from URL:http://www.vtw.org/billwatch/issue.13.html. Here are the four
I thought this might interest some of you here... Note the email address for Senator Feingold where you can thank him, without leaving your terminal! Article: 64508 of comp.org.eff.talk Path: cnn.Princeton.EDU!udel!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!panix!not-for-mail From: shabbir@vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar) Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.motherjones,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.wired,comp.org.cpsr.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex.senator-exon,alt.society.civil-disob,alt.sex.stories.d,alt.bbs.allsysop Subject: (ALERT) Sen. Feingold speaks up for free speech; thank him Date: 1 Oct 1995 01:46:07 -0400 Organization: Voters Telecommunications Watch (email vtw@vtw.org) Lines: 461 Sender: shabbir@panix.com Distribution: world Message-ID: <44l9uv$dmc@panix3.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com Xref: cnn.Princeton.EDU alt.activism:120876 alt.politics.datahighway:10012 alt.politics.usa.misc:46797 alt.privacy:29041 alt.society.civil-liberty:49866 alt.wired:20952 comp.org.cpsr.talk:6658 comp.org.eff.talk:64508 talk.politics.libertarian:46422 talk.politics.misc:369284 alt.censorship:66917 misc.legal:149492 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:41505 alt.society.civil-disob:580 alt.sex.stories.d:15167 alt.bbs.allsysop:14512 ======================================================================== CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END) Update: -Latest News: Feingold releases letter to Committee members identifying First Amendment issues with CDA legislation. -What You Can Do Now: Send a letter to Feingold congratulating him for speaking up for free speech. Put your business or bulletin board on record as supporting free speech and opposing censorship for cyberspace! CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Oct 1, 1995 PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL November 25, 1995 REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org) ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now Letter from Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) to Committee Chronology of the CDA For More Information List Of Participating Organizations ________________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS Many people who have been following the attempts to censor the Internet may have seen the Senate floor debate. If you did, you were treated to the sight of Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Feingold (D-WI) passionately attempting to explain to 84 members of the Senate exactly just what the Internet was, and why passing laws against indecency are inappropriate in this medium. Both Senators spoke passionately, and for those that understand this technology, something clicked. The 16 members that voted against the censorship legislation will be rewarded by reminders to their voters about their rational, non-hysterical, positions on free speech at the end of the year. In the meantime, we believe that you should congratulate Senators Feingold on his stand for free speech, and for sticking up for the net. Quite often Senator Leahy gets most of the credit for this position. Let's be honest, he deserves it because of his long standing rational approach to our issues. However it's a big tent, and free speech can always use another defender. (Directions for contacting Feingold's office below) Last week Senator Feingold sent a letter to several committee members outlining the First Amendment problems with the measures passed by the Senate (the Communications Decency Act) and the House (the Manager's Amendment) and asked that these be deleted. A copy of that letter is enclosed below, and we thank Senator Feingold's office for making available an electronic copy (so we didn't have to type it in!). Remember, send Senator Feingold a thank you. He's earned it. [What comes below is unchanged from the last alert] The House and Senate have passed a total of four different pieces of legislation aimed at dealing with children's access to information on the Internet. Each of the four was profiled in BillWatch #13 which you can retrieve pieces of legislation and a short summary of each of them. HR1978: "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act" (Cox/Wyden) This bill takes the approach of encouraging industry to provide parents with tools to restrict their childrens' access to the net. It contains no new criminal provisions. This approach was affirmed by the House 421-4 on August 4, 1995. (Yes, that's a landslide) S314: "The Communications Decency Act" (Exon/Coats) This bill makes many types of constitutionally-protected speech (including lewd, lascivious, and indecent speech) criminal when used through a telecommunications device. This provision was affirmed by the Senate 84-16 on June 14, 1995. House amendment to HR1555: "Child Protection, User Empowerment, and Free Expression in Interactive Media Study Act" (Klink/Leahy) This bill directs the Department of Justice to study and see if there are places in current law where existing obscenity laws are unenforcible on computer networks. This approach was affirmed by a committee voice vote. House amendment to HR1555: <unnamed> This amendment was submitted at the last minute through the Manager's Mark, a collection of several amendments to HR1555 that were voted on as a block. This amendment takes constitutionally-protected speech and criminalizes it when it is expressed online. Most legislators had no idea that they voted on this last amendment; the summary of the Manager's Mark did not mention these new criminal provisions. There was no applicable House vote on *just this* provision. The House-Senate conference committee now has the task of deciding which of these are allowed into the final Telecommunications Deregulation bill for the last floor vote. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW 1. Send Senator Feingold a letter telling him you appreciate him standing up for free speech in cyberspace. Be polite and check your spelling. Most importantly, READ HIS LETTER FIRST before you send mail. He took the time to write it, shouldn't you take the time to read it? Email or paper mail are recommended, since they will have the least impact on the staff. Telephone calls are less desirable, but certainly appropriate if that is the only way that is convenient for you. The Senator can be reached at: P ST Name and Address Phone Fax = == ======================== ============== ============== D WI Feingold, Russell 1-202-224-5323 na 502 HSOB russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov Washington, D.C. 20510 [This is from the last alert. We are still collecting signons to the letter though, and we don't have nearly enough Internet Service Providers. -Shabbir] 2. It's crucial that we tell Congress how their decision in the conference committee will affect businesses and bulletin boards in cyberspace. We're coordinating a letter from Internet businesses and bulletin boards to explain to Congress just what these poorly-drafted regulations will mean to them. Read the electronic business and bulletin board letter below. You can also find it at: Gopher: gopher -p1/vtw/exon gopher.panix.com WWW URL: http://www.vtw.org/cdaletter/ Email : Send mail to files@vtw.org with "send cdaletter" in the subject line. 3. If you work for a business that uses bulletin boards or public networks, convince the owners to sign onto the letter. Companies that should sign this include Internet service providers, Web designers (big and small), Internet consultants and trainers, Internet restaurants and bars, software companies that develop Internet-related software, companies that advertise or publish through the Internet or bulletin boards, writers who publish through the Internet, and many others! If you belong to a bulletin board, ask the sysop if he or she will sign onto the letter. 4. Ask the BBS sysop or the business owner to mail in the following information to vtw@vtw.org: Business name Owner or officer name Address Email address Phone number Description of business and anything else relevant Here's an example: $ Mail vtw@vtw.org My business would like to signon to the business and bbs letter. We are: Ed's Xcellent Online Node (EXON) J.J. Exon, Owner 2323 Decency Road, Nebraska 10000-0000 (402) 555-1212 jj@exon.net Ed's Xcellent Online Node is based in Nebraska and provides Internet service to many thoughtful and free-speech loving Nebraskans. We provide Internet access to over 1,500 residents and 400 businesses. We employ 35 full time employees. -James ^D Mail sent! $ 5. If you don't subscribe to a BBS or have an affiliation with a business that uses public networks, but belong to a professional organization or an advocacy group, consider sending Congress the ACLU letter included below with your local group's name on it. Simply replace the material in parentheses with your own information. 6. Relax! You just did a lot of good with only email as a tool. Isn't that great? ________________________________________________________________________ LETTER FROM SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI) [NOTE: This letter was sent to: Sen. Larry Pressler Sen. Fritz Hollings Rep. Thomas Bliley Rep. John Dingell House Committee on Commerce Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Technology All of these individuals have a hand in the shaping of the conference committee process that will define the outcome of the Telecommunications Deregulation bill, and therefore, the Internet censorship legislation. Each letter was identical, so we have only included one here. -Shabbir] Tuesday September 26, 1995 The Honorable Thomas Bliley Chairman, Committee on Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Bliley, Soon your Committee will begin Conference deliberations on H.R. 1555 and S.652, telecommunications reform legislation, with members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. During those deliberations, I urge you to strike the potentially unconstitutional provisions regarding on-line indecency contained in both the Senate and House versions of this legislation. The Exon-Coats amendment, added to S. 652 on the Senate floor, included provisions which I believe would violate the First Amendment rights of Internet users and have a chilling effect on further economic and technological development of this exciting new form of telecommunications. Specifically I have objected to the indecency provisions of S. 652 for the following reasons: 1) Indecent speech, unlike obscenity, is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 2) An outright ban on indecent speech on computer networks is not the "least restrictive means" of protecting children from exposure to such speech on the Internet. There are a number of existing tools available today to allow parents to protect their children from materials which they find inappropriate; 3) A ban on indecent speech to minors on the Internet will unnecessarily require adults to self censor their communications on the Internet; 4) Since "indecency" will be defined by community standards, protected speech by adults will be diminished to what might be considered decent in the most conservative community in the United States and to what might be appropriate for very young children; 5) The "on-line indecency" provisions will establish different standards for the same material that appears in print and on the computer screen. Works that are completely legal in the bookstore or on the library shelf would be criminal if transmitted over computer networks; 6) The Supreme Court has ruled that the degree to which content can be regulated depends on the characteristics of the media. The unique nature of interactive media must be considered when determining how best to protect children. S. 652 ignores the degree to which users have control over the materials to which they are exposed as well as the decentralized nature of interactive technology which liken it more to print media than broadcast media. Section 403 of H.R. 1555, known as the Hyde amendment, raises equally serious concerns with respect to the First Amendment and appears antithetical to other provisions contained in the House Bill. The prohibitions against on-line indecency contained in the Hyde language will have a similar chilling effect on the on-line communications of adults. The Hyde amendment is also inconsistent with the more market-oriented and less intrusive provisions of Sec. 104 of H.R. 1555, the On-Line Family Empowerment Act introduced by Congressmen Cox and Wyden, as adopted by the House. Section 104 recognizes that First Amendment protections must apply to on-line communications by prohibiting FCC content regulation of the Internet. The Cox/Wyden provisions also promote the use of existing technology to empower parents to protect their children from objectionable materials on the Internet, and encourages on-line service providers to self-police offensive communications over their private services. In addition, the Hyde amendment is incompatible with Section 110 of H.R. 1555, which demands a report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on existing criminal obscenity and child pornography statutes and their applicability to cyber-crime. Sec. 110 also requires an evaluation of the technical means available to enable parents to exercise control over the information that their children receive on the Internet. Perhaps most significantly, Sec. 110 embraces the application of First Amendment speech protections to interactive media. H.R. 1555, while embracing the principles of restraint with respect to new criminal sanctions on protected speech and the promotion of a free-market parental empowerment approach, simultaneously ignores both of those axioms with the Hyde provision. By imposing new criminal sanctions on indecent speech and amending existing criminal statutes, the Hyde amendment rushes to judgement before the DOJ study has even begun. Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first-ever Congressional hearing on the issue of cyberporn. Based on the testimony of the witnesses, which included parents as well as victims of cyberporn, it became clear that the objectionable communications on the Internet are already covered by existing criminal statutes. The concerns raised at the hearing centered upon trafficking of child pornography, the proliferation of obscenity, and the solicitation and victimization of minors via the Internet. However, those offenses are already violations of criminal law. Indeed, recent press accounts indicate that law enforcement officers are already aggressively prosecuting on-line users for violations of criminal law relating to obscenity and child pornography. It is critical that we use law enforcement resources to prosecute criminal activity conducted via the Internet and not be distracted by the issue of indecency which has not been identified as a serious concern by users or parents. It was clear, during our recent Senate Hearing, that the witnesses' concerns about the Internet did not relate to indecent speech or the so-called "seven dirty words". It is incumbent upon Congress to wait for the results of the study required by H.R. 1555 before embracing overly restrictive, potentially unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional prohibitions on indecent speech contained in both versions of telecommunications reform legislation. I urge the Conference Committee to reject the Exon/Coats and Hyde provisions during your deliberations and to maintain the Cox/Wyden amendment adopted overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives. If the United States is to ever fully realize the benefits of interactive telecommunications technology, we cannot allow the heavy hand of Congress to unduly interfere with communications on this medium. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter. Sincerely, Russell D. Feingold United States Senator cc: Members, Committee on Commerce ________________________________________________________________________ CHRONOLOGY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Sep 26, '95 Sen. Russ Feingold urges committee members to drop Managers Amendment and the CDA from the Telecommunications Deregulation bill Aug 4, '95 House passes HR1555 which goes into conference with S652. Aug 4, '95 House votes to attach Managers Amendment (which contains new criminal penalties for speech online) to Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555). Aug 4, '95 House votes 421-4 to attach HR1978 to Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555). Jun 30, '95 Cox and Wyden introduce the "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act" (HR 1978) as an alternative to the CDA. Jun 21, '95 Several prominent House members publicly announce their opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Jun 14, '95 The Senate passes the CDA as attached to the Telecomm reform bill (S 652) by a vote of 84-16. The Leahy bill (S 714) is not passed. May 24, '95 The House Telecomm Reform bill (HR 1555) leaves committee in the House with the Leahy alternative attached to it, thanks to Rep. Ron Klink of (D-PA). The Communications Decency Act is not attached to it. Apr 7, '95 Sen. Leahy (D-VT) introduces S.714, an alternative to the Exon/Gorton bill, which commissions the Dept. of Justice to study the problem to see if additional legislation (such as the CDA) is necessary. Mar 23, '95 S314 amended and attached to the telecommunications reform bill by Sen. Gorton (R-WA). Language provides some provider protection, but continues to infringe upon email privacy and free speech. Feb 21, '95 HR1004 referred to the House Commerce and Judiciary committees Feb 21, '95 HR1004 introduced by Rep. Johnson (D-SD) Feb 1, '95 S314 referred to the Senate Commerce committee Feb 1, '95 S314 introduced by Sen. Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA). ________________________________________________________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATION Web Sites URL:http://www.vtw.org/exon/ URL:http://epic.org/ URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/ URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html URL:http://outpost.callnet.com/outpost.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 alert" in the subject line for the latest alert, or "send cdafaq" for the CDA FAQ) 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 Communication Association * American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression * Californians Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology * Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation * Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Cloud 9 Internet *Computer Communicators Association * Computel Network Services * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * ECHO Communications Group, Inc. * 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 * FranceCom, Inc. Web Advertising Services * 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. * Internet Users Consortium * Joint Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action Committee * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project * Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * MindVox * MN Grassroots Party * National Bicycle Greenway * National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National Coalition Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force * National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way * Republican Liberty Caucus * 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 ========================================================================