I've heard some misgivings expressed about Coralee's latest analysis (below) -- they'll be posted as a follow-up. -rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 Sender: •••@••.••• Subject: Telecom Post #22 ==================================================== ################ ############# ################ ## # ## ############# ## ### # ### ### # # # ## # ### ### ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ## # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ### # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ### ### ### ### # # # ## # ### # ==================================================== Free Speech Media, LLC Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility February 22, 1996 Number 22 ==================================================== Compiled, written, and edited by Coralee Whitcomb Please direct comments and inquiries to •••@••.•••. ==================================================== For more information on Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, please write •••@••.••• or call 415-322-3778. ==================================================== The Telecom Post is posted to several distribution lists and is also available from the CPSR listserv. To subscribe, send to •••@••.••• with the message SUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST YOUR NAME. Unsubscribtion requests should be sent to the list from which you receive the Telecom Post unless you purposely subscribed to it through CPSR in which case you would write to •••@••.••• with the message UNSUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST. ===================================================== The Telecom Post is posted more or less weekly. My apologies for cross-posts. ====================================================== TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 - S652 TOPICS: 1. Censorship in legalese 2. Examples of the "Chilling Effect" 3. The Abortion Controversy 4. Actions to Challenge the CDA 5. Tobacco and Alcohol in the Mix 6. Censorship and Community Media CENSORSHIP IN LEGALESE It looks as though our fight to protect the Net is going to make us defacto lawyers. We might as well bone up on the jargon since it looks like we'll be waging war in the courts in order to return our rights to where they were on February 7, 1996. "Obscenity" - not protected by the first amendment - must meet these tests as of the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Miller v. California. 1. depicts sexual or excretory acts listed in a state obscenity statute and 2. depicts those acts in a patently offensive manner, appealing to the prurient interest as judged by a reasonable person applying the standards of the community and 3 lacks serious literary, artistic, social, political, or scientific value "Indecency" according to the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is defined as "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." If all three tests of obscenity aren't met, then the First Amendment prevails - unless there is a "compelling government interest" in limiting free expression - such as protecting children. Controls on "indecent" material must be exercised through the "least restrictive means possible". FCC v. Pacifica upheld the restrictions on George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue because it was BROADCAST at 2:00PM on the RADIO. The argument explicitly cited the pervasiveness of broadcasting as the reason for this decision. The two questions that arise are 1) is online media a broadcast medium and 2) is the CDA the "least restrictive means available? EXAMPLES OF THE "CHILLING EFFECT" What does this Act look like in action? We already have some examples. These all took place BEFORE the bill was even released from committee: 1. Compuserve dropped 200 newsgroups related to sexual matters claiming pressure exerted from German authorities that "indecent" content violated certain laws. Claiming they could not carve out only German users, all Compuserve users worldwide lost access. Who chose which groups were to go? Compuserve. What groups were included? The algorithm used to filter included alt.*gay* and alt.*homosexual* resulting in the removal of 90% of the homosexual newsgroups. This move affected 4 million subscribers worldwide in 140 countries. Later reports show Germany got a bum rap. It turns out that the only German role was an inquiry from a Munich district attorney. The German government has spoken out against any legislative means to regulate the Internet and have faith that their existing laws are suffcient to handle misconduct. 2. American On-Line censored the word "breast" in anticipation of the CDA. (Personally, I believe this had to be an effort to trigger an uproar. The AOL folks are simply smarter than that.) 3. New York State has passed a bill making Internet Service Providers (ISPs) liable for content on their networks. The language prohibits the "knowingy" "dissemination" of material that depicts "actual or simulated nudity, [or] sexual conduct", that is "harmful to minors" and is communicated to a minor through a "computer communications systems". Bear in mind that this does not discriminate against simple email use - all traffic - Web pages, discussion groups and email are included. The bill has not yet been signed. (Bill number S210/A3967 for you New Yorkers) 4. The largest BBS in the world, Exec-PC closed down all its X-rated file libraries without notice citing fear of the legal system. 5. The full text of the Supreme Court's _FCC v. Pacifica_ decision is now online. It is this decision that constitutionally defines "indecency". Due to the "indecent" language included in this decision, the decision, itself, if made publicly available, will be considered a crime punishable by 2 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. 6. The CyberQueer Lounge, an ISP has been attempting to enlist credit card services. After the credit services application was signed, the credit card company insisted it be allowed to search the premises of the QLounge for unacceptable materials. Certain areas of the QLounge are restricted from the public by password. The credit card company insisted it must be allowed to search these areas before accepting the application and that the discovery of unacceptable materials would be sufficient cause to deny services. There was no mention in this requirement in any of the application materials. All efforts to proceed both legally and in cooperation with the credit card company have failed to produce results. THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY The minute the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed, little nasty surprises surfaced that finally got the attention of Congress. A headline grabber highlighted the provision that abortion related speech, specifically, would not be allowed on the Internet. Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-CO) took up the cause and chastened the Conference Committee for their attention to technical details and totally sloppy work with regard to the First Amendment. The problematic language is in Section 507 ( of S652) which extends the current provisions of the Comstock Act, Section 1462 of title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code.. "Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier, or interactive computer service, as defined in section 230(e)2 of the Communications Act of 1934, for carriage in interstate of foreign commerce-- (a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or (b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or (c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind of information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made: ..." This crime carries with it a 5 year prison term - 10 years for subsequent offense. Its champion was Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL). He disavowed intending that this cover all talk of abortion on the Internet. Further examination of this subsection shows that while it continues to exist on the books (since 1909) it has not been used for 25 years. It is generally felt that it would not fly if used in court, however, it has never been actually ruled unconstitutional and the attention paid it in this 1996 legislation could conceivably breath new life into its viability. Hyde and Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) performed a colliquouy or scripted exchange on the floor intended to clarify that the language did not intend to ban discussion of abortion.. Colliquouys are used to clarify legislators intent for the record and the courts. Nevertheless, should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned, this language will come back to life. The good news is that our wise and caring legislators had to backpedal furiously within days of this bill becoming law. Let's not give up hope. Good old American common sense may still prevail over this stupid bill. ACTIONS TO CHALLENGE THE CDA The ACLU, CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility), and 19 other plaintiffs have initiated a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Holding a press conference immediately after Clinton signed the bill, the ACLU announced that a lawsuit had been filed in Philadelphia with Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter. The lawsuit included a motion for a temporary restraining order to prohibit enforcement of the CDA. Prosecuting CDA violations is the province of the Justice Department, Janet Reno, Attorney General. The Government agreed not to enforce the "indecent" and "patently offensive" provisions for 7 days. It did not agree, however, to prosecute in the future for those materials available during the 7 days. The Government did concede that the abortion speech restriction were unconstitutional but so far that concession is not in writing. The ACLU attorney is Chris Hansen. The other plaintiffs in the suit are AIDS Education Global Information Service, BiblioBytes, ClariNet Communications Corp., Critical Path AIDS Project, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Human Rights Watch, The Institute for Global Communications, Journalism Education Association, Declan McCullagh dba Justice on Campus, Brock Meeks dba CyberWire Dispatch, National Writers Union, Planned Parenthood Federation of American, Queer Resources Directory, Stop Prisoner Rape, John Troyer dba Safer Sex Page, Jonathan Wallace dba The Ethical Spectacle, Wildcat Press, YouthArts Project of Wildcat Press. Pressure can be applied by all who care. Call the Attorney General - 202-514-2001 Fax the Attorney General - 202-514-4371 Email the Attorney General - •••@••.••• | DoJ website - www.usdoj.gov For updates check the ACLU website - www.aclu.org To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send to •••@••.••• with the message subscribe cyber-liberties Senator Patrick Leahy has submitted a bill on the Senate floor to repeal the CDA. Citing all the public concerns from the chilling effect on the most private of email messages to the wide variety of "indecent" interpretations used world-wide, he views the CDA as "using a meat cleaver to deal with the problems better addressed with a scalpel." The American Reporter, an online magazine, has taken on the Government by publishing an "indecent" article, "The X-ON Congress: Indecent Comment on an Indecent Subject" by former judge and law professor, Steve Russell. It is currently seeking injunctive relief from the Communications Decency Act but prepared to do jail time on behalf of a free and independent press. In an editorial, Joe Shea points out that "Indecency is not the world of slaughter and depredation found in Bosnian war crimes or the gluttonous hoarding of public money from the poor, nor the vast poverty of spirit our entertainment industry creates, and not the ugly deaths of children shot down in the streets of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles." Voter's Telecommunication Watch promoted a campaign to turn all Web pages black for the 48 hours after the President signed S652 into law. The net responded with thousands of blackened pages including that of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). TOBACCO AND ALCOHOL MONEY IN THE MIX David Rothman reported that Sen. Jim Exon, originator of this travesty, Sen. Bob Dole and 6 others ardently opposed to "indecency" received $273,000 from the tobacco and alcohol industries as of December 31, 1994. Dole received $75,500 for his Senatorial campaign alone. Imagine the take in an election year. The other big recipients include Sen. Daniel Coats (R-IN), Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA), Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA), and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL). CENSORSHIP AND COMMUNITY MEDIA The Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on the issue of the right of cable companies to censor the content of access channels on February 21. The Alliance for Community Media issued a press release explaining that "The Court is being asked to rule on the constitutionality of Section 10 of the Cable Act of 1992 (Pub.L. No. 102-385), and rules promulgated thereunder. These provisions would authorize a cable company to censor programming on cable "leased access" channels that the company believed to be "indecent" and programming on public, educational, and governmental ("PEG") access channels, that the company believed to contain "sexually explicit conduct, or material soliciting or promoting unlawful conduct." Free speech is a right enforced only against the activities of federal, state, or local governments. Private individuals or entities are not subject to constitutional review. The Alliance will argue that if a statute authorizes a private entity to engage in censorship then that authorization constitutes a governmental action and is therefore subject to scrutiny. Statutes based on content must be judged by the "strict scrutiny" standard (prove a compelling state interest and the least restrictive mean possible must be used). Judicial history is on the side of the Alliance, as states have rarely been able to prove a compelling state interest in censoring speech. This case, if won by the Alliance, will apply to future cases involving on-line communication and the role of service providers in monitoring/censoring that information. The Alliance can be contacted at 202-393-2650 or •••@••.•••. "We love our country more than we should, or we would not be so hurt to see its blessing betrayed. Of all of those, none is greater than the right to speak and write freely, and none is more worth dying for.", Joe Shea, Editor, The American Reporter PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID CRIMINAL LIABILITY The Telecommunications Bill of 1996 gives the FCC the authority to describe the precautions that can be taken to avoid criminal liability. Since these have not been established - we can't know for sure. A brief submitted by the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, however, lists several methods it might employ on its Web site to protect the organization from breaking the law. 1. Monitor all linking pages to the CPSR Website for indecent content. Pages come from CPSR working groups as well as other organizations. 2. Cull out any "indecent" passages in archived newsgroup and listserv discussions. 3. Change listserv subscription systems to manual in order to attempt to screen out minors. 4. Require listserv moderators to dispose of indecent posts. 5. Impose CPSR initiated control over discussion etiquette on discussion lists. 6. Impose a fee for use of the CPSR online resources (eliminating all those without credit) 7. Maintain two sites, one for minors, one for adults 8. Continually traverse all links to other Internet sites to monitor them for "indecent" materials. These precautions are obviously way beyond the means of an organization such as CPSR where the huge bulk of program work is done by volunteers. In fact, this kind of oversight would make even wealthy corporation hesitant to support such a labor intensive presence on the Net. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland •••@••.••• | Cyberlib temporarily unavailable •••@••.••• | http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ Materials may be reposted in their entirety for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~