Mark's Editorial on the Passage of the 1996 Communications Decency Act


By now most everyone is aware of the passage of the telecommunications reform bill. It is has been widely covered in the media this week. Most of the reports on radio and television have focused on the economic implications of this legislation. This isn't surprising in light of the fact that the bill may change the way you receive your television and radio signals. In fact, the deregulation of telecommunication industries is going to change the way all Americans send and receive information. A bill with such enormous economic impact certainly seems like a great idea if it helps the United States maintain its edge in telecommunications industries. Unfortunately, there is an insidious portion of this bill that has made its way through the legislative process. Until recently, this was rarely mentioned in the thirty second segments on the evening news.

People who spend an inordinate amount of time on the world wide web have been aware of these "indecency" provisions for a long time. Known as the Communications Decency Act, this portion of the bill will impose $250,000 fines and prison terms for anyone who posts "indecent" material. While most would aggree that there is a need to protect children from pornography this seems a little excessive. The "indecent" standard that has been established is a bit extreme as well. The Center for Democracy and Technology noted that works like The Catcher In The Rye or Ulysses include text that is a violation if posted on the web. Even Newt Gingrich, who is considered by some to be relatively conservative, said of the Senator Exon's first proposal; "It is clearly a violation of free speech and it's a violation of the right of adults to communicate with each other."

There are tremendous weaknesses in the bill that can only make one wonder how it could pass through Congress and be signed by the President. Without going into the specific details - of which there are few - the Decency Act is an unenforcible, poorly thought out piece of legislation that is going to make some lawyers very wealthy. The bill will surely fail when tested against the First Amendment but, the battle is going to be a long and expensive one. These rules should have never have been set forth. Doesn't it seem sensible that electronic information should enjoy the same Free Speech protection that print does? How can Congress make illegal on the Web what I can currently find in the library?

These are questions that many Web users are asking themselves. There are many organizations that have vowed to fight these restrictions. On the Web there is a wealth of information available about the new bill. Many sights include detailed archives of the events leading up to the bill's passage. The Communications Decency Act has infused limitations on the rights of all who send and receive information via the Internet and the Web. Our responsibility to protect children is a substantial one.

This responsibility must be tempered by our commitment to protect freedom of speech and maintain an atmosphere that allows for the free exchange of ideas. There may, or may not, be a solution that can partially satisfy both of these interests but, this Communications Decency Act is clearly not it.

Mark C. McCarthy