response 50 of 85:

Dec 8 22:14 UTC 1995

   No, Grex won't have to close the conference(s).

   Grex should tell the United States Goverment to engage in autonomic
copulation.

response 52 of 85:

Dec 9 02:00 UTC 1995

<long entry> Here is the view of Farnet <courtesy J. Ogden - Merit>:

 
FARNET's Washington Update --- December 8, 1995
 
Telecom Reform
  Conference Committee Meets and decides on "cyberporn" issue
 
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEETS AND DECIDES ON "CYBERPORN" ISSUE
 
As you probably already know, the so-called "cyberporn" issue hit the fan
this week during only the second meeting of the telecommunications bill
conferees. Early this week the press had been reporting that the
alternative "White" proposal had solid support from House conferees. The
White proposal, sponsored by freshman Rep. Rick White (R-WA), was a
compromise piece of language signed on to by several industry groups.  The
distinguishing difference about the White proposal was its use of the
"harmful to minors" standard.  The rival proposal came from Rep. Henry Hyde
(R-IL), chairman of the House Judiciary committee, and was backed mainly by
the Christian Coalition and other right-leaning groups.
 
The House conferees were less solidly behind White than press reports made
out however.  A closed-door caucus of House members was called about half
an hour into the full conference committee meeting.  The vote to accept the
White proposal was 20-13.  Then Rep. Bob Goodlatte proposed an amendment to
the White proposal which would substitute the Hyde proposal "indecency"
standard in place of the less-restrictive "harmful to minors" standard of
the White proposal.  The vote on the amendment squeaked by at 17-16 to
approve.
 
Because the greatest distinguishing factor between the two proposals was
the standard by which offensive material would be judged, the amendment
meant an essential "gutting" of the White proposal.  Many of the industry
groups who had signed on to the White proposal are viewing the outcome as a
defeat.
 
The "harmful to minors" standard basically sets up three hoops through
which plaintiffs must jump to prove that material is harmful to minors.
 
The standard is generally held as constitutional, having been used in a
number of state statutes.  The "indecency" standard of the Hyde amendment,
however, is generally held as un-constitutional because it encompasses a
much broader range of material.  However, while "indecent" material is
protected by the First Amendment it may be restricted.  These restrictions,
however, must comply with a "least restrictive means" test and be in the
"compelling state interest." Hyde's "indecency" standard applies to the
transmission or display of such materials to minors.
 
Even without the Hyde "indecency" standard stuck in it, the White proposal
is not exactly a great deal for access providers and others.  The language
that would exempt providers from prosecution is pretty vague and based on
"good faith efforts" and "reasonable steps" taken to either remove the
material or allow for its blockage by users. There is also some
questionable language that would apparently exempt non-profit providers
from the pre-emption of inconsistent state laws.  A number of organizations
withheld support from the original White amendment.
 
Although the White proposal with the Hyde amendment has been accepted by
House conferees, it has not yet been accepted by their Senate counterparts.
On the other hand, the resulting House language is much more closely
aligned with the Senate's Exon language than any previous House language
has been.  It would appear unlikely that we will see the issue back on the
table before the conference committee for serious discussion again.  Staff
will likely work out the rest of the reconciliation between the House and
Senate versions.
 
The Clinton administration has not yet made a response to the outcome.
Many groups against the provision will likely call for a veto of the bill.
Whether a veto is likely is still highly unpredictable though.  The civil
liberties groups have already said that they will fight the provisions in
the courts, if they are passed into law.
 
The chance that any of the "cyberporn" language will be eliminated from the
final bill now seems extremely unlikely.  Because of the intense pressure
from the religious right, the option to strip the provisions entirely in
conference committee never materialized as some had predicted.  The choice
between White and Hyde was really a choice between a bad proposal and a
worse proposal.

response 54 of 85:

Dec 9 06:14 UTC 1995

The Q was "If this does become law, how should Grex respond? ", and I'd
have to say, we need to wait and see what becomes law. (We might
even, individually, be able to have some affect upon what becomes law.)

response 56 of 85:

Dec 9 06:43 UTC 1995

I think this is a very important question for the candidates, as it may become
a major issue for us.  I haven't read the law, but I (speaking as a board
member who is not a candidate this time around), think the answer is very
simple: if it requires us to do something that is an unconstitutional
restriction on free speech, we recognize that the consititution is the supreme
law and that it takes precidence over what congress decides to do.

response 58 of 85:

Dec 10 00:18 UTC 1995

        And, of course, what if something you label as being outside of
"pornography" gets put there someday? No, if this law violates the
constitution, I would do everything I could to practice and exercise
its' loopholes, as well as support anyone taking it to the Supreme Court,
until the law was struck down.

response 62 of 85:

Dec 10 02:20 UTC 1995

Dpc, I disagree. This may become important in the montsh to come, and how
board members, and future board members stand on this issue is important,
and *does* belong in this item.

response 64 of 85:

Dec 10 03:31 UTC 1995

What do you mean, "IF", Citizen scg?

response 66 of 85:

Dec 10 09:19 UTC 1995

I have this looney, old-fashioned, idea that legislatures try to act
rationally, though they slip up now and then. Most of the time, when
a possibly unconstitutional law is passed (I say possibily, as only
the Supreme Court can make that determination final), there are suits
that cause it to be suspended while the issue creeps through the
courts. I cannot conceive of a legislature passing a law saying Newt
could not be criticized - but if everyone were asleep, and something
like that got through, it would be challenged and not enforced until
the issue is resolved. So, you will now ask about that 0.000001% of
bad laws that might sneak through both filters. Sure, I'd ignore them.

response 68 of 85:

Dec 10 16:26 UTC 1995

Re #47: Service providers would be liable, although showing that
they have made a good-faith effort to shield minors from "indecent
material" is a defense. Think about this, and then think about
Grex's open newuser, no-verification, no-censorship policies.
   If this law fails to pass, I shall breathe an immense sigh of
relief. If it *does* pass and is signed by the President... Well,
you may think it's unconstitutional, and I may think it's
unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that it won't be a
costly battle for *somebody* to establish that.
   I raised this issue in this item because (1) it is potentially as
serious an issue for the online community as anything that has come
along in some time; (2) the rejection by congress of more moderate
proposals suggested by online services is an ominous sign;
(3) if it passes, it is something that the board will have to
deal with one way or another (even ignoring it is dealing with it).
So I think it's legitimate to ask the board candidates for their
spin on it. I appreciate the responses of those candidates who have
done so. I am not expecting anyone to come up with magic solutions.
   What I had not quite expected was the way certain non-candidates
jumped in, displayed a distinct degree of discomfort in talking
about this at all, and then attempted to direct the flow of the
discussion. I find that very interesting. One person (#59) even
goes so far as to tell the candidates who have responded to shut up
and take it elsewhere. That's bizarre.
   Some people have a history of pooh-poohing the issue of legal
ramifications of online content, saying it's nothing for anyone
to worry about. Then along came Jake Baker. We can't afford to be
dismissive any more.

response 70 of 85:

Dec 10 20:53 UTC 1995

I have some more information, but it is "acres" of text.. Remmers
has stated the basics. This tells the specific actions to take. What should
i do? I don't know enough about the system to start putting this in some file
that even I could not retrieve. Frankly, I intended to have this issue be a
starting item in the Comnets conferences, but it just exploded here and in
Agora. The guidance of those with more experience is welcome.  Time is short.

response 72 of 85:

Dec 11 06:13 UTC 1995

I think the reason it "exploded" here is because it's
sort of a loaded gun, it's clearly an issue many of us
feel strongly about, and it's more than just a candidate
issue.

Perhaps some better questions to ask the candidates would be:
 (1) where do you feel free speech stops & obscenity starts?
        how would you feel if somebody enteredn an item
                containing directions on how to make a bomb?
        how would you feel about a frank sexual discussion in agora?
 (2) if a law were passed that made you personally and criminally
        liable for things said on grex, would you still feel
        comfortable serving on the board?
 (3) under what circumstances would you feel a verification
        policy for all users on grex was appropriate?
 (4) does the prospect of a lawyer or policeman visiting you
        at home for a piece of grex "business" bother you?

response 74 of 85:

Dec 11 07:02 UTC 1995

 Perhaps some better questions to ask the candidates would be:
  (1) where do you feel free speech stops & obscenity starts?
        how would you feel if somebody enteredn an item
                containing directions on how to make a bomb?
        how would you feel about a frank sexual discussion in agora?
  (2) if a law were passed that made you personally and criminally
        liable for things said on grex, would you still feel
        comfortable serving on the board?
  (3) under what circumstances would you feel a verification
        policy for all users on grex was appropriate?
  (4) does the prospect of a lawyer or policeman visiting you
        at home for a piece of grex "business" bother you?     

(1) Everyone knows this depends more on the venue than on the substance.
    You can buy books on the open market on making bombs.
    I would suggest that frank sexual discussions be taken to a
      different, appropriate, cf.

(2) As far as I can see, such a law would not long stand. It would
    make employers similarly liable for things said on the shop floor.

(3) Name some circumstances, and I will judge each in turn. 

(4) Absolutely not. The business of a board member involves the law,
    among other things.