From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 12:30:12 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: CONGRESS: Online Parental Control Act of 1996
Message-ID: <199603142300.PAA24652@netcom6.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 14:21:53 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
From: telstar@wired.com (--Todd Lappin-->)
To: Multiple recipients of list <cda96-l@willamette.edu>
Subject: CONGRESS: Online Parental Control Act of 1996

Today in the House of Representatives, legislation was introduced to
encourage parental empowerment on the Internet and eliminate the vague and
overbroad "indecency" standard that became law under the Communications
Decency Act.

The new legislation, called the "Online Parental Control Act of 1996," was
introduced by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), whose district includes much of
California's Silicon Valley.  Representatives Pelosi (D-CA), Dellums
(D-CA), Farr (D-CA), Gejdenson (D-CT), and Woolsey (D-CA) are co-sponsors
of the bill.

(The full text of Rep. Eschoo's press release on the new legislation
follows below.)

The Online Parental Control Act of 1996 seeks to replace the "indecency"
standard (which is mainly used to regulate speech in BROADCAST media) with
the more narrowly-drawn "harmful to minors" standard which has already been
upheld as constitutional in 48 states.

My understanding is that "harmful to minors" is a PRINT-based standard, but
I'll research this and send out a more detailed evaluation as soon as
possible. In the meantime, I can say this: "harmful to minors" is viewed as
a middle-of-the-road standard, and as such, it remains *highly*
controversial. There are many who would argue that *any* attempt to
restrict access to content other than obscenity (which does not enjoy First
Amendment protection) is unwarranted.

Stay tuned.

All of this, by the way, comes on the heels of a bill (S 1567) Patrick
Leahy introduced in the United States Senate last month in an effort to
repeal the Communications Decency Act altogether.

Spread the word!

--Todd Lappin-->
Section Editor
WIRED Magazine

============================================================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Lewis Roth
CONTACT: (202) 225-8104
March 14, 1996

Eshoo Introduces Online Parental Control Act
Legislation Strengthens Parental Control Of Online Materials,
Eliminates "Indecency" Standard

Washington, D.C.--Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) today introduced the Online
Parental Control Act of 1996 (OPCA) to strengthen the control parents
have over their children's access to online materials, eliminate the
"indecency" standard from the Communications Act of 1934, and provide
additional defenses against liability for publishing online materials.
Representatives Pelosi (D-CA), Dellums (D-CA), Farr (D-CA), Gejdenson
(D-CT), and Woolsey (D-CA) are original cosponsors of OPCA.

When the Telecommunications Reform Bill was signed into law earlier
this year, it made sweeping changes to America's telecommunications
policy.  Among those changes was the establishment of a ban on using
telecommunications devices to provide "indecent" materials to minors, as
well as defenses against being held liable for a violation of that ban.  For
example, people could avoid liability by using software that blocks the
access of minors to such materials or restricts access through the use
of credit card numbers or adult access codes.  Some U.S.
Representatives, including Rep. Eshoo, opposed the "indecency"
standard because the range of material it would ban was so broad that it
violates the right to freedom of speech.

The "indecency" standard is currently being challenged in court by a
large coalition of free speech advocacy groups and high technology
companies.

"The Online Parental Control Act will encourage an open dialogue in
Congress about the best way to both give parents control over what
their children see online and protect the First Amendment rights of
Internet users," said Rep. Eshoo.  "My proposal builds on last year's
efforts to reach a compromise on this issue by offering more incentives
for the online community to provide families with better parental control
technologies.

"I'm supportive of efforts to address this issue in the courts, but I believe
Congress also needs to offer a legislative solution.  Given the political
realities of the current Congress, I think OPCA offers the most realistic
way to settle this dispute in a timely and effective manner."

The Online Parental Control Act of 1996:

        Replaces the "indecency" standard with a "harmful to minors"
standard;
        Establishes a definition for "harmful to minors;"
        Maintains the Communications Act of 1934's legal defenses
against liability for people who choose to give parents technology that: 1)
blocks or restricts access to online materials deemed obscene or harmful
to minors, and 2) restricts access to such materials through adult access
codes or credit card numbers;
        Adds two new defenses: 1) the use of labeling or segregating
systems to restrict access to online materials, such as systems
developed using the standards designed by the Platform for Internet
Content Selection project (PICS), and 2) the use of other systems that
serve the same function of the other defenses if they are as reasonable,
effective, and appropriate as blocking, adult access code, and labeling
technologies; and
        Protects providers or users of interactive computer services,
information content providers, and access software providers from civil
or criminal liability under state law for making available to minors materials
that are indecent or harmful to minors if they take actions to qualify for
the defenses mentioned above.

"I'd rather have Mom and Dad monitoring their children's online viewing
habits than the government," concluded Rep. Eshoo.  "Technology offers
the best opportunity for parents to manage what their kids have access
to, and the Online Parental Control Act encourages those technologies to
be developed more fully."

The "indecency" standard is a vague term that has been subject to legal
challenge by a wide range of free speech advocates and high
technology companies.  The broad nature of the "indecency" standard
means that it could lead to a prohibition on material such as classic art
like Michelangelo's David, classic literature like "Catcher In The Rye," and
frank discussions about birth control, sexuality, or disease transmission.
"Harmful to minors," on the other hand, already works successfully in 48
states, more directly addresses speech that actually harms children, and
passes constitutional muster.

PICS is a cross-industry working group assembled under the auspices of
MIT's World Wide Web Consortium to develop an easy-to-use content
labeling and selection platform that empowers people worldwide to
selectively control online content they receive through personal
computers.  The Recreational Software Advisory Council recently
announced that it will soon implement a detailed voluntary ratings system,
using PICS standards, that will let computer users filter out varying
degrees of sex, violence, nudity, and foul language.  Companies and
groups supporting PICS include Apple, America Online, AT&T, the Center
for Democracy and Technology, CompuServe, IBM, France Telecom,
Prodigy, Providence Systems/Parental Guidance, Surf Watch Software,
and Time Warner Pathfinder.

For more information about the Online Parental Control Act of 1996,
please contact Lewis Roth at (202) 225-8104 or look on the Internet at
http://www-eshoo.house.gov/opca.html.

###

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
This transmission was brought to you by....

        THE CDA INFORMATION NETWORK

The CDA Information Network is a moderated mailing list providing
up-to-the-minute bulletins and background on efforts to overturn the
Communications Decency Act.  To subscribe, send email to
<majordomo@wired.com> with "subscribe cda-bulletin" in the message body.

WARNING: This is not a test!            WARNING: This is not a drill!
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-