Sender: •••@••.••• (Ann Beeson) CYBER-LIBERTIES ALERT November 2, 1995 from: American Civil Liberties Union People for the American Way ORGANIZATIONS NEEDED TO SUPPORT FREE SPEECH IN CYBERSPACE SIGN THE LETTER BELOW TO OPPOSE FEDERAL ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION! A conference committee of House and Senate members is now meeting to determine the future of free speech in cyberspace. As most of you know, the House and Senate have now passed two different versions of the telecommunications bill that would each outlaw "indecent" speech over the Internet and other online services. The conference committee now has the power to remove the online indecency provisions and to respect the philosophy overwhelmingly approved by the House in their 420-4 vote in favor of the Cox/Wyden Amendment -- online users, not government, should determine what online content is appropriate for themselves and their families. Groups like the Christian Coalition are contacting the Conference Committee to urge even stricter criminal provisions for cyberspace than those contained in the current telecommunications provisions. Organizations dedicated to free speech must counter that movement with a groundswell of opposition to government control over online content. THIS MAY BE YOUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN CYBERSPACE. Please sign your organization on to the letter below. To sign on, send an e-mail with your organization's name, address, phone number, and e-mail address to: Jill Lesser People for the American Way •••@••.••• The deadline for signatures is MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1995, at 5 p.m. (Due to time constraints, we regret that we are unable to accept further revisions to the letter.) ------------------------ INDIVIDUAL USERS!!! It is also essential that the Conference Committee hear from individual online users who are fundamentally opposed to these draconian speech crimes for cyberspace. Be sure to watch the Net for an action alert within the next 24 hours on how to voice your opposition to the Conferees. ------------------------ LETTER FROM ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO FEDERAL ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION November ___, 1995 The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley Jr. Chairman, Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Larry Pressler Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Re: Parental Empowerment and Free Expression in Cyberspace Dear Chairmen Bliley and Pressler: We write on behalf of a diverse coalition of non-profit civil liberties, education, library, cultural, arts, labor and other civic organizations, and commercial producers and distributors of entertainment, information, journalism, and art, to express our strong belief that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (also known as the +Exon Amendment+), sections 401 to 408 of S. 652, is unconstitutional, unworkable and unwise. We also strongly beleive that language added to HR 1555, (section 403) amending the federal criminal code (the Hyde Amendment) is similarly unacceptable, because it creates new Exon-like speech crimes, including restricting constitutionally protected speech, mandating vicarious liability for on-line service providers and endorsing the violatation of privacy rights of individuals. We urge you to delete from any final telecommunications legislation any provisions that impose a federal regulatory scheme on online content, hold online service providers liable for the messages of their customers, censor online communications in violation of the First Amendment, or encourage the violation of the privacy of online users. The CDA and Hyde Amendment contain an approach and philosophy that almost every member of the House of Representatives has already expressly rejected in their 420-4 vote in favor of the Online Family Empowerment provisions offered as an amendment to HR 1555 (section 104) by Representatives Cox (R-CA) and Wyden (D-OR). The CDA would impose unenforceable and intrusive government regulation on a newly developing forum for speech and commerce. While failing to accomplish its intended goal of protecting children, it would unwisely impose governmental mandates on content and effectively establish federal standards for parenting in an online world. Similarly, the Hyde Amendment would force online service providers to act as censors of constitutionally protected speech and to invade the privacy of their users. By creating unconstitutional standards, passage of the CDA or the Hyde Amendment merely would assure a decade of expensive litigation and the uncertainty that inevitably accompanies such lawsuits. As the Conference Committee begins to consider the question of content control in the online environment, it must not permit unconstitutional provisions to remain in the bill. The Conferees challenge is to avoid interfering with private sector development of effective blocking and screening technologies that empower online users to make personal decisions about content, to preserve the fundamental freedoms of the First Amendment, and to protect each individual's right to keep private communications private. The undersigned organizations believe that the following principles must be adhered to in any provision that affects the emerging online environment: THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS MUST BE PRESERVED. Any effort to establish federal control over constitutionally protected speech must be opposed outright. There are alternative ways to protect access by children to certain material without infringing on the free speech rights of adults. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Congress may not impose a blanket ban on constitutionally protected speech. Any general restriction on constitutionally protected content must not only serve a compelling government interest but also must be implemented by the least restrictive means available. POLICIES MUST EMPOWER USERS -- INCLUDING PARENTS -- TO MAKE PERSONAL DECISIONS ABOUT CONTENT. While most Americans agree that certain material is unsuitable for children, there certainly is no consensus about precisely what that material might be. The right to decide what children should see and hear is uniquely personal to the family -- government should have no role in dictating such personal and private matters. Instead, policies should encourage and empower individual parents to make decisions about the kinds of content to which their children should have access. THERE SHOULD BE NO INCENTIVE FOR GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE INDUSTRY TO INFRINGE ON PRIVACY RIGHTS BY READING PRIVATE E-MAIL. Neither online service providers nor federal regulators should be in the business of perusing private e-mail for potentially objectionable content. The privacy rights in e-mail that Congress recognized in its passage of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act should not be undercut through censorship legislation. THE ONLINE WORLD MUST OPERATE FREE FROM INTRUSIVE AND UNENFORCEABLE GOVERNMENT CONTENT REGULATION. Online service providers and other sectors of the communications industry already are taking the initiative to develop technologies to permit users to make choices about the content to which they have access. Governmentally imposed standards and mandates are no substitute for the creativity of the marketplace. Users are demanding technology that will preserve the free flow of information, while simultaneously allowing them to make personal decisions about the content to which they or their children have access. CONCLUSION The undersigned organizations believe that Congress can formulate policies consistent with its deregulatory approach and consistent with the Constitution. We stand ready to work with all members of the Conference Committee to ensure that the above principles are satisfied. [The following organizations signed on to a similar letter last summer, before the House vote on the telecommunications bill.] Alliance For Community Media Alliance for Communications Democracy American Arts Alliance American Association of Advertising Agencies, Inc. American Association of Law Libraries American Association of University Professors American Civil Liberties Union American Communication Association American Library Association American Society of Journalists and Authors Association of American Publishers Association of Research Libraries Center For Democracy & Technology Chicago Computer Society Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Council of Literary Magazines and Presses Electronic Privacy Information Center Feminists for Free Expression Freedom to Read Foundation Libraries for the Future The Literary Network Magazine Publishers Association Media Access Project Media Consortium National Assembly of State Arts Agencies National Association of Artists Organizations National Association of Media Arts & Culture National Campaign for Freedom of Expression National Coalition Against Censorship National Federation of Community Broadcasters National Gay & Lesbian Task Force National Public Telecomputing Network New York City Arts Coalition Newspaper Association of America Society for Electronic Access People For the American Way Action Fund Rock Out Censorship Theater Communications Group Writers Guild of America, East ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages for non-commercial use, pursuant to any redistribution restrictions included in individual messages. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
