S.652 (H.R. 1555)
Today's version of the bill is posted at: http://www.cdt.org/policy/freespeech/12_21.cda.html This title may be cited as the "Communications Decency Act of 1995". Perhaps some of our more lawyerly types can decipher whether it is getting better or worse as the conference committee chews. Not I.
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 8-Jan-96 S.652 (H.R. 1555) by Harry Bartholomew@netcom
Perhaps some of our more lawyerly types can decipher whether it is getting better or worse as the conference committee chews. Not I.
I'm not a lawyerly type by any means, but my understanding is that it's getting worse: * The provision prohibiting the FCC from regulating the Net has been removed. * The max fine for "indecent" speech is now $250,000. The budget crisis stalled work on the legislation, and many congressperns are out of town. But the Senate wants the bill to pass in its current form, as does the White House -- Gore called it "an early Christmas present to the American people." The only opposition is from the House freshman Republicans, who are criticizing the bill on other grounds. Since they don't want to be seen as "porn-sympathetic," my guess is that the indecency provisions will stay in. And the bill should become law within the next month. -Declan
On Tue, 9 Jan 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 8-Jan-96 S.652 (H.R. 1555) by Harry Bartholomew@netcom
Perhaps some of our more lawyerly types can decipher whether it is getting better or worse as the conference committee chews. Not I.
I'm not a lawyerly type by any means, but my understanding is that it's getting worse:
* The provision prohibiting the FCC from regulating the Net has been removed. * The max fine for "indecent" speech is now $250,000. ^^^^^^^^^
Probably accomplished by making the "crime" a felony. Standard fine for Title 18 cases is $250,000 (there are exceptions, of course. EBD
On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Harry Bartholomew wrote:
http://www.cdt.org/policy/freespeech/12_21.cda.html
This title may be cited as the "Communications Decency Act of 1995".
Perhaps some of our more lawyerly types can decipher whether it is getting better or worse as the conference committee chews. Not I.
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've read from the WWW site above, it seems that only providing "indecent" materials to minors is prohibited. I think this is already illegal. Broadcasting or sending unsolicited "indecent" materials is also prohibited, but that seems to have always been the case (except that objectionable materials have been called "obscence" rather than "indecent"). There are provisions, as I read it, that protect electronic intermediaries from the acts of the actual publishers of the materials (i.e. an ISP is not responsible for the material of other internet sites not under their control). It sounds to me like the only real task posed is to authenticate those accessing questionable materials as being >= 18 years old. Hmmmm. Don't authentication & crypto go hand-in-hand? Anyway, being rather foolish I suppose, I don't exactly see what the big deal is - am I missing something??? _____________________________________________________________________ Don Gaffney Engineering, Mathematics & Business Administration Computer Facility University of Vermont 237 Votey Building Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-8490 Fax: (802) 656-8802
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 9-Jan-96 Re: S.652 (H.R. 1555) by Don Gaffney@emba.uvm.edu
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've read from the WWW site above, it seems that only providing "indecent" materials to minors is prohibited. I think this is already illegal.
Fortunately, that's not true. Now, I'm anything but a lawyer, so I welcome corrections. My understanding is: * INDECENCY is illegal to *broadcast* under Federal law, as enforced by the FCC. Examples of indecent words include "fuck" and "cocksucker," which the Supreme Court has defined as illegal in the George Carlin speech, Pacifica case. The justification for a compelling government interest is that radio waves are pervasive, and a child can turn on the radio and hear dirty words by accident. The great free speech attorney Harvey Silverglate has been representing Alan Ginsberg in an "indecency" case, since "Howl" contains "indecent" words -- I believe he managed to get the FCC to include an exemption for material broadcast after midnight. * OBSCENITY is illegal to *distribute* under state laws, which usually incorporate the Miller test. That is, material which has no redeeming artistic, scientific, educational, or political value is obscene. (There are some excemptions, including university libraries. The ACLU has argued that in that context, Usenet can be considered a library.) In practice, text is not obscene; only bestiality and heavy BDSM pix are.
It sounds to me like the only real task posed is to authenticate those accessing questionable materials as being >= 18 years old. Hmmmm. Don't authentication & crypto go hand-in-hand?
If you're running a public web site or anon FTP site, how do you do that? And should you have to? Anyway, the current telecom bill language continues to include the "indecency" language. Since there are no post-midnight exemptions, it means the Internet would be the most regulated communications medium in the United States. What does that mean? When this becomes law, you'll be hit with fines of $250,000 and prison terms of two years if you post the word "fuck" in a Usenet newsgroup or on a web page where a minor can read it. Fuck that. -Declan
In article <wkwdZSi00YUvI3q_gr@andrew.cmu.edu> "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU> writes:
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:35:42 -0500 (EST) X-From-Line: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Tue Jan 9 11:53:19 1996 References: <Pine.3.89.9601091009.F11357-0100000@griffin.emba.uvm.edu> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Precedence: bulk Lines: 46
* INDECENCY is illegal to *broadcast* under Federal law, as enforced by the FCC. Examples of indecent words include "fuck" and "cocksucker," which the Supreme Court has defined as illegal in the George Carlin speech, Pacifica case. The justification for a compelling government interest is that radio waves are pervasive, and a child can turn on the radio and hear dirty words by accident. The great free speech attorney Harvey Silverglate has been representing Alan Ginsberg in an "indecency" case, since "Howl" contains "indecent" words -- I believe he managed to get the FCC to include an exemption for material broadcast after midnight.
Isn't a large part of the reason the FCC can regulate broadcasters without violating the first ammendment the fact that there are only a finite number of broadcast frequencies, and that TV/radio stations are required to serve the public interest? I don't see how the same login can be applied to the internet.
participants (5)
-
bart＠netcom.com -
Brian Davis -
Declan B. McCullagh -
Don Gaffney -
Mr. Nobody