From: Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:17:14 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
In-Reply-To: <v03007802b08fd68a40bd@[168.161.105.216]>
Message-ID: <ocrk9edzpat.fsf@ml.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I have so many issues with this, I don't even know where to start.

ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt writes:

>   `(e)(1) Whoever in interstate or foreign commerce in or through
> the World Wide Web is engaged in the business of the commercial
> distribution of material that is harmful to minors shall restrict
> access to such material by persons under 17 years of age.

What is the World Wide Web?  The Bill doesn't even attempt to define
it.  Is Usenet a part of it?  Are FTP sites a part of it?

If I have a link to a "bad" site, am I bad?  How about if I have a
forwarding link?

Anyway, AltaVista is certainly part of the WWW.  It is in the business
of the commercial distribution of material.  It does Usenet queries,
some of which are certainly harmful to minors (according to Coats).

They go down.

>   `(7) For purposes of this subsection:
>       `(A) The term `material that is harmful to minors' means any
>     communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article,
>     recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that--

Note that "article" and "writing" are included.

>   (b) AVAILABILITY ON INTERNET OF DEFINITION OF MATERIAL THAT IS
> HARMFUL TO MINORS- The Attorney General, in the case of the 
> Internet web site of the Department of Justice, and the Federal
> Communications Commission, in the case of the Internet web site of
> the Commission, shall each post or otherwise make available on such
> web site such information as is necessary to inform the public of
> the meaning of the term `material that is harmful to minors' under
> section 223(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by
> subsection (a) of this section.

Is Coats saying that his definition of "harmful to minors" is too vague?
Why can't he define it correctly in the Bill itself?

>           `(i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals
>         to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
>           `(ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently
>         offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors,
>         an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual
>         or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd
>         exhibition of the genitals; and
>           `(iii) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
>         scientific value.

By the way, my signature contains an ascii art rendition of an adult
about to have sex with a child.  I believe that (i) it appeals to a
prurient interest in sex; (ii) it depicts, in a patently offensive way,
a simulated sexual act; and (iii) lacks any value whatsoever.

Now all I need to do is put it up on a web page on a for-profit company.

-- 
Colin                 0
                     ---
                0|-< \|
                      ^
                     / \