(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.

135 responses total.

How, and by what process, could such an idiotic clause be added?
Wasn't some kind of vote necasary? If this is true, it is utterly
reprehensible.

  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.

the whole thing is unenforcable. (I'm sick of talking and thinking about it
already)

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?

I find this unbelievable.  I thought I had a vague idea of how the government
was supposed to work.  How can you add a clause like this onto a bill
*after* it has been voted on.  In what kind of democracy does this kind of
thing first become public knowledge the day before it is signed into law?
I knew the Republicans were weird, but I didn't think they were fascists.
I'm almost inclined not to believe #0 is true.

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.)

Wow, I was fairly convinced this was a hoax!  Didn't find it in the CDA
text, but it can probably be added w/o modifying the text.  Here's some
of what the EFF said: "No conference committee report or final bill text was
made available for review, except to committee staffers and innermost
lobbyists until after passage.  Despite repeated promises from House Speaker
Newt Gingrich, Congress has failed to provide online public access to
committee reports and 'live' bills."

   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.

I'm really, really confused on how Congress can pass a ban on talking about
abortion without ever voting to do so.  This Hyde guy all by himself can
amend a bill after it has been passed?

However, I have to admit I'm delighted it happened.  The stupider they make
the law, the more lightning it will draw.

Clinton signed it. Sigh.

   Unbelievable.

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

 president@whitehouse.gov  let him have it. ;)

        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>

Ugh, all of this is scaring me. Let's burn books next.

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....

Is the "Comstock Act of 1873" still an "active" law?  Has it been struck down?
Is it still on the books, but just ignored and "never" enforced?

Assuming that it is still a legitimate law, Mr. Jeckyl was certainly welcome
to "electronicize" it by trying to have it included in the CDA.  But that
should have happened *BEFORE* the CDA was debated and voted on.  However,
there's probably some obscure rule or procedure that allowed him to do what
he did.  Said rule or procedure I deem a *BAD IDEA*...

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?

Well, since raven has now put something indecent up where minors may access
it, and then told staff about it here in this item, staff will have to censor
that piece or go to jail.

Thanks, raven.  You are really helping us out.

        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.

Right!  and I'd rather have us as people who can speak in an intelligent
fashion rather than just put out a bunch of swear words and see if we get
arrested.  :)

        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.

No, I like George Carlin.  But I'd rather see us get into trouble (actually,
I'd rather see us *not* get into trouble) for something like a good, serious
discussion about abortion than something that is an obvious attempt to get
noticed.  

I don't go for throwing bricks thru windows, no matter how much fun it might
be.  :)

        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).

  As long as the FCC does nothing about Howard Stern and NYPD Blue, we really
don't have anything to worry about. Of course, let me say a NYPD Blue word
on 2 m and guess where my ham license goes? Until they live by "what's good
for the goose is good for the gander" I'm not listening to the FCC.

Fuck em.

Matthew, when starting a fight, there is nothing more important to keep in
mind than who your enemies are.  I think you've completely lost track of
this.  Grex is not the enemy.  Grex's staff is not the enemy.  At this
point your posting the Carlin message is a zero.  There are hundreds, if
not thousands of messages on Grex that probably violate the CDA.  One more
or less is really no skin off of anybody's nose.  We don't care.  Threatening
to leave if we remove the message is also beside the point.  We like you,
and we like having you here, and we'd be sorry to see you go, but this is
a much bigger issue than just you.  Grex is not going to decide it's
response based on whether it will upset you personally.  If we choose to
censor, we'll be using an awful lot more than the presence of one user.

I know you are mad and want to feel like you're striking a blow for freedom
of speech, but aiming that blow at people who have been strong advocates of
freedom on the net for many years is really kind of pointless.  Grex exists
because we believe in uncensored freedom of speech.  No theaterical stunts
are needed to convince people.

Even if such stunts were needed, I'd have to wonder about your judgement.
There's a scene in "Blazing Saddles" where Richard Pryor puts a gun to his
own head and says "stand back or I shoot the nigger!"  You do understand,
don't you, that if perchance some law inforcement officials decided to single
out your item as the one to prosecute someone over then it would be you
they'd go after first, not Grex?

Your disagreement with some other people here is not one of principle.  It
is one of approach.  Yes, in the face of a threat like this, some people
need to take radical, uncompromising stand and defy everything.  There is
a need for that.  But there is also need for people to stay just on the
boundary, maintaining in the face of oppression the freest and openest
environment that can be sustained.  Bomb-throwing radicals draw the
attention of the public, but to tempt the public to move in that direction,
more responsible versions of that stance also need to be presented.

Our problem is not to decide which is the "one right response."  There
will be systems responding in every imaginable way, from shutting down,
to putting on the jackboots and censoring everywhere, to partial compliance,
to total defiance.  The course taken by each is going to be determined by
the personalities of the people or organizations involved.  Grex as an
organization needs to choose its stance.  It does not need to reject all
others, and we don't need to get involved with fighting other people who
take other approaches.  They are not the enemy.

Lately I've been wondering if we might consider a "Grex Commons" approach.
Grex takes the stand that we will not censor, but we do strongly encourage
users to obey the law (which in this case means not posting mature material
in areas accessible to minors (which might be the whole sytem or might not)).
We announce our willingness to help law enforcement officials to identify
the posters of illegal material, but we decline to take the role of policemen
ourselves.  We're janitors, not cops.  We aren't competant to decide what
is and is not indecent.  If the government wants Grex patroled, they can
send their own cops.

This is an intermediate stance.  It is based on the idea that the people
talking are the ones responsible for what they say.  It means Grex would
not be taking a stand on what should be legal for whom to say to whom.
After all, Grex is not a political advocacy group.  It doesn't necessarily
make any sense for Grex to be the vehicle we use to fight this.  That
doesn't mean that any or all of the individuals who are members of Grex
might not want to fight that fight themselves or in the context of other
organizations.

I personally want to fight this.  I'll likely make donations to EFF, which
*is* a political advocacy group who's mission is exactly to fight this
sort of things.  But just because *I* want to oppose this, and I am a member
of Grex, doesn't mean that I think Grex should oppose this.  The EFF is
a much better tool for such a task.

        re 26  It seems to me that you are the one taking things personaly.
I am taking a logical step in posting the material that resulted in the
"patently offensive" standard to see if Grex is going to stay the course
in it's free speech advocacy.  I do not think Grex is the enemy I would
not log on here every day if I thought that.
        Frankly I do not think a commons approach will work, even if I stop
posting "mature" material, Kerouac has threatened to do the same thing,
if not Kerouac then someone eles.  We have to face facts here, either
Grex is going to change it's principles to obey the law and censor it's
conferences, or it isn't, it seems pretty simple to me.
        I disagree that Grex is not a political advocacy group.  The one
thing that makes us different from say AOL is that we don't censor our
confernces.  This is a good thing, we will become just another conferncing
area on the interent if we back down, and one with a slow CPU to boot.
I think if we back down that people will leave Grex because it will lose
it's one crucial advantage, it's free spirited open approach to conferencing.
If we chose to obey this law do we disalow anonymous logins???  We will
have to if we want to comply fully because we will have to know who the
minors are.  If we do disallow anonymous logins then we are giving up
one of the principles established by the founders of Grex.  If we don't
give up anonymous logins and we don't censor (commons approach) then we
aren't really complying with the law and sooner or latter someone will
complain.  So do  we take an honest stand, or do we try to wease out of
complying with the law?
        Flame away, I'm wearing my asbestos suit. :-)

As a matter of principle, I think anybody should be free to post that Carlin
piece.  However, in terms of trying to fight this bill, it was a *really
stupid* thing to do, for a couple of reasons.  Everybody who agrees with you
already opposed this law, and doesn't need the Carlin piece to convince them
that it's a bad thing.  Those who do support it, and who think those words
are evil, will just have one more example of why such a law is needed.  More
importantly, you have taken away any chance Grex might have had to say, "we
trust our users, and our users are going to be responsable for their own
content."  By posting this, and being so "in your face" about it, you've put
us in a very awkward position.  Either you are forcing us to do exactly what
we, and you, don't want by censoring your item, or you're forcing us into a
blatant violation of a law with huge fines and long prison sentences.  There
was a middle ground before.  You have taken that away.  Thanks a lot.

You have taken a strong stand here, and I applaud that.  If other people here
feel that they can comfortably join you in that, good for them.  But, how to
handle a law like this is a very personal decision, one which you should not
be pressuring other people into.  I haven't yet decided what sort of response
I want to take to this, but I suspect it will be a much more "middle ground"
response than you have taken.  I oppose this law very much, but do not feel
that I have the time to go to jail over it.  Unfortunately, whatever stand
I had hoped to be able to take against this has been really hurt, since in
order to keep from blatently violating this thing (and I think it would be
safe to say that your posting of that went out of its way to violate the law),
I'm going to have to combine my living my life pretty much as I would have
without this law with going over and censoring something.  What an awful
position.  Being caught between users deliberately flaunting stupid laws, and
lawmakers who make them, is the ultimate nightmare scenario.

I support Jan's "Grex Commons" approach - state the law in the motd
(when it becomes law), and that's it. But we don't have to "announce our
willingness to help law enforcement officials " - we just do it when
called upon. Noone here knows what is and is not "indecent" under this
law, so we can't police it. Then, donate like mad to EFF and ACLU, 
write to all your congresspeople, and get out the vote in November.

  I don't see Raven's post as adding an additional burden to
Grex's problems.  There must be dozens of "indecent" words
sprinkled throughout public files, and staffers have surely
seen some.  Serious legal compliance will require dealing
with this content and/or its potential audience.
 
  By the way, the Carlin text was successfully defended in the
Pacifica case in part due to the context in which it was
broadcast, amidst a radio program discussing language.  It's
also now part of the Supreme Court's proceedings.  It may be
reasonably defensible on Grex, in the context in which it
was posted.  Only a court can decide for sure, but there's
no guarantee that it would actually violate the CDA.
 
  Omni, one big diff between the CDA and FCC bans on radio
indecency is the severity of punishmnet.  The FCC imposes
small civil fines on Howard Stern, which are much lower than
the amount of money he generates by swearing.  The CDA
imposes a quarter million dollar fine for using certain
words.  That unreasonable disparity is one component of
the challenges filed against the CDA.

Agree with 1st paragraph of #30. Also, the last thing we need to
be doing at this point is fighting among ourselves. I hope we
look for ways to cool the rhetoric and resist the temptation to
chew each other out.

The lead editorial in today's New York Times concerns the Telecom.
Act and focuses on the CDA, which they oppose. Excerpts:

        ...The law would do what the Supreme Court has often said
        should not be done--reduce everyone's communication down to
        a level judged appropriate for children...

        ...the [indecency] provision ignores the Supreme Court's
        instruction to tailor any prohibition on speech to
        minimally necessary restrictions...

        ...Another unconstitutional provision...would make it a
        crime to transmit information over computers about drugs
        and other medical paraphernalia needed to perform
        abortions...

        The American Civil Liberties Union and others that
        challenged the indecency provisions of the new law have
        done the country a favor. They will give the courts an
        early opportunity to strike what Congress should never
        have written.

It offends me that citizens and advocacy groups like the ACLU are
having to engage in a fight AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE that they should
never have had to in the first place. The President and every
Congressperson took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
Apparently the President signed the bill, and many in Congress
voted for it, despite serious doubts about its constitutionality.
Isn't that behavior a violation of their oath of office?

  John, Congress has the same problem determining what's "constitutional"
that we have determining what's "indecent."  There's little sure way of
knowing until it goes to court.  If the CDA is unconstitutional, I doubt
that's obvious to its congressional supporters.  On the other hand, it
would be kinda cool if the gov't (i.e. general public) reimbursed some
legal costs for *successful* challenges against federal law.

Is there any chance Grex could be considered a "common carrier" under this
law?  This wouldn't protect the users originating offensive material, but
it would protect Grex and its staffers.

I don't like the idea of Grex flaunting the law.  This is a job for groups
with the funds to put up a decent legal fight.  Grex would stand about as
much chance in court as a squirrel on US-27 at rush hour.

Re #31: the ACLU was *founded* to fight - at their own expense - laws
that should never have been adopted in the first place. They have been
doing this for decades because of all the so-called legislators that
fundamentally do not believe in the civil rights provided by the US
Constitution. The ACLU expenses are paid, by the way, by its "card
carrying members" and all the lawyers that donate pro-bono services.
There is probably no more effective way to fight these infringements
on our liberties than by joining and donating to the ACLU.

I view the ACLU as the kind of organization which one does not want in 
power but which one does want around just to balance things out. I do not
agree with everything it stands for but it is definitely a plus to this
country.

I've been a "card carrying member of the ACLU" for years.  I'm not sure
however that donating to the EFF's legal defense fund might not be a
better approach for this particular issue.  The Electronic Frontier
Foundation is similar in function to the ACLU, but is specifically focused
on the electronic media.  I have some info on joining the EFF that I'll
post later.

I think Grex's mission is to run the best and openest system we can.  But
we are not an outlaw board, and don't want to be.

If we declare that we won't censor then obviously people will test us.
They wrack their brains trying to think of something that they can post
that we will have to censor.  It's infantile behavior, but I think it is
unavoidable.  Grex is going to get heat no matter what policy we follow,
weirdly enough, from many of the same people either way.

OK:  /u/janc/EFF.join   tells how to join the EFF.
     /u/janc/EFF.fund   tells how to contribute to their legal defense fund.

The first also talks about Sysop memberships.  I will enter an item proposing
that Grex join in the coop conference.

OK. Donate to both the EFF and ACLU. The latter, however, has more lawyers
that have dealt with the courts, right up through Supreme, for more years,
than the EFF. 

For another location for discussion of the issues involved in the CDA
check out the following usenet newsgroup:

alt.fuck.the.communications.decency.act

   First of all, dont worry about the abortion provision, the Justice
Dept has decided that it is unconstitutional and will not enforce it.
And try to understand Clinton's predicament.  He could not veto the 
entire, huge, Telecommunications bill, just to kill the CDA (which he
is opposed to)  This is a good bill in many ways and will increase
competition and make technology available to more people.  For 
instance, it paves the way for the telephone companies to get into the
high speed 'net provider business.  The Justice Dept is going to be
very slow and lax in enforcing the CDA because it suspects that it is
unconstitutional.  The White House inserted a clause that guarantees
that a Federal court must hear the first challenge to CDA (ordinarily
it would have been the court's prerogative)  Also, there is a Technial
Corrections bill being drafted in the House at the behest of the White House
that will address a number of concerns with the overrall bill and will
seek to strike the CDA altogether.  
    What Im saying, is dont put this huge blanket of blame on Clinton
for signing the bill.  This is all about politics, and sometimes to
get anything done, you have to be less idealistic than you'd like to be.
Clinton doesnt need Dole running negative ads in the fall campaign
that say, "This is Alt.sex.beastality and Bill Clinton wants your kids
to read it"   Sometimes for appearances sake you have to compromise,
but that doesnt mean you're selling outnecessarily in the long run, just
that more wars are won behind the scenes than on the battlefield.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss