation/Agency/Court Cases/Issues) ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Universities Censor Student Internet Use In a knee-jerk reaction to the cyber-porn scare, many universities around the country have begun to enact policies to regulate student Internet use. The ACLU believes that university censorship of student Internet usage is inconsistent with the principles of academic freedom. In addition, state universities are required as state institutions to uphold the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. The Internet flourished for years as primarily an academic -- and uncensored -- domain. Colleges should not now cave in to the Luddites by enacting restrictive computer usage policies. Here are a few examples of university computer usage policies that tread on cyber-liberties: * After a year-long battle that made national news, Carnegie Mellon University is expected this November to approve a policy to censor certain Usenet newsgroups on Andrew, their flagship computing system. Their decision to censor is based on fear that the university could be held criminally liable under state obscenity and harmful to minors laws for providing access to newsgroups that "might be" obscene. The administration refused to accept the suggestion of both the CMU Faculty Senate and the ACLU that the computer network be categorized as a library, which would entitle the network to an exemption from the Pennsylvania obscenity statute. * The University of Minnesota will not allow students to have "offensive" content on their web sites, or even to create links to "offensive" content elsewhere on the Internet. They have also adopted the double standard of commercial services like America Online and Prodigy -- despite U of Minn's explicit content control, student web pages must include a disclaimer that the university takes "no responsibility" for anything on the pages. * At George Mason University, the "Responsible Use of Computing" policy begins with the following statement: "The following rules are not complete; just because an action is not explicitly proscribed does not necessarily mean that it is acceptable." (One could hardly imagine a better example of ambiguity with the potential to chill protected speech.) The policy creates a Security Review Panel that investigates reports of "offensive" computer behavior. As could be predicted, the backlog of cases before this panel is already quite long. (The head of the Security Review Panel is none other than Dr. Peter Denning, husband of Dr. Dorothy Denning, infamous proponent of the Clipper Chip.) On the bright side, students and faculty groups continue to hotly oppose these policies when they arise, and have been instrumental in shaping Internet usage policies to be less inhibitive of free speech and privacy rights. The following online resources will be useful to students and faculty faced with a draconian Internet usage policy: * Report on Computers at Harvard, by the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard: _Very_ comprehensive and useful report on students' computer usage rights on Harvard's network. Included are five general principles for computer use, an application of the general principles to specific aspects of computer use, and a discussion of areas where Harvard should take immediate action to secure students' rights on the network. Available at gopher://fas-gopher.harvard.edu:70/00/.studorgs/.cluh/.computer_report * Web Site on CMU Censorship Proposal: Thorough history and database of documents on Carnegie Mellon University's battle over online censorship. Also includes information on CMU's Coalition for Academic Freedom of Expression (CAFE). See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/kcf/www/censor/ * ACLU letter and legal analysis to CMU: send a message to infoaclu@aclu.org with "Letter to CMU" in the subject line. The ACLU will continue to monitor university polices that restrict online free speech and privacy rights. The ACLU urges all students and faculty to actively work for university computer usage policies that protect their rights. To inform the ACLU of a computer usage policy at your school that may violate cyber-liberties, contact Ann Beeson, ACLU, beeson@aclu.org. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases) ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Conferees Named for Federal Online Indecency Legislation Congress recently named the official conferees to the telecommunications bill. The Senate version of the telco bill (S 652) contains the Exon Amendment, approved 84-16 by the Senate on 6/14/95. The House version of the telco bill (HR 1555) contains the Cox/Wyden Amendment (the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act), approved 421-4 on 8/4/95. The House version also contains Exon-like amendments to the existing federal obscenity statute, which came out of the House Judiciary Committee and were adopted as last-minute additions through a larger Manager's Amendment on 8/4/95. The conference committee is in charge of reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the telco bill, including the obviously incompatible provisions regarding online content. While more details are offered in the list below, the following facts should be highlighted: _Notable Conferees_ -Senator Exon: sponsored the Exon Amendment and launched the cyber-porn scare. -Senator Gorton: original co-sponsor of the CDA. -Representative Hyde: sponsored the inclusion of indecency amendments to the federal obscenity laws in the House telco bill. -Representatives White, Markey, Goodlatte, Fields, and Barr: spoke in favor of Cox/Wyden amendment on the House floor during the telco debate. _Some Absent Conferees_ -Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. -Senator Leahy: sponsored the study alternative to the CDA in the Senate (Senator Leahy is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee). -Representatives Cox & Wyden: sponsored the Cox/Wyden "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act." -Senators who voted against the CDA. _Other Notable Facts_ -All the Senate conferees voted for the CDA. -All the House conferees voted for the Cox/Wyden amendment. -All the House conferees also voted for the Exon-like indecency amendments to federal obscenity laws. However, they may not have been aware of this vote because it was not a separate vote but rather a vote to approve the Manager's amendment, which contained many provisions unrelated to the censorship legislation. -Given the conferees named, it is highly likely that the House leadership, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, will play a substantial role in the conference process. THE LIST OF CONFEREES: Conferees from the House were assigned to particular titles of the telco bill; Senate conferees have jurisdiction over all titles. The list that follows indicates the titles over which each conferee has jurisdiction, and the conferee's relevant committee status, party, and area of constituency. *Title I: Development of Competitive Telecommunications Markets (contains the Cox/Wyden amendment) Title II: Cable Communications Competitiveness Title III: Broadcast Communications Competitiveness *Title IV: Effect on Other Laws (contains the Exon Amendment and the Exon-like indecency amendments to the federal obscenity statute) Title V: Definitions Title VI: Small Business Complaint Procedure Representatives from the House: Jurisdiction over Titles I and IV (these conferees may participate in discussions to reconcile the conflicting online content provisions in the Cox/Wyden Amendment, the Exon Amendment, and the Exon-like indecency amendments to the federal obscenity statute): Representatives from the House Commerce Committee, in order of rank: Republicans: Bliley, Thomas J. (Richmond, Virginia) all titles Fields, Jack (Houston, Texas) all titles Oxley, Michael G. (northwest Ohio) all titles White, Rick (northwest Washington) all titles Barton, Joseph (Fort Worth, Texas) I, II, IV, V Hastert, J. Dennis (northeast Illinois) I, II, IV, V Klug, Scott (Madison, Wisconsin) I, III, IV, V, VI Democrats: Dingell, John D. (southeast Michigan) all titles Markey, Edward J. (northeast Massachusetts) all titles Boucher, Rick (southwest Virginia) all titles Eshoo, Anna G. (San Francisco Bay Area, California) all titles Rush, Bobby L. (Chicago, Illinois) all titles Representatives from the House Judiciary Committee, in order of rank: Republicans: Hyde, Henry J. (Chicago, Illinois) all titles Moorhead, Carlos J. (Los Angeles area, California) all titles Goodlatte, Robert W. (Western Virginia) all titles Buyer, Steve (northwest Indiana) all titles Flanagan, Michael P. (Chicago, Illinois) all titles Democrats: Conyers, John (Detroit, Michigan) all titles Schroeder, Patricia (Denver, Colorado) all titles Bryant, John (Dallas, Texas) all titles Title I only (these conferees may participate in discussions to revise the Cox/Wyden Amendment, but may not participate in discussions to reconcile the conflicting online content provisions in the Cox/Wyden Amendment, the Exon Amendment, and the Exon-like indecency amendments to the federal obscenity statute): Representatives from the House Commerce Committee, in order of rank: Republicans: Paxon, Bill (western New York) I, III Frisa, Dan (New York, New York) I, II Stearns, Cliff (northeast Florida) I, III Democrats: Brown, Sherrod (northeast Ohio) I Gordon, Bart (central Tennessee) I Lincoln, Blanche Lambert (northeast Arkansas) I Representatives from the House Judiciary Committee, in order of rank: Republicans: Gallegly, Elton (southern California) I Barr, Bob (western Georgia) I Hoke, Martin R. (northeast Ohio) I Democrats: Berman, Howard L. (Los Angeles area, California) I Scott, Robert C. (Richmond, Virginia) I Lee, Sheila Jackson (Houston, Texas) I Conferees from the Senate Commerce Committee, in order of rank (the Senate conferees have jurisdiction over all titles): Republicans: Pressler, Larry (South Dakota) Stevens, Ted (Alaska) McCain, John (Arizona) Burns, Conrad (Montana) Gorton, Slade (Washington) Lott, Trent (Mississippi) Democrats: Hollings, Ernest F. (South Carolina) Inouye, Daniel K. (Hawaii) Ford, Wendell H. (Kentucky) Exon, James J. (Nebraska) Rockefeller, John D. (West Virginia) For a copy of the online indecency amendments, send a message to infoaclu@aclu.org with "Online Indecency Amendments" in the subject line of the message. For more information on the legislation and what you can do to fight it, see: http://epic.org/free_speech http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon http://www.eff.org/ http://www.cdt.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Search for Plaintiffs Continues in Suit to Challenge Online Indecency Legislation As noted above, the online community should continue to urge the conference committee to remove the censorship provisions from the telco bill. At the same time, a coalition has formed to organize litigation to challenge these provisions if they are signed into law. The first step is the selection of plaintiffs. We need plaintiffs who use online networks to discuss or distribute works or art, literary classics, sex education, gay and lesbian literature, human rights reporting, abortion information, rape counseling, controversial political speech, or any other material that could be deemed "indecent" and therefore illegal under the proposed law. We received a tremendous response to our first call for plaintiffs, in the last issue of the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update. Thanks to all the organizations who contacted us. We urge other groups to join the battle to save free speech in cyberspace. Please contact Ann Beeson at the ACLU if your organization is interested in being a plaintiff in this ground-breaking litigation that will define First Amendment rights in cyberspace. 212-944-9800 x788, beeson@aclu.org. ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Effect of Telco Bill on Universal Access In addition to the online censorship provisions in the telco bill, the ACLU is seriously concerned about the effect of other provisions in the bill on universal access. For more information about the effect of the telco bill on universal access and other public interest matters, see the Ad Hoc Site Against the Telecommunications Bill, co-sponsored by Center for Media Education, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Consumer Federation of America, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Media Access Project, People for the American Way, and Taxpayer Assets Project, at http://www.access.digex.net:80/~cme/bill.html. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oct 26, 5 pm: "Law in Cyberspace: Free Expression and Intellectual Property on the Internet," Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey NW, Gewirz Conference Room, Gewirz Hall. Co-sponsored by ACLU-GULC and Student Intellectual Property Law Association. Panelists include David Post (GULC Law professor and author of column on cyberspace law in American Lawyer); John Podesta (GULC professor and former senior policy advisor to President Clinton on govt information policy); and David Johnson (co-founder of the Cyberspace Law Institute, President of Lexis Counsel Connect). Nov 3, 8 pm: John Perry Barlow on "Creating Cyberculture," Kane Hall - University of Washington in Seattle. $12 ($10 students). The lecture is part of a series, co-sponsored by the ACLU of Washington, that explores the impact and implications of the technology revolution on art and culture. Other cosponsors include 911 Media Arts Center, the University of Washington's New Media Lab, and the University of Washington Technical Communications Department. Nov 16, 5 pm: Nadine Strossen (National President, ACLU) speaks on "Defending Pornography: A Feminist Perspective on New Technologies and Old-Fashioned Sex," GULC, 600 New Jersey NW, 12th Floor Ballroom, Gewirz Hall. Co-sponsored by ACLU-GULC and the Student Bar Association Speakers Fund. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stay tuned for news on the ACLU's world wide web site, under construction at http://www.aclu.org. In the meantime, you can retrieve ACLU documents via gopher at gopher://aclu.org:6601 (forgive the less-than-updated state of our gopher -- we've devoted all our resources to WWW construction!). If you're on America Online, check out the live chats, auditorium events, *very* active message boards, and complete news on civil liberties, at keyword ACLU. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor: Ann Beeson (beeson@aclu.org) American Civil Liberties Union National Office 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to infoaclu@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties Update" in the subject line of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to infoaclu@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties Update" in the subject line. For general information about the ACLU, write to infoaclu@aclu.org. ----------------------------------------------------------------- **PLEASE REPOST WITH HEADER INTACT**