"Spawn of CDA" More goverment internet censorship? (long 108 lines)

Mar 14 02:59 UTC 1998

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 12, 1998

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Commerce Committee today approved two bills
that reconstruct the unconstitutional provisions of the 1996
Communications Decency Act and remove power from parents and local
communities to decide how to help children use the Internet safely.

The American Civil Liberties Union dubbed the bills "spawn of CDA,"
saying in a letter to the committee that the proposals fly in the face
of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in ACLU v. Reno and will restrict
protected speech on the Internet.

Ignoring these warnings, the Commerce Committee passed Senate Bill 1619,
the Internet School Filtering Act, by a unanimous voice vote. The bill,
sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, requires all public libraries and
schools that receive federal funds for Internet access to use blocking
sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, requires all public libraries and
schools that receive federal funds for Internet access to use blocking
software.

The second bill, S. 1482, was sponsored by Senator Dan Coats, R-IN.
Dubbed "Son of CDA," its thrust is identical to the ill-fated
Communications Decency Act, which was unanimously overturned last year
by the United States Supreme Court in Reno v ACLU. The lone dissenter in
that voice vote was Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, who criticized the
"one-size-fits-all Washington approach" to regulating the Internet.

"We are beyond Son of CDA and well into spawn of CDA," said Gregory T.
Nojeim, Legislative Counsel on cyberspace issues for the ACLU's
Washington National Office.

"Lawmakers continue to ignore the technological realities and
constitutional problems with these bills," Nojeim added. "Congress is
obviously enjoying the free political ride these bills provide, with
little thought for the taxpayers who will ultimately pay the price when
obviously enjoying the free political ride these bills provide, with
little thought for the taxpayers who will ultimately pay the price when
the courts strike them down."

In a letter sent yesterday to the Senate Committee, the ACLU and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation outlined their objections to the bills.
Addressing the Internet Filtering Act, the groups said, "Blocking
software restricts access to valuable, protected online speech about
topics including safe sex, AIDS and even web sites posted by religious
groups such as the Society of Friends and the Glide United Methodist
Church."

The letter also emphasized that "parents and teachers, not the
government, should provide minors with guidance about accessing the
Internet."

The Coats bill, which attempts to narrow the CDA's restrictions to
speech that is "harmful to minors," is also unconstitutional, the groups
said, because such speech is "unquestionably protected by the
speech that is "harmful to minors," is also unconstitutional, the groups
said, because such speech is "unquestionably protected by the
Constitution when communicated among adults."

The bill also "fails to make any distinction between material that may
be harmful to a six-year-old but valuable for a 16-year-old, such as
safer-sex information," the ACLU and EFF said.

The Commerce Committee was clearly unmoved by these criticisms.

Commenting on the "First Amendment problems" with the Coats bill, a
Congressional aide remarked that "we can address those at a later time."
Similarly, Sen. Ernest Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina and a
co-sponsor of the bill, urged the committee to "just vote on it because
we've had it on our hands a long time."

Senator McCain was equally unswayed by local control arguments raised by
Senator Conrad Burns, R-MT. He refused to allow any amendments that
would permit communities to decide whether schools or libraries could
Senator Conrad Burns, R-MT. He refused to allow any amendments that
would permit communities to decide whether schools or libraries could
use alternative to blocking software even though many localities may not
wish to use such clumsy and ineffective programs.

During committee debate, Burns noted that many schools and libraries
already have developed policies that address Internet abuse problems
without using filtering devices.

Federal lawmakers are not the only politicians jumping on the censorship
bandwagon, the ACLU said. In the last three years, at least 25 states
have considered or passed Internet censorship laws. But however popular
the laws may seem, they do not hold up well to constitutional scrutiny.
Federal district courts in New York, Georgia and Virginia have found
Internet censorship laws unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds in
challenges brought by the ACLU.

And in its June 1997 landmark ruling in Reno v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme
Court struck down the federal CDA, saying that it placed an
 
And in its June 1997 landmark ruling in Reno v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme
Court struck down the federal CDA, saying that it placed an
"unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech" that "threatens to torch
a large segment of the Internet community."

"When the Court struck down the CDA, we anticipated that members of
Congress would renew their attempts at Internet censorship," Nojeim
said. "But no matter how many bills are spawned from this ill-fated and
unconstitutional legislation, the ACLU stands ready to stamp them out."

        The ACLU and EFF letter can be found at:
        http://www.aclu.org/congress/lg031198a.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

response 2 of 35:

Mar 14 08:58 UTC 1998

        I can understand blocking childrens access at libraries, but i don't
agree with the rest of what was outlined in the paper.

response 4 of 35:

Mar 14 13:23 UTC 1998

Tried www.whitehouse.com lately?    ;)

response 6 of 35:

Mar 14 20:30 UTC 1998

Will libraries also be required to keep Lady Chatterley's Lover under lock
and key, accessible only with proof of age?  Who will decide which books to
ban to which ages?  There seem to be lots of books on AIDS and sex on the
shelves, not to mention murder mysteries and other things potentially harmful
to kids.  Would you want your kids reading Agatha Christie, or Hamlet, or the
Greek tragedies?  Or the Bible?  (Murder, polygamy.....).
Raven, thank you for notifying us of this.  Very thought provoking.

response 8 of 35:

Mar 14 22:10 UTC 1998

What is so awful about a picture of a naked man on top of, or
under, or beside a naked woman, with his penis in her mouth or
vagina, that children need to be protected from seeing the
image?  It is not dirty.  It is not evil.  It is part of a 
healthy life.

We (our culture) needs to grow up and get over it.

response 10 of 35:

Mar 15 05:46 UTC 1998

unfortunately, it is not a matter of the feds "trusting" the locals, but
instead the federal legislators are picking up on every conceivable issue they
think will improve their images in the minds of the voting public and doing
the stupidest things imaginable to satisfy their perceptions of their
constituencies' desires.

besides, if they make laws against porn being available to kiddies, so few
people are going to have the courage to publicly oppose them that it nicely
distracts the populace away from the issues which require real government and
leadership in order to resolve.

response 12 of 35:

Mar 15 06:02 UTC 1998

i'm really tired of politicians making legislation the option of first resort
for any item the polls say the public is concerned about...  See item 127.
I'm almost tempted to run for office, but i doubt i'd ever be elected..

response 14 of 35:

Mar 15 06:06 UTC 1998

  re #13: (first paragraph in response to Rane's #11 about trusting local
           officials, other's response slipped in..)

  re #12:  what have you got to lose?  if you're really interested you
           could at least give it a shot.

response 16 of 35:

Mar 15 08:32 UTC 1998

        Mary, if the children are taught from a young age that sex is natural
and normal it's one thing, but most of sociaty hides it and teaches the kids
that it's wrong or nasty or sick or whatever their particular hangup is. If
they understand it fine but don't allow it if not.

response 18 of 35:

Mar 16 00:39 UTC 1998

Mary, for some people, it is harmful.  Some people are actually different from
others, and they look at things in different ways.  

I think I'd better end this now, before my response turns really nasty.

response 20 of 35:

Mar 16 06:30 UTC 1998

You mean there is a VIEW of a local community? (Emphasis added). Who
chooses that VIEW? Is it decided there is no VIEW if there is one dissent?
If not, is that a majority suppressing dissenting OPINIONS? 

I do agree that teachers should keep students' studies relevant during
school hours, including if they are studying the sociology of porn.

response 22 of 35:

Mar 16 18:13 UTC 1998

  "students and housewives"?  there are those, to be sure, but not only those.
  the ones who will fight most effectively for an unrestricted net are the
  many grass-roots organizations that have seized on the web as a powerful
  tool to get their message out.

response 24 of 35:

Mar 16 23:56 UTC 1998

I got the impression that the net was mostly science research, it depends what
parts of it you look at (and whether you have a graphics browser).
In my day, sex education was not taught in schools.  Our freshman year of
college we were all surprise to find a paperback on the subject in our
mailboxes.  The traditional way of learning about it was probably things llike
Playboy magazine (which my brother used to hide in his room).  At what age
is it taught in schools now, if at all?  Perhaps enough correct information
would counter any wrong ideas kids would find on the net, in fact the teachers
could, as suggested above, teach a course on net pornography.  Who wants to
sneak looks at something you have to study for exams?