From: berkley@ixl.net
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 02:03:40 +0800
To: Don Gaffney <gaffney@emba.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: S.652 (H.R. 1555)
Message-ID: <v01510102ad17fae052c6@[199.173.178.217]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Earlier today (Mon, 8 Jan 1996), you (Don Gaffney) expressed the following:

>I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've read from the WWW site above, it
>seems that only providing "indecent" materials to minors is prohibited.
>I think this is already illegal.

It is _not_ currently illegal, as the term "indecent," in all its
vagueness, can be defined as anything from a "Bonnie's Busty Barnyard
Buddies" video, to _Catcher in the Rye_, which has been deemed "indecent"
by several of this nation's local legislative bodies.

>Broadcasting or sending unsolicited "indecent" materials is also
>prohibited, but that seems to have always been the case (except that
>objectionable materials have been called "obscence" rather than "indecent").

And that is EXACTLY the point. You'll notice that the passage (I believe)
in question:

        "(B) by means of a 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
        or indecent knowing that the recipient of the communication is under
        ^^^^^^^^^^^
        18 years of age regard less of whether the maker of such communication
        placed the call or initiated the communication;

goes deliberately beyond simply "obscene." Which means that if I were to
send my 17 year-old cousin a digitized copy of some "indecent" song lyrics
or possibly even information on the AIDS epidemic, I am now facing felony
charges from los federales.

>There are provisions, as I read it, that protect electronic
>intermediaries from the acts of the actual publishers of the materials
>(i.e. an ISP is not responsible for the material of other internet sites
>not under their control).

It seems... But if I let my friendly neighborhood service provider know I'm
sending my cousin the electronic copy of Charles Bukowski's "Septegenerian
Stew" he requested, no doubt we're both doomed. (...knowingly permits a
telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity
prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such
activity)

>It sounds to me like the only real task posed is to authenticate those
>accessing questionable materials as being >= 18 years old. Hmmmm. Don't
>authentication & crypto go hand-in-hand?

No question it is one of them, but the questionable materials are being
defined too broadly.

>Anyway, being rather foolish I suppose, I don't exactly see what the big
>deal is - am I missing something???

Along the same freedom of speech lines, the pending legislation also would
make it illegal to use a telecommunications medium to express anything
"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy,
abuse, threaten, or harass an other person;" meaning if I sent e-mail to a
spamming "Get Rich Quick-er" telling him to fuck off, I am now in violation
of the CDA. The real bitch is that they can continue spamming (IMO, a worse
crime) as I rot away in Lemon Creek Correctional Facility; however, I am
not about to propose legislation to limit their ability to do that, either.

There is also the matter of allowing the FCC to regulate the internet,
which I find equally as disturbing, but I am sure there are people on this
list who will be able to express concerns with this far more eloquently
than myself.

Sincerely,

Angus Durocher.


____________________________
It should be an outrage for \_ Angus Durocher
people who have never seen a  \_ No one of much importance
road to be so presumptious as   \_ berkley@ixl.net
to regulate those of us who drive.\________________________