---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:40:23 -0500 (EST) From: Emilyaclu@aol.com To: Emilyaclu@aol.com Subject: "Son of CDA" Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, ACLU Says ACLU Says New Internet Censorship Statute Ignores Landmark Supreme Court Ruling FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, November 13, 1997 Contact: Emily Whitfield, (212) 549-2566 WASHINGTON--New legislation aimed at banning online material deemed "harmful to minors" would run roughshod over the landmark Supreme Court decision affirming free speech on the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. The ACLU, which led the successful battle to defeat the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act (CDA), said S. 1482, like the CDA, would restrict adults from accessing constitutionally protected speech. The bill was introduced earlier this week by Sen. Dan Coats, R-IN, an original sponsor of the ill-fated CDA. Under the statute, commercial online distributors of material deemed "harmful to minors" could be punished with up to six months in jail and a $50,000 fine. The definition could include the virtual bookstore amazon.com or a promotional site for a Hollywood movie, as well as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Microsoft and America Online, the ACLU said. And unlike the CDA, the statute applies only to web sites, not to chat rooms, e-mail or news groups. "By claiming that the bill addresses only web sites involved in commercial distribution, Senator Coats says he is ‘hunting with a rifle,' but in fact, he has lobbed another virtual grenade into the heart of the Internet" said Ann Beeson, an ACLU National Staff Attorney and member of the legal team that defeated the CDA. Any business merely displaying material without first requiring a credit card or other proof of age could be found liable under the statute, which criminalizes commercial distribution of words or images that could be deemed "harmful to minors," even if no actual sale is involved, Beeson said. "This is the equivalent of having to pay a fee every time you want to browse in the bookstore or watch a trailer for an R-rated movie," Beeson said. "As the Supreme Court noted in its landmark decision, requiring a credit card or other age verification would impose a severe financial and logistical burden, even on commercial websites." The ACLU said there were serious constitutional problems as well with the bill's definition of "harmful to minors." In addition to using a vague definition of what constitutes "harmful material," the bill does not make any distinction between material that may be harmful to a six-year-old but valuable for a 16-year-old, such as safer-sex information, said Chris Hansen, an ACLU Senior Staff Attorney and member of the Reno v. ACLU legal team. Further, Hansen pointed out, unlike other "harmful to minors" statutes that have been upheld in the courts, the bill does not define whose community standard will be used to determine what material is harmful. "Invariably, those who decide what is harmful to a minor are going to be the least tolerant members of a given community -- such as the group in Oklahoma who sought to remove the award-winning film ‘The Tin Drum' from local libraries and video stores," Hansen said. The Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down the CDA was issued on June 26 of this year, 16 months after the law was enacted and the ACLU filed its challenge. In a ringing affirmation of online free speech, the Court said that ‘the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.' "While we rejoiced in the Supreme Court's decision last June, we knew that the battle was not yet over," said Solange Bitol, legislative counsel on First Amendment issues for the ACLU's Washington National Office. "When Congress returns to session in the New Year, we will be ready for Round Two in the battle to protect our free speech rights." -endit-