|
|
| Author |
Message |
raven
|
|
CDAII packed as pork into spending bill
| 
Oct 22 16:38 UTC 1998 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 78 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 1 of 78:
|
Oct 22 16:41 UTC 1998 |
Edited in backtalk for minor error in text
The ^SCDAII^T has been signed into law it was sneaked into the spending
bill signed yesterday by the President. What this bill does is make it
illegal for people to provide information ^Sharmful to minors^T over the
internet if you are a commercial provider. The ^Sharmful to minors^T
language will hopefully be shown to unconstitutionally vague but until
it is this law could affect Grex.
The reason it could affect Grex is that we have explicit discussions of
sexuality in the sexuality & the les/bi/gay conferences, we have no age
verification process, and we are ^Scommercial^T by virtue of selling mugs,
t-shirts etc. (this according to the EFF & ACLU web sites).
If you want to fight this internet censorship go to http://www.aclu.org/
(works on lynx for all Grex users) and send a free fax to Janet
Reno urging her not to enforce this draconian law.
|
raven
|
|
response 2 of 78:
|
Oct 22 16:48 UTC 1998 |
Here is more info on this law from http://aclu.org/
ACLU v. Reno,
Round 2
Broad Coalition Files
Challenge To New Federal
Net Censorship Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 22, 1998
PHILADELPHIA -- Civil liberties groups today filed
a court
challenge to a federal Internet censorship bill
signed by President
Clinton despite serious constitutional concerns
raised by his own
Justice Department.
At a news conference in downtown Philadelphia, the
American
Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy
Information Center
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the
Justice
Department was correct in warning that the law
unconstitutionally
censors valuable online speech.
In papers filed this morning in federal District
Court in
Philadelphia, the groups are seeking an injunction
against the new
law, which is scheduled to go into effect 30 days
from the date it
was signed.
Demonstrating the range of speech affected, the
list of plaintiffs
includes the Internet Content Coalition, a member
group including
Time Inc., Warner Bros., C/NET and The New York
Times
Online; OBGYN.Net, a women's health website;
Philadelphia Gay
News; Salon Magazine; and the ACLU on behalf of its
members
including poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti and ACLU
President Nadine
Strossen. (The complete plaintiff list can be found
below).
In February 1996, during "round one" of this
litigation, the ACLU,
EFF and EPIC filed a challenge to the ill-fated
Communications
Decency Act. A three-judge panel in the same
federal district
court struck down the law in June, a ruling that
was upheld by a
unanimous Supreme Court one year later in Reno v.
ACLU.
This second round challenges the new so-called
"Child Online
Protection Act" makes it a federal crime to
"knowingly"
communicate "for commercial purposes" material
considered
"harmful to minors." Penalties include fines of up
to $50,000 for
each day of violation, and up to six months in
prison if convicted of
a crime. The government also has the option to
bring a civil suit
against individuals under a lower standard of
proof, with the same
financial penalty of up to $50,000 per violation.
Despite lawmakers' claims that the new bill is
"narrowly tailored"
to apply only to minors, ACLU Staff Attorney Ann
Beeson said
that the constitutional flaws in this law are
identical to the flaws that
led the Supreme Court to strike down the CDA.
"Whether you call it the 'Communications Decency
Act' or the
'Congress Doesn't Understand the Internet Act,' it
is still
unconstitutional and it still reduces the Internet
to what is fit for a
six-year-old," said Beeson, a member of the
original ACLU v.
Reno legal team.
Although proponents claim that the law applies only
to commercial
websites, nonetheless, the groups said in legal
papers, the law
"bans a wide range of protected expression that is
provided for
free on the Web by organizations and entities who
also happen to
be communicating on the Web 'for commercial
purposes.'"
The 17 plaintiffs represented in ACLU v. Reno II
are:
The American Civil Liberties Union (on behalf
of all its
members including Nadine Strossen, Lawrence
Ferlinghetti,
Patricia Nell Warren and David Bunnell)
A Different Light Bookstore
The American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression
ArtNet
The Blackstripe
Condomania
Electronic Frontier Foundation (on behalf of
all its members
including Bill Boushka, Jon Noring, Open
Enterprises
Cooperative and Rufus Griscom)
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Speech Media, LLC
Internet Content Coalition (whose members
include CBS
New Media, Time Inc., The New York Times
Electronic
Media Company, C/Net, Warner Bros. Online,
MSNBC,
Playboy Enterprises, Sony Online and ZDNet)
OBGYN.NET
Philadelphia Gay News
PlanetOut Corporation
Powell's Bookstore
RIOTGRRL
Salon Magazine
Weststock.com
In a seven-page analysis of the bill sent to
Congress on October 5,
the Justice Department said that the bill had
"serious constitutional
problems" and would likely draw resources away from
more
important law enforcement efforts such as tracking
down
hard-core child pornographers and child predators.
Also, the Justice Department noted, the new law is
ineffective
because minors would still be able to access news
groups or
Internet relay chat channels, as well as any
website generated from
outside of the United States.
"It is our fervent hope," said Barry Steinhardt,
President of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, "that Attorney
General Reno will
concede that the new law is unconstitutional so we
can avoid
prolonged litigation."
"The First Amendment still stands," he added. "A
law that the
Justice Department found unconstitutional last week
did not
suddenly become constitutional this week."
David Sobel, EPIC's Legal Counsel, said that making
children the
excuse for ill-conceived censorship schemes is poor
public policy.
"Congress has demonstrated that, when it comes to
the Internet,
it's prepared to score easy political points at the
expense of
constitutional rights."
"I'm confident that the courts will again
faithfully apply the
Constitution to this new medium," he added. "Let's
find ways to
protect both kids and the First Amendment."
The three groups continue to jointly sponsor the
Blue Ribbon
Campaign for Online Freedom of Expression -- first
launched in
1996 to mobilize the Internet community against the
CDA -- to
provide Netizens a platform for voicing their
concerns over
continuing governmental attempts to censor the
Internet. Visitors
to the Campaign site can fax Attorney General Janet
Reno a "don't
enforce the new law" message and join the campaign
by exhibiting
the Blue Ribbon logo on their own Web sites. More
information is
available at http://www.eff.org/br.
Attorneys in the case are Ann Beeson, Chris Hansen
and J.C.
Salyer of the ACLU, Shari Steele of EFF and David
Sobel of
EPIC. The law firm of Latham and Watkins is
assisting the ACLU
in the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union is a nationwide,
non-partisan organization headquartered in New York
City,
dedicated to defending and preserving the Bill of
Rights for all
individuals through litigation, legislation and
public
education.
Founded in 1990 as a nonprofit, public interest
organization,
Electronic Frontier Foundation is based in San
Francisco,
California and maintains an extensive archive of
information
on free speech, privacy, and encryption policy on
its website.
Electronic Privacy Information Center is a
non-profit
research group that works to defend free speech and
privacy
rights on the Internet.
|
remmers
|
|
response 3 of 78:
|
Oct 22 17:03 UTC 1998 |
(That last response could use some reformatting... Perhaps I'll try to
do so later when I've some time.)
|
raven
|
|
response 4 of 78:
|
Oct 22 17:10 UTC 1998 |
re # 3 Yes I noticed! :-) It was OK in my word processor but
backtalk didn't past it in very well.
This item is linked to the cyberpunk conference. The conference
to discuss issues of internet based social change & controversy.
|
raven
|
|
response 5 of 78:
|
Oct 23 06:04 UTC 1998 |
Hello, there are trying to censor *us*. Is anyone listening? Does anyone
care?
|
raven
|
|
response 6 of 78:
|
Oct 23 15:07 UTC 1998 |
er that should be "...they are try to censor..." none-the-less I'm somewhat
suprised that only one other person on Grex seems to care about this
issue.
|
mdw
|
|
response 7 of 78:
|
Oct 23 20:38 UTC 1998 |
Grex is an exceedingly small part of the internet; I doubt that any of
the players in the CDAII world even have any notion grex exists. Yes,
if CDAII survives its court challenges, and depending on how the justice
department then decided to interpret CDAII, grex could be in trouble.
But, based on the outcome of CDA, it appears at this point that CDAII
will never be an issue for grex.
|
raven
|
|
response 8 of 78:
|
Oct 23 21:48 UTC 1998 |
Well even if Grex was not actually taken to court we would most likely
be in violation of CDAII. It seems like the right thing to do is to
fight this law that makes us techinically criminals for providing free
and open online community. After all it takes about 30 seconds to
visit www.aclu.or/ and send a free fax to Janet Reno telling her
not to enforce this unconstitutional law.
There is nothing to be lost in taking action action against this law
unless ofcourse you support censorship of the internet.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 9 of 78:
|
Oct 24 20:41 UTC 1998 |
What good is it supposed to do to send a fax to the attorney general
asking her not to enforce this law? Do you think that the executive
branch should only enforce popular laws?
I'd be pretty upset if such a tactic actually worked on a regular basis.
The executive branch should fairly and impartially enforce the laws
that the legislature passes unless/until the courts strike down those
laws. If you want to fight against this CDA or any future versions the
"right" way to influence the process is to fight against their passage
in the first place by working on influencing the legislative branch.
The current battle has been lost but that doesn't mean that people
should give up on the war..
|
raven
|
|
response 10 of 78:
|
Oct 24 22:37 UTC 1998 |
The sending the fax is the ACLU's idea not my idea. I believe the idea
behind it is the law is unconstitutional and thus shouldn't be enforced.
This does seem likely as this law contains similarly vague language to
the original CDA.
If you have a more productive way to influence the courts to overturn this
law I'm all ears.
|
danr
|
|
response 11 of 78:
|
Oct 24 23:58 UTC 1998 |
If it is unconstitutional then someone, presumably the ACLU, should challenge
it in court. I'm with Mike; the Justice Dept. should enforce all laws. They
are not the courts and should not decide these things.
|
i
|
|
response 12 of 78:
|
Oct 25 00:31 UTC 1998 |
Given their limited resources, enforcing all the laws is not an option that
the Justice Dept. has. Enforcing most of the laws all of the time is not
an option either. The can try to act enlightened, chase after whatever
sort of crime came up tops in this week's opinion poll, or roll dice, but
they'll have to pick & choose somehow. If they're reasonably professional
about it, they probably won't waste much time screwing with CDAII - the
question in my mind is whether they'll think it worth the political heat
to do this.
My understanding is that no law can be challenged in court until there is
an actual case involving it. So the ACLU & friends may actually want
Justice to give CDAII at least token enforcement....
|
raven
|
|
response 13 of 78:
|
Oct 25 01:41 UTC 1998 |
They are challenging it in court the fax campaign is just one small part
of the ACLU, EFF, and EPIC's efforts to stop CDAII. Does anyone have
any productive contributions to make towards fighting the CDAII or
shall we all squabble while the government perhaps gets ready to shut
down say N.O.W.'s web site or a breast cancer research web site?
Leaving *aside* the one perhaps short sighted strand of the ACLUs
strategy is there anything concrete Grexers would be willing to do
like perhaps putting an EFF blue ribbon http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html
on the Grex web site?
|
valerie
|
|
response 14 of 78:
|
Oct 26 13:33 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
steve
|
|
response 15 of 78:
|
Oct 26 16:12 UTC 1998 |
They aren't thinking. Thats the entire problem. If they were and
applied their "concern" on a consistent basis, you'd block children
from all but the kid's section in every library in the country.
I still don't see how this affects Grex. It states that this
applies to commercial entities, doesn't it? Grex isn't commercial,
is it? Perhaps I'm being foolish here, but I don't see how this
particular piece of idiocy affects Grex. What bothers me far more
is the possibility of the net-censorship forces using this as a
first law, and trying to pass successively more restrictive laws
as the need "arises".
|
scg
|
|
response 16 of 78:
|
Oct 26 18:28 UTC 1998 |
Yeah, from what I've read this one is vastly different than the last one, and
its Congressional backers have been claiming that it takes care of the
Constitutional problems the last one had. The Clinton Administration, on the
other hand, publicly supported the last one but is saying that this one is
likely unconstitutional.
A large part of the problem here is that most of the congress people don't
have much control over whether to vote for these things. Rather than letting
it rise or fall on its merits, People pushing legislation like these generally
push them into much larger bills that have to pass, which they can do in small
committees rather than in the whole Congress. The original CDA was stuck into
the Telecommunications Act, which has been really important legislation for
lots of other reasons. In this legislation that basically reworked the rules
for the entire US telecommunications industry, the CDA was a really tiny part.
This latest legislation got slipped into the Federal Budget, if I remember
correctly, tacked onto a provision that provided some money for Internet
access for schools, or something like that. Congress was not likely to sink
the entire Federal Budget to vote against this, nor was Clinton likely to veto
the Budget over this, especially if they felt that it was going to get thrown
out in court anyway.
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 78:
|
Oct 26 18:31 UTC 1998 |
A blue ribbon on the main web page is fine with me. We did that for
the first CDA.
To address raven's concern about apathy, I think the comparative
lack of online discussion of CDA II, compared to CDA I, is due to
a combination of factors:
(a) Burnout. ("Do we have to go through this *again*?") I'm not
defending this, but I think it's a factor.
(b) Lack of apparent applicability to Grex (as STeve notes).
(c) By their response to CDA I, the courts have shown that they
will uphold the First Amendment. Therefore, the danger seems
less than the first time around, when we didn't have a clear
idea what the courts would do.
I don't think that the lack of response means that we're a bunch of
indifferent slackers or worse.
The same groups that fought CDA I in the courts have initiated a
challenge to CDA II, by the way.
|
remmers
|
|
response 18 of 78:
|
Oct 26 18:33 UTC 1998 |
Scg's #16 slipped in. Yep, CDA II is a "rider". A pernicious practice,
but it's done all the time.
|
raven
|
|
response 19 of 78:
|
Oct 26 20:09 UTC 1998 |
re #14 & #18 Thanks for the support for the blue ribbon idea.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 20 of 78:
|
Oct 27 00:36 UTC 1998 |
Re #15: Actually, they are "thinking", like politicians that is. Few if any
have ever lost an election by coming down in favor of "protecting children."
And few have the courage to oppose something on principal if an opponent could
later point to the vote as being "against protecting children." Nowadays, I
honestly believe a majority of the electorate would vote away the Constitution
if the debate was phrased in terms of "protecting children."
|
scg
|
|
response 21 of 78:
|
Oct 27 00:46 UTC 1998 |
And indeed, if our Constitution really were harming children, it would be
worth changing. However, saying that something is "to protect children," and
actually doing things to protect children, are different things entirely.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 22 of 78:
|
Oct 27 01:10 UTC 1998 |
In the real world they're different.
In the world of the 10-second sound bite who can tell?
|
other
|
|
response 23 of 78:
|
Oct 27 05:34 UTC 1998 |
steve, your hypothetical is a very subjective standard...
the constitution *does* harm children, in the minds of those who want to
change it because they believe it harms children. that doesn't mean *I* think
that it harms children, or that i want it changed...
|
scg
|
|
response 24 of 78:
|
Oct 27 06:08 UTC 1998 |
Right. I don't think the Constitution is harming children, at least to the
extent that changes to it wouldn't in general do more harm, so I support
leaving it alone. If there were a provision in the Constitution that I felt
were harming children, I would think the Constitution needed to be changed.
But, the US is the World's second largest democracy (India being the largest).
The US Constitution is ammendable, but intentionally it was made rather
difficult to ammend. If I felt the Constitution were harming children, I
couldn't just go out and ammend it; I would have to convince a really large
number of other people that it was worth ammending. Likewise, those who now
feel that free speech harms children would have to convince a lot of other
people that it was worth changing the constitution to get rid of freedom of
speech, to protect the children. It's one thing to push a rider on the budget
bill through Congress, but I don't see the CDA making it as a Constitutional
ammendment any time soon. That sort of thing tends to get much closer
examination.
|
