Subject: Regulation on the net?

From: [email-masked]
Date: 7 Mar 1995 16:52:54 -0500

I picked up the following post on rec.music.gdead.  Although we
don't seem to "go up in flames" or get too racy in the garden,
it seems censorship may concern us all.

>
>                          NET REGULATION ON THE WAY?
>                                       
>    7 Mar 1995 14:54:56 -0500
>    Rutgers University
>   Post a followup article to newsgroup(s)
>   Send email reply to author: David Kuffler
>recently the following appeared in the congressional record:
>
>by Mr. Exon (for himself and Mr. Gorton)
>s.314 a bill to protect the public from misuse of the telecommunications 
>network and telecommunications devices and facilities; to the committee 
>on commerce, science, and transportation
>
>THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
>
>Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to expand the 
>decency provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 to clearly cover the 
>new technologies which are increasingly part of the American way of life.
>        As a strong supporter of telecommunications reform, I am anxious 
>to pass legislation which will free the private sector to create the 
>information superhighway.  This exciting technology will put 
>unprecedented information power into the hands of every citizen.  The 
>opportunities for education, culture, and entertainment are limitless.
>        Sadly, there is a dark side to the bright flicker of the computer 
>screen.  The explosion of technology also threatens an explosion of 
>misuse.  The legislation I introduce today, known as the COMMUNICATIONS 
>DECENCY ACT, establishes legal protections against that misuse.
>        It modernizes the current law against telecommunications misuse 
>in the digital age.
>        This legislation will extend and strengthen the protections which 
>exist harassing, obscene, and indecent phone calls to cover all such uses 
>of all telecommunications devices and increase the penalties for misuse 
>of the public switched network.
>        This much-needed legislation increases the penalties for obscene 
>cable and radio broadcasts.  The bill also insures that adult 
>pay-per-view programs are fully scrambled, so that homes which do not 
>subscribe to such services are not invaded by unwanted audio and video.  
>The legislation also prohibits the use of toll free 800 numbers from 
>being used as a ruse to charge callers or telephone numbers for adult and 
>other pay-per-call services.
>        In addition, the legislation modernizes the protections against 
>unauthorized eavesdropping on conversations, electronic or digital 
>communications.
>        In addition, this legislation includes provisions Senator Gorton 
>and I crafted last year to give cable operators the power to refuse to 
>transmit any public access or leased access program or portion of such 
>program which includes obscenity, indecency, or nudity.
>        Mr. President, the information superhighway should not become a 
>red light district.  This legislation will keep that from happening and 
>extend the standards of decency which have protected telephone users to 
>new telecommunications devices.
>        Once passed, our children and families will be better protected 
>from those who would electronically cruise the digital world to engage 
>children in inappropriate communications and introductions.  The Decency 
>Act will also clearly protect citizens from electronic stalking and 
>protect the sanctuary of the home from uninvited indecencies....
>
>        The Senetor went on to introduce an article from the Washington 
>Post of 8.2.94 entitled "Molesting Children by Computer" by Sandy 
>Rovner into the record.
>
>My comments: if there is any phrase more scary than "the standards of 
>decency" when uttered by a politician, I'm hard-pressed to think of it.
>
>        the Senator wants to protect "children and families" Our law does 
>protect children where appropriate.  I don't understand families unless 
>it is a redundancy.  To me it shows the Senator wants to protect women 
>from the indecencies on the net as to his stereotypical world women are 
>identified with the family and children and need the same protection as 
>children.  The senator should leave the middle ages and realize that all 
>adults are capable of determining what they want to see for themselves.
>
>        Query:  sould there be an information superhighway without the 
>indecent part.  it seems to me that the sharing of this material on the 
>net has led to its growth and popularity and would not exist to the 
>extent it does without it.
>
>        This is dangerous stuff folks.  I will get the text of the act as 
>soon as possible and reprint it here.  Under current law, obscenity and 
>indecency are determined by a jury applying community standards.  Thus, 
>suit can be brought anywhere the material in question ends up.  Thus, an 
>officer on a computer in more conservative areas of the country can 
>access material from elsewhere and bring suit in the conservative area  
>i.e forum-shopping.  Even more dangerous is the apparent political price 
>to be paid by not supporting any crime bill or family values bill.
>
>        From the looks of this report, the bill was referred to committee 
>where it will be voted on and either returned to the Senate for a full 
>vote or it will die in committee to be reintroduced another day.  Contact 
>your local elected officials if you are at concerned by Big Brother.  The 
>paragraph about strengthening the protections which exist against
>unauthorized eavesdropping on conversations, electronic or digital 
>communications surely does not apply to the government!!

-- 
Sarah Webb
Richmond, Virginia USA
[email-masked]