|
|
|
From cchandle@CapAccess.orgTue May 16 02:54:09 1995
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 02:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christine Chandlerhorowitz <cchandle@CapAccess.org>
To: freida@cyberspace.org
Cc: Christine Chandlerhorowitz <cchandle@CapAccess.org>
Subject: Re: Censorship paper
> From: IN%"FABRY8208@duq3.cc.duq.edu" "Jen" 15-MAR-1995 12:33:49.05
> To: IN%"tylerm@ULVACS.ULAVERNE.EDU", IN%"parks@music.uga.edu",
IN%"s097404@jaguarl.usouthal.edu" > CC: > Subj: [Chad E Emahizer
<ceest1+@pitt.edu>: URGENT PETITION -- Fight Govt. Ce] > > ----------
Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:04:52 -0500 (EST) >
From: Heather M Liviskie <hmlst4++@pitt.edu> > To: stsst12@pitt.edu > Cc:
ceest1@pitt.edu > Subject: URGENT PETITION -- Fight Govt. Censorship! (fwd) >
> Here ya go. Pass it on! > *(:) > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 16:39:02 -0500 (EST) > From: DON PAVLISH
<DAP0686+@ACFcluster.NYU.EDU> > To: tk103493@oak.cats.ohiou.edu,
hmlst4+@pitt.edu, 98acl@williams.edu, > hofie@expert.cc.purdue.edu,
MANYAK@UMICH.EDU, > WILKINSR@MINNIE.HOLLINS.EDU,
ak202@cleveland.freenet.edu > Subject: URGENT PETITION -- Fight Govt.
Censorship! > > > Hello everyone... > > I know it been a while since I've
been seen on the net, but I've > been a little bit busy. However, a matter has
come to my > attention that is of the utmost importance to all of us online. >
> Simply put, a couple of senators have proposed a particulary > heinous piece
of legislation titled the "Communications > Decency Act of 1995" (Senate Bill
S. 314). Basically, the > bill would subject all forms of electronic
communication -- > from public Internet postings to your most private email --
> to government censorship. The effects of the bill onto the > online industry
would be devastating -- most colleges and > private companies (AOL,
Compuserve, etc.) would probably have > to shut down or greatly restrict
access, since they would be > held criminally liable for the postings and email
of private > users. > > Obviously, this bill is designed to win votes for
these senators > among those who are fearful of the internet and aren't big >
fans of freedom of speech -- ie., those who are always trying to > censor
"pornography" and dirty books and such. Given the > political climate in this
country, this bill might just pass > unless the computer community demonstrates
its strength as a > committed political force to be reckoned with. This, my
friends, > is why I have filled your mailbox with this very long message. > >
A petition, to be sent to Congress, the President, and the media, > has begun
spreading through the Internet. It's easy to participate > and be heard -- to
sign it, you simply follow the instructions > below -- which boil down to
sending a quick email message to a > certain address. That's all it takes to
let your voice be heard. > (You know, if the Internet makes democracy this
accessible to the > average citizen, is it any wonder Congress wants to censor
it?) > > The document that follows contains an introduction, the text of the
> petition, and instructions for signing it. This constitutes > "SECTION --1--
of TWO". This first section contains all the info > you need to respond
quickly. For those who want to read more about > the proposed censorship bill,
an excellent analysis follows, as > well as the full text of the beast at hand.
This is "SECTION --2-- of > TWO", and I encourage everyone to read it in order
to make an > informed decision. > > Finally, PLEASE forward this message to
all your friends online. > The more people sign the petition, the more the
government will > get the message to back off the online community. We've been
doing > fine without censorship until now -- let's show them we don't plan on >
allowing them to start now. If you value your freedoms -- from > your right to
publicly post a message on a worldwide forum to your > right to receive private
email without the government censoring it -- > you need to take action NOW.
It'll take fifteen minutes at the most, > a small sacrifice considering the
issues at hand. Remember, the age > of fighting for liberty with muskets and
shells is most likely over; > the time has come where the keyboard and the
phone line will prove > mightier than the sword -- or the Senate, in this case.
> > Yours in liberty, > > -don > > >
======================= ====================================* > =====don===[
SECTION --1-- of TWO ]==========don===don=====* > =======================
====================================* > > From: slowdog@wookie.net (slowdog)
> Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk > Subject: --> PETITION to Congress to Stop
Senate Bill S.314 > Date: 16 Feb 1995 15:47:04 GMT > Organization: Wozz's Place
> Lines: 642 > Distribution: inet > Message-ID:
<3hvs1o$ppj@dockmaster.phantom.com> > > *** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS
MESSAGE *** > > This document is an electronic Petition Statement to the >
U.S. Congress regarding pending legislation, the > "Communications Decency Act
of 1995" (S. 314) which will > have, if passed, very serious negative
ramifications for > freedom of expression on Usenet, the Internet, and all >
electronic networks. The proposed legislation would remove > guarantees of
privacy and free speech on all electronic > networks, including the Internet,
and may even effectively > close them down as a medium to exchange ideas and >
information. > > For an excellent analysis of this Bill by the Center for >
Democracy and Technology (CDT), refer to the Appendix > attached at the end of
this document. The text to S. 314 > is also included in this Appendix. > >
This document is somewhat long, but the length is necessary > to give you
sufficient information to make an informed > decision. Time is of the essence,
we are going to turn > this petition and the signatures in on 3/16/95, so if
you > are going to sign this please do so ASAP or at least before > midnight
Wednesday, March 15, 1995. > > Even if you read this petition after the due
date, please > submit your signature anyway as we expect Congress to > continue
debating these issues in the foreseeable future > and the more signatures we
get, the more influence the > petition will have on discussion. And even if
Congress > rejects S. 314 while signatures are being gathered, do > submit your
signature anyway for the same reason. > > Please do upload this petition
statement as soon as > possible to any BBS and on-line service in your area. >
If you have access to one of the major national on-line > services such as
CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, etc., do try > to upload it there. We are trying to
get at least 5000 > signatures. Even more signatures are entirely possible >
if we each put in a little effort to inform others, such > as friends and
coworkers, about the importance of this > petition to electronic freedom of
expression. > > Here is a brief table of contents: > > (1) Introduction
(this section) > (2) The Petition Statement > (3) Instructions for signing this
petition > (4) Credits > (Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 (LONG but
excellent) > > > ******(2) The Petition Statement > > In united voice, we
sign this petition against passage of S. 314 (the > "Communications Decency Act
of 1995") for these reasons: > > S. 314 would prohibit not only individual
speech that is "obscene, > lewd, > lascivious, filthy, or indecent", but would
prohibit any provider of > telecommunications service from carrying such
traffic, under threat > of > stiff penalty. Even aside from the implications
for free speech, this > would cause an undue - and unjust - burden upon
operators of the > various > telecommunications services. In a time when the
citizenry and their > lawmakers alike are calling for and passing "no unfunded
mandates" > laws > to the benefit of the states, it is unfortunate that
Congress might seek > to > impose unfunded mandates upon businesses that
provide the > framework for > the information age. > > An additional and
important consideration is the technical feasibility > of > requiring the sort
of monitoring this bill would necessitate. The > financial burden in and of
itself - in either manpower or technology > to > handle such monitoring (if
even legal under the Electronic > Communications > Privacy Act) - would likely
cause many smaller providers to go out > of > business, and most larger
providers to seriously curtail their > services. > > The threat of such
penalty alone would result in a chilling effect in > the > telecommunications
service community, not only restricting the > types of > speech expressly
forbidden by the bill, but creating an environment > contrary to the
Constitutional principles of free speech, press, and > assembly - principles
which entities such as the Internet embody as > nothing has before. > > By
comparison, placing the burden for content control upon each > individual >
user is surprisingly simple in the online and interactive world, and > there >
is no legitimate reason to shift that burden to providers who carry > that >
content. Unlike traditional broadcast media, networked media is >
comparatively easy to screen on the user end - giving the reader, > viewer, >
or participant unparalleled control over his or her own information >
environment. All without impacting or restricting what any other > user >
wishes to access. This makes regulation such as that threatened by > this >
S. 314 simply unnecessary. > > In addition, during a period of
ever-increasing commercial interest in > arenas such as the Internet,
restriction and regulation of content or > the > flow of traffic across the
various telecommunications services would > have > serious negative economic
effects. The sort of regulation proposed > by this > bill would slow the
explosive growth the Internet has seen, giving > the > business community
reason to doubt the medium's commercial > appeal. > > We ask that the Senate
halt any further progress of this bill. We ask > that the Senate be an example
to Congress as a whole, and to the > nation > at large - to promote the
general welfare as stated in the Preamble to > the Constitution by protecting
the free flow of information and ideas > across all of our telecommunications
services. > > > ******(3) Instructions for signing the petition > >
====================================== > Instructions for Signing
This Petition > ====================================== > > It must
first be noted that this is a petition, not a > vote. By "signing" it you
agree with *all* the requests > made in the petition. If you do not agree with
everything > in this petition, then your only recourse is to not sign > it. >
> In addition, all e-mail signatures will be submitted to > Congress, the
President of the United States, and the > news media. > > Including your full
name is optional, but *very highly > encouraged* as that would add to the
effectiveness of the > petition. Signing via an anonymous remailer is highly >
discouraged, but not forbidden, as an attempt will be made > to separately
tally signatures from anonymous remailers. > > Because this is a Petition to
the U.S. Congress, we ask > that you state, as instructed below, whether or not
you > are a U.S. citizen. We do encourage non-U.S. citizens to > sign, but
their signatures will be tallied separately. > > Signing this petition is not
hard, but to make sure your > signature is not lost or miscounted, please
follow these > directions EXACTLY: > > 1) Prepare an e-mail message. In the
main body (NOT the > Subject line) of your e-mail include the ONE-LINE
statement: > > SIGNED <Internet e-mail address> <Full name> <US Citizen> >
> You need not include the "<" and ">" characters. 'SIGNED' > should be
capitalized. As stated above, your full name is > optional, but highly
recommended. If you do supply your > name, please don't use a pseudonym or
nickname, or your > first name -- it's better to just leave it blank if it's >
not your full and real name. If you are a U.S. citizen, > please include at
the end of the signature line a 'YES', > and if you are not, a 'NO'. All
signatures will be > tallied whether or not you are a U.S. Citizen > >
**************************************************** > Example: My e-mail
signature would be: > > SIGNED dave@kachina.altadena.ca.us Dave C. Hayes YES
> **************************************************** > > 2) Please DON'T
include a copy of this petition, nor any > other text, in your e-mail message.
If you have comments > to make, send e-mail to me personally, and NOT to the >
special petition e-mail signature address. > > 3) Send your e-mail message
containing your signature to > the following Internet e-mail address and NOT to
me: > > =========================== >
s314-petition@netcom.com > =========================== > > 4)
Within a few days of receipt of your signature, an > automated acknowledgment
will be e-mailed to you for e-mail > address verification purposes. You do not
need to respond or > reply to this acknowledgement when you receive it. We may
> also contact you again in the future should we need more > information, such
as who your House Representative and > Senators are, which is not asked here as
it is unclear > whether such information is needed. > > Thank you for signing
this petition! > > > ******(4) Credits > > The petition statement was
written by slowdog > <slowdog@wookie.net>, super.net.freedom.fighter. > > The
rest of this document mostly collated from the net > by Dave Hayes,
net.freedom.fighter. > > Much help came from Jon Noring, INFJ and >
self.proclaimed.net.activist who made a few > suggestions and will be tallying
the signatures. > > Thanks to the EFF and CDT for the excellent analysis of >
the bill. > > (p.s., send your signature to s314-petition@netcom.com) > >
> > ======================= ====================================* >
=====don===[ SECTION --2-- of TWO ]==========don===don=====* >
======================= ====================================* > >
******(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 > > [This analysis provided by
the Center for Democracy and > Technology, a non-profit public interest
organization. > CDT's mission is to develop and advocate public policies > that
advance Constitutional civil liberties and democratic > values in new computer
and communications technologies. > For more information on CDT, ask Jonah
Seiger > <jseiger@cdt.org>.] > > CDT POLICY POST 2/9/95 > > SENATOR EXON
INTRODUCES ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION > > A. OVERVIEW > > Senators Exon
(D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have > introduced legislation to expand
current FCC regulations > on obscene and indecent audiotext to cover *all*
content > carried over all forms of electronic communications > networks. If
enacted, the "Communications Decency Act of > 1995" (S. 314) would place
substantial criminal liability > on telecommunications service providers
(including > telephone networks, commercial online services, the > Internet,
and independent BBS's) if their network is used > in the transmission of any
indecent, lewd, threatening or > harassing messages. The legislation is
identical to a > proposal offered by Senator Exon last year which failed >
along with the Senate Telecommunications reform bill (S. > 1822, 103rd
Congress, Sections 801 - 804). The text the > proposed statute, with proposed
amendment, is appended at > the end of this document. > > The bill would
compel service providers to chose between > severely restricting the activities
of their subscribers > or completely shutting down their email, Internet
access, > and conferencing services under the threat of criminal > liability.
Moreover, service providers would be forced to > closely monitor every private
communication, electronic > mail message, public forum, mailing list, and file
archive > carried by or available on their network, a proposition > which poses
a substantial threat to the freedom of speech > and privacy rights of all
American citizens. > > S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step
> backwards on the path to a free and open National > Information
Infrastructure. The bill raises fundamental > questions about the ability of
government to control > content on communications networks, as well as the
locus > of liability for content carried in these new > communications media. >
> To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital > media, CDT is
working to organize a broad coalition of > public interest organizations
including the ACLU, People > For the American Way, and Media Access Project,
along with > representatives from the telecommunications, online > services,
and computer industries to oppose S. 314 and to > explore alternative policy
solutions that preserve the > free flow of information and freedom of speech in
the > online world. CDT believes that technological > alternatives which allow
individual subscribers to control > the content they receive represent a more
appropriate > approach to this issue. > > > B. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF S.
314 > > S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and >
harassment on telephone services to all telecommunications > providers and
expand criminal liability to *all* content > carried by *all* forms of
telecommunications networks. > The bill would amend Section 223 of the
Communications Act > (47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to
> prevent minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext > and criminalizes
harassment accomplished over interstate > telephone lines. This section,
commonly known as the > Helms Amendment (having been championed by Senator
Jesse > Helms), has been the subject of extended Constitutional > litigation in
recent years. > > * CARRIERS LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ALL USERS ON THEIR >
NETWORKS > > S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including >
telephone companies, commercial online services, the > Internet, and BBS's)
liable for every message, file, or > other content carried on its network --
including the > private conversations or messages exchanged between two >
consenting individuals. > > Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or
otherwise > makes available any comment, request, suggestion, > proposal,
image, or other communication" which is > "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
or indecent" using a > "telecommunications device" would be subject to a fine
of > $100,000 or two years in prison (Section (2)(a)). > > In order to avoid
liability under this provision, carriers > would be forced to pre-screen all
messages, files, or > other content before transmitting it to the intended >
recipient. Carriers would also be forced to prevent or > severely restrict
their subscribers from communicating > with individuals and accessing content
available on other > networks. > > Electronic communications networks do not
contain discrete > boundaries. Instead, users of one service can easily >
communicate with and access content available on other > networks. Placing the
onus, and criminal liability, on > the carrier as opposed to the originator of
the content, > would make the carrier legally responsible not only for > the
conduct of its own subscribers, but also for content > generated by subscribers
of other services. > > This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats
to > the free flow of information throughout the online world > and the free
speech and privacy rights of individual > users. Forcing carriers to
pre-screen content would not > only be impossible due to the sheer volume of
messages, it > would also violate current legal protections. > > * CARRIERS
REQUIRED TO ACT AS PRIVATE CENSOR OF ALL > PUBLIC FORUMS AND ARCHIVES > >
S. 314 would also expand current restrictions on access to > indecent telephone
audiotext services by minors under the > age of 18 to cover similar content
carried by > telecommunications services (such as America Online and > the
Internet). (Sec (a)(4)). > > As amended by this provision, anyone who, "by
means of > telephone or telecommunications device, makes, transmits, > or
otherwise makes available (directly or by recording > device) any indecent
communication for commercial purposes > which is available to any person under
the age of 18 years > of age or to any other person without that person's >
consent, regardless of whether the maker of such > communication placed the
call or initiated the > communication" would be subject of a fine of $100,000
or > two years in prison. > > This would force carries to act as private
censors of all > content available in public forums or file archives on > their
networks. Moreover, because there is no clear > definition of indecency,
carriers would have to restrict > access to any content that could be possibly
construed as > indecent or obscene under the broadest interpretation of > the
term. Public forums, discussion lists, file archives, > and content available
for commercial purposes would have > to be meticulously screened and censored
in order to avoid > potential liability for the carrier. > > Such a scenario
would severely limit the diversity of > content available on online networks,
and limit the > editorial freedom of independent forum operators. > >
ADDITIONAL NOTABLE PROVISIONS > > * AMENDMENT TO ECPA > > Section (6) of
the bill would amend the Electronic > Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2511)
to prevent the > unauthorized interception and disclosure of "digital >
communications" (Sec. 6). However, because the term > "digital communication"
is not defined and 18 USC 2511 > currently prevents unauthorized interception
and > disclosure of "electronic communications" (which includes > electronic
mail and other forms of communications in > digital form), the effect of this
provision has no clear > importance. > > * CABLE OPERATORS MAY REFUSE
INDECENT PUBLIC ACCESS > PROGRAMMING > > Finally, section (8) would amend
sections 611 and 612 of > the Communications Act (47 USC 611 - 612) to allow
any > cable operator to refuse to carry any public access or > leased access
programming which contains "obscenity, > indecency, or nudity". > > C.
ALTERNATIVES TO EXON: RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE USER > CONTROL CAPABILITIES OF
INTERACTIVE MEDIA > > Government regulation of content in the mass media has
> always been considered essential to protect children from > access to
sexually-explicit material, and to prevent > unwitting listeners/views from
being exposed to material > that might be considered extremely distasteful.
The > choice to protect children has historically been made at > the expense of
the First Amendment ban on government > censorship. As Congress moves to
regulate new interactive > media, it is essential that it understand that
interactive > media is different than mass media. The power and > flexibility
of interactive media offers a unique > opportunity to enable parents to control
what content > their kids have access to, and leave the flow of > information
free for those adults who want it. Government > control regulation is simply
not needed to achieve the > desired purpose. > > Most interactive technology,
such as Internet browsers and > the software used to access online services
such as > America Online and Compuserve, already has the capability > to limit
access to certain types of services and selected > information. Moreover, the
electronic program guides > being developed for interactive cable TV networks
also > provide users the capability to screen out certain > channels or ever
certain types of programming. Moreover, > in the online world, most content
(with the exception of > private communications initiated by consenting >
individuals) is transmitted by request. In other words, > users must seek out
the content they receive, whether it > is by joining a discussion or accessing
a file archive. > By its nature, this technology provides ample control at >
the user level. Carriers (such as commercial online > services, Internet
service providers) in most cases act > only as "carriers" of electronic
transmissions initiated > by individual subscribers. > > CDT believes that
the First Amendment will be better > served by giving parents and other users
the tools to > select which information they (and their children) should > have
access to. In the case of criminal content the > originator of the content,
not the carriers, should be > responsible for their crimes. And, users
(especially > parents) should be empowered to determine what information > they
and their children have access to. If all carriers > of electronic
communications are forced restrict content > in order to avoid criminal
liability proposed by S. 314, > the First Amendment would be threatened and the
usefulness > of digital media for communications and information >
dissemination would be drastically limited. > > D. NEXT STEPS > > The bill
has been introduced and will next move to the > Senate Commerce Committee,
although no Committee action > has been scheduled. Last year, a similar
proposal by > Senator Exon was approved by the Senate Commerce committee > as
an amendment to the Senate Telecommunications Bill (S. > 1822, which died at
the end of the 103rd Congress). CDT > will be working with a wide range of
other interest groups > to assure that Congress does not restrict the free flow
of > information in interactive media. > > > TEXT OF 47 U.S.C. 223 AS
AMENDED BY S. 314 > > **NOTE: [] = deleted > ALL CAPS
= additions > > 47 USC 223 (1992) > > Sec. 223. [Obscene or harassing
telephone calls in the District > of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
communications] > > OBSCENE OR HARASSING UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS >
DEVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN > INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS" > > (a) Whoever-- > > (1) in the District of
Columbia or in interstate or foreign > communication by means of [telephone]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS > DEVICE-- > > (A) [makes any comment, request,
suggestion or proposal] > MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY >
COMMENT,REQUEST, > SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION which >
is > obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; > > [(B) makes a
telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, > without disclosing his
identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, > threaten, or harass any person at
the called number;] > > > "(B) MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR UTILIZES A >
TELECOMMUNICATIONS > DEVICE, WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATIONS >
ENSUES,WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS IDENTITY AND WITH INTENT TO > ANNOY, > ABUSE,
THREATEN, OR HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED > NUMBER OR WHO > RECEIVES THE
COMMUNICATION; > > (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly
or > continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the > called
number; or > > [(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which
conversation > ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or] >
> (D) MAKES REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS OR REPEATEDLY INITIATES > COMMUNICATION
WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, DURING > WHICH > CONVERSATION OR
COMMUNICATION ENSUES, SOLELY TO HARASS > ANY PERSON > AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR
WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION, > > (2) knowingly permits any [telephone
facility] > TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used > for any
purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more > than
$[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] > TWO > YEARS, or
both. > > (b)(1) Whoever knowingly-- > > (A) within the United
States, by means of [telephone] > TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly
or by recording > device) > any obscene communication for commercial purposes
to any person, > regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed
the > call or INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or > > (B) permits any
[telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS > FACILITY under such person's control
to be used for an activity > prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in
accordance with > title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two
> years, or both. > > (2) Whoever knowingly-- > > (A) within the
United States, [by means of telephone], > makes BY MEANS OF TELEPHONE OR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, > MAKES, > TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly
or by recording device) > any > indecent communication for commercial purposes
which is available > to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person
without > that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such >
communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; > or > > >
(B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS > FACILITY under such
person's control to be used for an activity > prohibited by subparagraph (A),
shall be fined not more than > $[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than
[six months] > TWO YEARS, or both. > > (3) It is a defense to prosecution
under paragraph (2) of this > subsection that the defendant restrict access to
the prohibited > communication to persons 18 years of age or older in
accordance > with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as
the > Commission may prescribe by regulation. > > (4) In addition to the
penalties under paragraph (1), whoever, > within the United States,
intentionally violates paragraph > (1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not
more than $[50,000] > 100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this
paragraph, each > day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. > >
(5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2), > and (5),
whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1) > or (2) shall be
subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000] > 100,000 for each
violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each > day of violation shall
constitute a separate violation. > > (B) A fine under this paragraph may
be assessed either-- > > (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the
Commission or > any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by
the > Commission for such purposes, or > > (ii) by the Commission after
appropriate administrative > proceedings. > > (6) The Attorney General may
bring a suit in the appropriate > district court of the United States to enjoin
any act or practice > which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be
granted > in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. > >
(c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or > within any State,
or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, > to the extent technically
feasible, provide access to a > communication specified in subsection (b) from
the > telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in > writing
the carrier to provide access to such communication if the > carrier collects
from subscribers an identifiable charge for such > communication that the
carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the > provider of such communication. >
> (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may > be
brought in any court or administrative agency against any > common > carrier,
or any of its affiliates, including their officers, > directors, employees,
agents, or authorized representatives on > account of-- > > (A) any action
which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good > faith to restrict access
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this > subsection; or > > (B) any access
permitted-- > > (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any
representation > by a provider of communications that communications provided
by > that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or > >
(ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not > allow the
carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to > restrict access to
communications described in subsection (b). > > (3) Notwithstanding
paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider > of communications services to
which subscribers are denied access > pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection may bring an action > for a declaratory judgment or similar action
in a court. Any such > action shall be limited to the question of whether the >
communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within > the category
of communications to which the carrier will provide > access only to
subscribers who have previously requested such > access. > >
********************************************* > > NOTE: This version of the
text shows the actual text of current law as > it would be changed. For the
bill itself, which consists of unreadable > text such as: > > [...] >
(1) in subsection (a)(1)-- > (A) by striking out
`telephone' in the matter above > subparagraph (A) and
inserting `telecommunications > device'; > (B) by striking
out `makes any comment, request, > suggestion, or proposal'
in subparagraph (A) and > inserting > `makes, transmits, or
otherwise makes available any > comment, request, suggestion,
proposal, image, or other > communication'; >
(C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the >
following: > `(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a >
[...] > > See: > > ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill >
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill > http://www.eff.org
/pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill > > -- > > - dog > http://ww
w.phantom.com/~slowdog > Stop the Communications Decency Act! > >
============================================================* > ========== END
OF DOCUMENT =========== don don =============* >
============================================================* > > Please sign
ASAP! Your freedoms are at stake... >
-- -- -- -- --- -- ! /\ !\ ! !-\ -- -- -- ! !-\ /\
- !! - - / - ! -- ! \ ! ! ! - !! - ! ! ! --
!\ -- -- --- -- !_ / \ ! \! !_/ !\ -- ! !_/ / \
Freezeland Freida = Cchandle@capaccess.org
Comments anyone?
3 responses total.
This response has been erased.
I second that.....I signed long ago, but keep on collecting...
Eldrich told me of this item's existence. I thank him. If you'll excuse me, I have some signing to do......
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss