From: Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 14:58:47 PST
To: slowdog@wookie.net (slowdog)
Subject: Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.950209105014.8284B-100000@chewy.wookie.net>
Message-ID: <199502092258.RAA02881@libws2.ic.sunysb.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote:
> 
> > The line between indecency and obscenity is vague. Legal defense fees are
> > not... not are opportunistic prosecutors-- which is a real problem. Look at
> > what happened to Jello Biafra and the Dead Kennedys if you'd like an

[ .. ]

> This is part of the danger. It to omse degree doesn't matter how 
> restictive or "enforceable" the law might be, or even whether or not 
> prosecutins will stick. Arrests and prosecutions will take a financial 
> toll on those targetted, and will create a chillinf effect in the online 
> community, meaning sysops and BBS operators will start policing 
> themselves too severely in an effort to avoid politcial or legal scrutiny.

Exactly. It's already happening. I've noticed on local BBS's they are afraid
of conversation about controversial subjects or files having to do with
things like do-it-yourself-birth control methods, drug legalization, or
crypto... some of the networks like RIME are also jittery about certain
topics like crypto or how telephones work.

> > The "safe harbor" is 10pm, but many radio stations (like WUSB here in Stony

[ message accidentally zapped ]

> broadcast paradigm, while the online world operates within the network 
> paradigm. There are no hours in which it is safe to broadcast because 
> there is no "broadcast" in the tradition sense.

Yes, I was discussing broadcasting. Scary thought is that because networks
are different they will try to outright ban everything.

What boggles my mind is how that hypothetical ratings system(s) the WSJ
article mentioned would operate... let alone who would rate content (very
controversial in movie ratings here in the US).

> > Problems with these vague and-or unenforcable "decency" laws is that they
> > allow for selective enforcement which is often motivated more by politics
> > and personal greed than by their alleged concerns for decency.

> And is also, as stated above, often motivated out of a desire to force 
> the public to overly-police themselves to avoid prosecution.

And "voluntarily" comply with their sense of values.

> - dog

Rob.