Telcom bill report
Here's the additional info from Reuters. As usual, Clinton is being a coward. For additional Cypherpunks relevance, anonymous remailer operators in the US may need to watch out. -Allen Reuters New Media _ Thursday December 21 2:11 PM EST _ Congress Reaches Compromise On Telecom Reform WASHINGTON - Congressional conferees have agreed to a sweeping reform of telecommunications law that would open competition by allowing the telephone, cable and broadcast industries to invade the others' turf. Vice President Gore says President Clinton will sign the bill. Before the agreement, the president had been threatening for months to veto the bill if Republicans in Congress did not retreat on a long list of issues. They retreated. Vice President Al Gore said "This will unleash a new era in the telecommunications revolution and speed completion of the information highway." The bill would also impose tough new restrictions on sexual material on online services. It has been bitterly opposed by civil rights groups who say the controls on sexual content constitute censorship. The legislation would impose fines of up to $100,000 and prison terms of up to two years on people who make "indecent" material available to minors over computer networks. That could pose big problems for companies that provide online information services. The "cyberporn" issue was championed by conservative religious groups, including the Christian Coalition, and is certain to provoke a new courtroom battle over Constitutional rights to free speech.
The legislation would impose fines of up to $100,000 and prison terms of up to two years on people who make "indecent" material available to minors over computer networks. That could pose big problems for companies that provide online information services.
Perhaps my memory is faulty, but it seems to me that the wording of this part of the bill (S.652) has been amended a bit. Sec. 402 of 652 now amends Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) subsection (a) to fine or imprison whoever "knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) [indecent communication with intent to annoy blah blah] with the intent that it be used for such activity". (this is from the "House Appropriation Bill as Passed by the Senate" version of S.652 on http://thomas.loc.gov) This (new, I think) part requiring "intent that it be used for such activity" looks like an enormous loophole to me. I can't think of many people who provide communications services _with the intent that they be used to harass [etc.] others with obscene [etc.] communications_. Could a lawyer comment on why intent would be easier to establish than I believe offhand ? -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
participants (2)
-
E. ALLEN SMITH -
futplexï¼ pseudonym.com