Earlier today (Mon, 8 Jan 1996), you (Don Gaffney) expressed the following:

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.

It is _not_ currently illegal, as the term "indecent," in all its vagueness, can be defined as anything from a "Bonnie's Busty Barnyard Buddies" video, to _Catcher in the Rye_, which has been deemed "indecent" by several of this nation's local legislative bodies.

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").

And that is EXACTLY the point. You'll notice that the passage (I believe) in question: "(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly - "(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and "(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent knowing that the recipient of the communication is under ^^^^^^^^^^^ 18 years of age regard less of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; goes deliberately beyond simply "obscene." Which means that if I were to send my 17 year-old cousin a digitized copy of some "indecent" song lyrics or possibly even information on the AIDS epidemic, I am now facing felony charges from los federales.

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 seems... But if I let my friendly neighborhood service provider know I'm sending my cousin the electronic copy of Charles Bukowski's "Septegenerian Stew" he requested, no doubt we're both doomed. (...knowingly permits a telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity)

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?

No question it is one of them, but the questionable materials are being defined too broadly.

Anyway, being rather foolish I suppose, I don't exactly see what the big deal is - am I missing something???

Along the same freedom of speech lines, the pending legislation also would make it illegal to use a telecommunications medium to express anything "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass an other person;" meaning if I sent e-mail to a spamming "Get Rich Quick-er" telling him to fuck off, I am now in violation of the CDA. The real bitch is that they can continue spamming (IMO, a worse crime) as I rot away in Lemon Creek Correctional Facility; however, I am not about to propose legislation to limit their ability to do that, either. There is also the matter of allowing the FCC to regulate the internet, which I find equally as disturbing, but I am sure there are people on this list who will be able to express concerns with this far more eloquently than myself. Sincerely, Angus Durocher. ____________________________ It should be an outrage for \_ Angus Durocher people who have never seen a \_ No one of much importance road to be so presumptious as \_ berkley@ixl.net to regulate those of us who drive.\________________________