The Telecommunications Bill-- An Update

Feb 7 22:08 UTC 1996

   (This is an extension of item 19 which is getting a little long)

    A brief update on the Telecommunications bill from here in the
nation's capital.  The Clinton Administration is planning on having
a technical corrections bill introduced later which would revise the
telecom bill and strike the Exon Amendment (according to the  co-sponsor
of the corrections bill-to-be, rep. nita lowey of NY(D) )

   Thats the good news.  The bad news is what was stuck on the final
version of the Exon amendment at the last minute:

    "Said fines or penalties will also apply to anyone who uses any
    interactive computer service to provide or receive information
    which directly, or indirectly tells where, how, of  whom or by what
    means an abortion may be obtained"

This will also be addressed in the corrections bill, giving conservative
a political weapon to rally pro-lifers during the election.

The American Civil LIberties Union is indeed gearing up a court fight,
and is looking for more computer boards to sign on as co-plaintiffs.  I've
already stated that Grex should contact the ACLU and try to be involved,
particularly since it probably wouldnt cost anything could cause an
increase in memberships among who'd want to support Grex's involement.

response 2 of 135:

Feb 8 00:08 UTC 1996

  Well it seems some hardnosed conservatives are upset over some
abortion clinics running homepages advertising their services.  Plus
they dont like advocacy groups using the 'net to make it easier for
women to get abortions.  Its basically an extension of a law that was
on the books in the pre-roe v. wade era (the Comstock Act).  The idea
is that abortion is a personal decision and they think it protects 
pregnant women I guess if they are denied information which COULD lead
them to get abortions.
    Rep. Pat Schroeder is introducing a bill this week in congress to
get the abortion provision out of the Exon clause before the telecom bill
becomes law.  The point is really moot since this certainly cant be
enforceable and was probably put in as a symbolic act.

response 4 of 135:

Feb 8 02:43 UTC 1996

I wonder why they stopped where they did? Why didn't they go on and
declare creationism the only origins theory that can be taught, and
that the earth is flat?

response 6 of 135:

Feb 8 12:43 UTC 1996

It's true. Here's a quote from from today's New York Times, p. A10:

        In a move that appeared to surprise many House and Senate
        members who voted for the legislation, Representative Henry
        J. Hyde of Illinois, a Republican and longtime abortion
        opponent, successfully added an amendment that would extend
        into the electronic age a 123-year-old legal prohibition,
        the Comstock Act of 1873, against disseminating abortion
        information. In comments on the House floor, Mr. Hyde denied
        that his intent was to halt discussions of abortion on the
        Internet or on-line services.

(I wonder if there's any chance that *this* will prompt Clinton to
veto the bill.)

response 8 of 135:

Feb 8 16:12 UTC 1996

   I just love religion.

   Grex really, really, really needs to fight this.  Grex should not
implement any part of this bill.

   It's time to tell our government that they can't do this to us.

   If Grex winds up breaking the law, so be it.

response 10 of 135:

Feb 8 18:46 UTC 1996

Clinton signed it. Sigh.

response 12 of 135:

Feb 8 19:02 UTC 1996

What is clintons E-mail address? He must have one.

response 14 of 135:

Feb 8 20:16 UTC 1996

        Please note that I have posted a transcript of George Carlin's
"Seven dirty words" in the cyberpunk conf.  The board will have to decide
within 30 days (when the law starts to be enforced) whether to remove
the above stated item (# 42).  I will also post iformation shortly in
the femme conf listing abortion information and local abortion access
providers.  You can be assured that I will leave Grex if my items are
removed or censored in *any* way.  If we resort to censorship, it will
not be the same Grex I joined 3 years, and which has kept very strong
free speech principles (up till now?).
                <set rant=smoldering>

response 16 of 135:

Feb 8 21:28 UTC 1996

I have written and I hope more people will write to the prez... maybe
something can be posted in the motd, for a few days....

response 18 of 135:

Feb 8 22:28 UTC 1996

Something that should be understood about all of this is the influence
of the religious right, which has a far-reaching agenda for this
country. They want to regulate speech, ban all abortion, undercut the
constitutional separation of church and state and make the United
States into a Christian nation. I am not making this up; folks like
Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan are very up front about what they
would like to do.

In particular, the Christian Coalition, a delightful group of moral
bigots who think that free speech is just fine as long as it is proper
Christian speech, and who have considerable influence within the
Republican Party, was a major influence in the shaping the language
of the CDA. They sold it under the guise of protecting minors, and
in an atmosphere in which internet consciousness hit the public like
a ton of bricks, and in which a number of sensational news stories
created an exaggerated impression of the "dangers" of the internet,
were able to convince Congress and a sizeable segment of the public
to go along. But I do not believe that their main agenda is the
protection of minors. A particularly disturbing element to me is
the role given to the FCC in regulating electronic speech. Are they
setting the stage for a time when a right-wing Republican is in
the White House and can use FCC regulation as a true instrument of
repression? I do not wish to sound paranoid, but these folks are
very extreme and very persistent.

Given the influence of the religious right in authoring the CDA, it
is no surprise to me that suppression of abortion discussion got
tossed in there too. One can only hope that in this step they have gone
too far and some people will start to wake up.

What do we do now? For one thing, support the groups who are fighting
this in the courts. Let your congressional representatives know how
disappointed you are if they voted for this, and urge them to find
ways to bring the CDA back on the table and be rescinded.

I am seeing signs that the public is starting to come to its senses
regarding the agenda of the right. The "abortion information
dissemination" ban has awakened some people. A liberal Democrat
won in the recent Oregon election to fill Packwood's vacated Senate
seat. Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh Is a Fat Slob" is a best-
seller and Limbaugh's ratings have dropped 20% from last year.
THIS year the public seems to favor heavy regulation of the inter-
net, next year or even next month--who knows?

response 20 of 135:

Feb 8 23:02 UTC 1996

        re#19  Hey we *can't* hide from this thing, either we obey the law
or we don't obey the law, the time is *now* to make that decsion.  Just
two weeks ago the far more "obscene" "Brandi" story was on our web server
for the whole world to see.  The staff has 30 days until the law will
be enforced to decide what they will do about the CDAs infringement on
our free speech rights.

response 22 of 135:

Feb 9 01:12 UTC 1996

        re#21 So you think George Carlin should be banned???  This whole
thing isn't pretty, but I think we need a clear test case.

response 24 of 135:

Feb 9 01:32 UTC 1996

        The Carlin piece is actually of historic interst because it
triggered the Pacifica case which in turn is the baises of the "patently
offensive"  standard used in the CDA.  For more info on this fact see
the ACLU's web page (I don't have the URL right now but just use a search
engine to find it).