Gee, fellas, looking over this bill, *most* of what's going on is just porting existing telephone law over to cybercomm. Given the existence of 900-sex-talk, the phone companies are clearly not being held responsible for content. They are required, of course, to cooperate when complaints of harassing or obscene calls are made, to obey properly warranted requests for wiretaps, etc. It's perfectly reasonable to expect similar requirements on net service providers.

Read carefully. There are indeed implications for Internet service providers in terms of their responsibility under the law for the content of their systems and services.

Yeah, but First Amendment and common carrier law is a morass of conflicting statutes, interpretations, and case law. After all, libel law puts some content liability on newspapers [too much, IMHO, but it has hardly destroyed freedom of the press]. As several posters have noted, the placement of the key words "knowingly" and "intentionally" are critical. It doesn't appear, though, that any "knowingly"s or "intentionally"s have been removed. I am forwarding copies of this and the whole bill text to my brother, the former DA in Telluride, to see if he sees any unusual craptraps. I'll post any useful reply ...

(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever -

(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication by means of [telephone] telecommunications device -

(A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal] makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication] which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

(B) [makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues, without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication;

(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

(D) [makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or] makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which comversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number of who receives the communication; or

I.e., *just like with phones,* you can't send harrassing or obscene messages to unwilling recipients. Is there a lot of slack for bullshit? You betcha! A major change from the present? Doesn't look like it. [no intention of holding up the present as paradise, of course ;-]

(b) Prohibited acts for commercial purposes; defense to prosecution

(1) Whoever knowingly -

^^^^^^^^^^ [applies to A & B below]

(A) within the United States, by means of [telephone], telecommunications device makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication [placed the call] placed the call or initiated the conversation; or

(B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(2) Whoever knowingly -

^^^^^^^^^^ [applies to A & B below]

(A) within the United States, [by means of telephone, makes] by means of telecommunications device, makes, knowingly transmits, or knowingly makes available (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication [placed the call] placed the call or initiated the communication; or

(B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than [$50,000] $100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] 2 years, or both.

=================================== Rich Dutcher, San Francisco Greens P.O. Box 77005, San Francisco, California 94107 USA "That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves." Kim Stanley Robinson, "Green Mars" Greens, of course, only enslave plants - so weed-whackers work better than cops ... ====================================