Someone told me that some version of the Exxon amendment passed the
congress.  Is this true?  If so what are the repercussions for Grex?  Will
we have to censor the conferences?  Will Clinton sign the telecom bill
into law?

440 responses total.

        I have confirmed this sad truth by visiting http://www.efff.org.
According to EFF civil liberties groups are organizing a day of protest
about the Exxon legislation on Tues Dec 12th that will involve e-mail,
phone calls, faxes, and protests in the street.  Visit the eff web site
for me more info.  This item now linked to the cyberpunk conf.  The conf
of net culture and controversy.

It has not yet passed congress. The Exon (not "Exxon") amendment is
part of a larger telecommunications bill. The House and Senate earlier
passed different versions of the bill, and a joint conference 
committee has been meeting to work out the differences.
   What *has* happened is that the joint committee rejected compromise
language pushed by moderate Republicans and online service providers
regarding "obscene and indecent" material and instead approved the
harsh language known as the "Exon amendment". It imposes fines of up
to $100,000 and prison terms of up to 5 years for people who make
"indecent" material available online to minors. The vote in the
committee was close (17 yes, 16 no) but it *did* pass, and that
means that when the bill comes before congress for a vote, it will
specify these harsh penalties for providing access to minors to
"indecent" material. As the term "indecent" is vaguely defined
(does it include four-letter words, for example?) this could open
up a real legal morass and be a serious problem for systems like
Grex and the people who run them.
   Under the language of the bill, service providers can be liable
for the posting of indecent and obscene material, although if a
provider can show a good-faith effort to shield minors from such
material, that can be used as a defense. Consider that, and then
consider Grex's open newuser, no-verification, no-censorship policies.
   This is NOT YET LAW. But a vote on the telecommunications bill
before the end of the year is being pushed in Congress. So if it
passes and the President signs it, it *could* become law before
January 1. That is the reason for the timing of the EFF protest.
   I will breathe an immense sigh of relief if this is defeated.
But considering the rejection of compromises by the joint committee,
in the face of massive protests and serious questions about consitu-
tionality, the signs are ominous. I don't consider it a given that
the President will veto it, either. This would not be the first time
that rationality and good sense have been casualties of the political
process.
   Various civil rights groups have vowed to fight this in the courts,
if it passes. I hope that they are successful. You may think it's
unconstitutional, and I may think it's unconstitutional, but that
doesn't mean it won't be a lot of trouble and expense (including
possible jail time) for somebody to establish that.
   My source for the above is a December 7 front page New York Times
article.

   These are dark times for America.

   I won't help close down Grex in any way because of this.

   I will stand up to this if I can.  I will face inprisonment over
this.

   Simply stated, it is time to stand up and be counted.

And keep this in mind when you vote next November.

(yes. remember: Exxon is a retiring Democrat.)

And remember, Gingrich did "NOT" want this.  The vote was not along party 
lines.  So see how your rep voted before making a decision.

(oops; "Exxon" is the oil company, "Exon" is the senator.)

 . . .the clock struck thirteen.

  A 12/6 article I read made it sound like the bill is still in committee;
that's probably where it "passed."  Some excerpts I found interesting:
 
>  The House members of the conference committee rejected on a 20-13 vote a
>stronger proposal from Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Illinois, and backed by the
>Christian Coalition, then voted 17-16 to toughen the language in the White
>proposal, substituting an "indecency" standard for the "harmful to minors"
>standard.
>  ...
>  Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and
>Technology, an advocate for civil liberties on the Internet, said he was
>"extremely disappointed" in Reps. Pat Schroeder, D-Colorado, and John
>Conyers, D-Michigan, who voted for the "indecency" standard, adding his
>organization will fight the bill in court if it is enacted.
>  Nutting notes the FCC has defined "indecency" as "language or material
>that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as
>measured by contemporary community standards ... sexual or excretory
>activities or organs."
>  He added the "indecency" standard was applied when the FCC ruled that
>radio stations could not broadcast George Carlin's comedy routine "Seven
>Dirty Words You Can't Say on TV."

   So, would Grex, or any other similar system, be willing to support any or
all of its users who decided to use that system to start a test case?

Support them with what?

Seems like congress does not want us to have the first amendment any
more. Only proper thoughts get online or on TV or radio. What is next?
A remake of the flying nun for sure.

Given prevailing U.S. "standards" for appropriateness of certain material
for minors, I don't see why anyone should be surprized that these standards
are being pursued for application to the internet.  I think the concerns
should be whether or not there is vagueness in what the bill means w.r.t.
what *shouldn't* be available for minors, and what level of control and
responsibility should be required of network providers.

If "you" (e.g. grex) can't guarantee that no minors have access to areas
not appropriate for them, then either you must prohibit minors from having
any access to the system (may be technically possible, if burdensome), or
place the responsibility of not posting unsuitable material onto the system
users.  I don't think the Exon amendment allows for that delegation/abdication
of responsibility, however (though I haven't read the text to know...).

   I wonder: what ever happened to the concept of parents making
decisions about what their kids can see and do?

  I downloaded a couple documents from the EFF's web site.  Their analysis
of the legislation is in /u/ajax/cda_analysis.  Also, they're one of dozens
of civil liberties groups sponsoring a "day of protest" tomorrow, trying
to get the public to contact their congresspeople.  The EFF's info, with
numbers to contact, is in /u/ajax/protest.  I announced that in the MOTD
as well.  Not sure if such political announcements are appropriate there,
but I just read about it today, so there wasn't any time to ask in
co-op if it was alright.  (You can type !more /u/ajax/protest from the
"Respond or pass?" prompt to read the file).

  It would be terrible if this forced the Grex's of the world to take
measures like AOL does.  Recently they added the word "breast" to 
the forbidden word list (seriously, trying to cut down on dirty talk
I guess)  Anyway a whole group of folks in a cancer discussion group
got suspended for using the "b" word over the course of a week and there
was an official recantation by AOL.  According to an article in last
week's Washington Post, AOL site producers now allow use of the word
"breast" if it is deemed to be in context of serious related conversation.

This idiocy is exactly why I refuse to use AOL, even when its on systems
at places I work.  I'd hate to see Grex's programmers be forced to
come up with a censor program that scans everything and locks out people
who say the wrong words.  I've used boards like that before and its
pretty damn annoying.

But I'm sure many individual words would be considered "indecent material"
in and of themselves under this law.  **shudder**

I'm glad you put that in the MOTD, Rob.  I probably wouldn't have noticed it
otherwise.  I noticed Lynn Rivers wasn't in their list, or in the list on
www.house.gov of congresspeople with e-mail, but I thought I heard a few
months ago that she did have e-mail.  Does anybody know her address?

I have Emailed messages to those with Email addresses and called the offices
of the others listed.  Pat Schroeder's receptionist stated her opposition,
as well as the House Speaker's.  Senator Lott's phone did not answer, and
Senator Exon's voice mail box was full as of 8:15 a.m. EST 12/12/95 (I wonder
why!!!!!).  Have also contacted Senators Abraham and Levin and Congresswoman
Rivers as well.  Stay tuned.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

I have completed contacting the congresspersons in question via phone or
Email, including Exon and Lott.  Also just received an Email reply from
Wendell Ford's (D-KY) office.

BTW, did you notice that Exon apparently doesn't have an Email address listed?
Moral: He no playa da game, he no makea da rules.

All I can say about this matter is this:  Sure i dont agree or even like some
of the things I see on the internet.  I will not keep others from exercising
their rights a American citizens.  I am a father with two kids, and it is sad
to think that congress needs to step in and help me parent.  Unfortunately
there are too many parents today that don't give a damn about their children
or what they might be doing at any given time just as long as they are out
of the way...Yes it is time to stand up and fight!!! It is also time for
American parents to stand up and take resonsibility for their families..

Called Dole, Gingrich, and Conyers. 

Called Exon and Conyers.

Faxxed Conyers and Hollings, failed to fax Exon (busy all day, can't imagine
why), and e-mailed the e-mailable senators.  By the way, remember that the
proest organizers would appreciate if you send a message to protest@vtw.org,
so that they can get a rough count of how many people participated.
  
By the way, here's an interesting exceprt from the Senate amendment:

>Sec._ OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER
>THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
>
>Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended --
>
>   (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof:
>
> ``(a) Whoever--
>        ``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
>communications
>
>        ``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly--
>
>          ``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
>          ``(ii) initiates the transmission of,
>
>     any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
>communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent,
>with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

If people can't make an indecent comment with intent to annoy, Grex will be 
in serious trouble, but just imagine how dire the situation will be for
M-Net!!  ;-)

This bill sure annoys the hell out of me, and it appears to be made with the
intent of threatening me with bad things. It certainly is a communication.
Can we report the entire Congress to the Attorney General if this is posted
in Fedworld etc, etc.? Assuming it passes, of course. It is self-evident the
proposal is improper and indecent. 

  This political activism is great but I must put a little inside-the-
beltway realism into it.  There is a HUGE amount of manipulation that
goes into congressional lobbying.  Its well known that the Christian
Coalition and a number of other well heeled conservative groups have
mailing lists of registered members and right-wing voters in every state.
What they will, and have done, is hire-- pay-- large numbers of
people to work in phone banks with these lists.  They will call up
the offices of Congressmen and Senators and literally say they are 
"John Q. Voter from Ann Arbor, Michigan" and they support this bill or
that bill.  This way they keep the telephones and fax machines of
congressmen flooded, and since they work from conservative voter mailing
lists, there is little chance the actual person they are impersonating
has different views.  This is a well known political trick, but it
really became widely known during the NAFTA debate, when some Senators
had some of the letters they received authenticated.

I think they showed two or three cases where Senators had letters from
people opposing NAFTA who had died years ago.

Its a sleazy tactic but its all part of the game, politics being a game
of manipulation that is often played dirty.  So for ever letter you sent
dont be surprised if there are three or four sitting in Gingrich's office
that have been "professionally sent", so to speak.

I'm going to e-mail Lynn Rivers tomorrow, although from conversations I have
had with her I have a feeling that it's going to be very easy to convince her
it's a bad bill if she knows what's in it, so I don't think that will take
much manipulation or lobbying.  I'll also send mail to Gingrich and others,
if I have time.

I emailed the emailable congresspersons and sent mail to
protest@vtw.org saying that I'd done it. Went on at some
length about the potential effect on small, community-
oriented, volunteer systems such as Grex (they could be
driven out of business).

        I e-mailed Conyers.  Any idea who the rep for Ypsi is?

Lynn Rivers (D) Representative. 13th District. <lrivers@hr.house.gov>
(202) 225-6261 -- 1116 Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 - I believe.
I like her but she faces a tough fight against Joe Fitzsimmons next year. Joe
is pretty smart - I will be interested to know his positions. He is former
Chair of University Microfilms here (Washtenaw County - now owned by Bell &
Howell) and he belives in the concept of community networking, from what he
has said. It will be interesting. Oh, and you can be sure Joe will be well
financed, which does not mean he is bad. 

I like Lynn.  She's both one of the few in Washington who is liberal enough
for me, and somebody who seems to actually think things through rather than
just voting the party line.  I also like that she seems to be very
approachable, and very willing to discuss issues at length with consistuents.

I e-mailed her today, explaining the sort of system Grex is and why such a
law would probably force Grex to shut down.  I put way more time into that
than I had intended to, but since she says she reads all her consistuent mail
rather than just having her staff read and tally it, providing good arguments
rather than just stating a position is probably a good thing to do.

I faxed most of the people on the list, saying similar things about Grex
and similar small systems.

I email everyone on the list.  Missed Rep Rivers.  I am scared to 
death by this.  Time to pray.

  I petitioned everyone as well.  Hope it does some good.

The Thursday, Dec. 14 issue of the Detroit News has a well-written,
strongly-worded editorial entitled "Nannyism on the Internet"
opposing the proposed legislation. Some excerpts (quoted without
permission):

        For all its rhetoric about restoring individual liberties,
        the GOP-controlled Congress is mighty short on results.
        Most recently, conferees reconciling House and Senate
        versions of the new telecommunications law have vastly
        expanded government powers to regulate electronic speech.
        The measure woul transform what is now the most democratic
        communications forum the world has known into the most
        heavily regulated medium...

        ...Among the critical differences between House and Senate
        versions of the bill is the Senate's inclusion, and House
        exclusion, of prohibitions on "indecency" across all
        electronic communications. Such a ban is widely considered
        wholly unnecessary, unenforceable, and patently unconsti-
        tutional.

        But the forces of nannyism have prevailed for now. Without
        defining terms, House conferees approved a ban on "obscene
        and indecent" transmissions of both text and images. Swing
        votes came compliments of those champions of civil liberties
        --Reps. John Conyer, D-Detroit, and Pat Schroeder,
        D-Colorado...

        ...The U.S. Supreme Court has established legal--albeit
        amorphous--principles for banning "obscenity." But nothing
        comparable exists for indecency. The high court, in fact,
        has ruled that "indecent" speech must be regulated by "the
        least restrictive means."

        Conferees have proved completely irresponsible in crafting
        legislation that begs action by the judicial branch.

The editorial goes on to attack the mandated installation of the
"V-chip"--intended to enable blocking of violent programming--in
new TV sets, and the threat to impose a federally-designed rating
system for TV shows. "Washington could soon be micromanaging prime
time."

That phrase "completely irresponsible" says it all for me. Members
of Congress have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. I thought
that when I voted for public officials, I was voting for people to
protect my rights, not to trash them. Guess I was wrong.

Vote for someone else (though it is mighty difficult to know for whom to
vote).

Yeah. GIGO applies to elected bodies just like computers.  Thanks for posting
the excerpt, John. Am I correct that the conf. committee has not done anything
yet. If so, more protest is in order.  Nothing says the protest has to be
confined to one day. Nothing says one cannot contact other ocngress people
and the press. 

This is from FARNET's Washington Udate: 

 
 
 
A FOLLOW-UP TO LAST WEEK'S REPORT ON THE WHITE/HYDE ACTION
 
There had been some reports early this week that efforts were being made to
further "tweak" the indecency standard language amended to Rep. White's
proposal on on-line indecency which was presented by House conferees last
week to the Senate.  However, while press here reported that conferees'
offices had been swamped with messages as a result of an "Internet Day of
Protest," it has appeared more and more unlikely that the proposal will be
changed.  Part of the problem may be a major split between industry
coalitions and civil liberties groups who both oppose the indecency
standard amended to the proposal.  Civil liberties groups have accused
industry coalitions of compromising on the original White proposal, which
they say made it easier for conservative forces to get the more restrictive
"indecency standard" into the proposal.

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