From: slowdog <slowdog@wookie.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 11:01:54 PST
Subject: Re: S. 314 and existing situation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950209125321.25320B-100000@thrash.src.umd.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.950209140130.8757A-100000@chewy.wookie.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Thomas Grant Edwards wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Richard F. Dutcher wrote:
> 
> > Gee, fellas, looking over this bill, *most* of what's going on is
> > just porting existing telephone law over to cybercomm. Given the
> > existence of 900-sex-talk, the phone companies are clearly not being
> > held responsible for content.
> 
> Doesn't the common carrier status of RBOCs give them protection from 
> this?

Hard to tell from this bill what the deal is on this. Common carriers 
aren;t completely immune from prosecution or lawsuit or whatnot to begin 
with. But in addition, S.314 introduces "transmit or otherwise make 
available" into the language of the law. Which makes the -carrier- of the 
"offending" information responsible.


- dog