From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 06:57:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: TWP on Indecency Protest
Message-ID: <199602052229.RAA14765@pipe3.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   The Washington Post, February 5, 1996, p. A8.


   Language on 'Indecency' Sparks Telecommunications Bill
   Protest

   By John Schwartz


   Provisions in the overhaul of the nation's
   telecommunications laws that call for regulating adult
   materials on the Internet have sparked a storm of anger and
   protest on that medium.

   "This is the kind of legislation you'd see from a lot of
   senators and congressmen who have never logged on," said
   Michael Godwin, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier
   Foundation, a civil liberties group. "The Christian Right
   thinks they've hit a home run here, but the inning isn't
   over."

   The provisions, proposed by Sen. J. James Exon (D-Neb.),
   have gained momentum with support from religious
   conservative organizations. The legislation would make it
   illegal to make "indecent" material available to minors via
   computer, with penalties of two years in prison and up to
   $250,000 in fines. Exon called passage last week "a victory
   for children and families," adding, "We've come to a
   successful closing of the 'peep show' doors to our youth."
   President Clinton has said he will sign the bill.

   Those opposed to the regulations, however, said the
   "indecency" standard, which has been used in broadcast
   regulation cases, is too vague and would seriously restrict
   the potential of the emerging on-line medium.

   "I am concerned this legislation places restrictions on the
   Internet that will come back to haunt us," said Sen.
   Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). He warned that quoting from such
   works as "Catcher in the Rye" and "Ulysses" in on-line
   discussions could court prosecution and said that making it
   illegal to "make available" indecent language would outlaw
   posting of messages or images that a child might see.
   "Imagine if the Whitney Museum ... were dragged into court
   for permitting representations of Michelangelo's David to
   be looked at by kids."

   But John McMickle, an aide to Sen. Charles E. Grassley
   (R-Iowa), said drafters rejected the idea that Userious
   works of redeeming value" would fall within the law, which
   he said would apply only to "patently offensive" material.
   McMickle said the bill "is not a Comstock-type effort to
   wipe out literature or political speech."

   The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier
   Foundation and other organizations are preparing a lawsuit
   challenging the indecency provisions on constitutional
   grounds. Other legal actions are in the works. An on-line
   publication, American Reporter, has announced it will soon
   publish a column by a Texas judge denouncing the
   legislation intentionally salted with "indecent" language;
   Randall Boe, a Washington attorney for the American
   Reporter, said he would immediately sue after publication.

   "We want to move promptly to have this statute set aside as
   unconstitutional," Boe said. "The longer it's in place, the
   greater the harm done to the Internet and to the First
   Amendment." Boe's firm, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin &
   Kahn, was defense council in the landmark "seven dirty
   words" case, which set the legal standard for indecent
   language in broadcasting based on a monologue by comedian
   George Carlin.

   Cathleen Cleaver, director of legal studies for the Family
   Research Council, said yesterday she expected such suits
   and that her conservative organization, which has pushed
   for on-line regulation, would fight to uphold it.

   The Justice Department has stated that the legislation
   would be vulnerable to attack on constitutional grounds.
   But in response to a letter from Grassley, Assistant
   Attorney General Andrew Fois noted last week that the
   department is defending the indecency standard in
   legislation "and will continue to defend similar statutes
   against constitutional challenges, so long as we can assert
   a reasonable defense consistent with the Supreme Court
   rulings in this area."

   -----