Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/legal-fcc/exon.bill.petition

Text File | 1995-02-27 | 35.9 KB | 782 lines

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 22:28:51 CST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson))
Subject: Some Major and Grim Changes Planned for the 'Net'


         This is a special mailing from TELECOM Digest
         ---------------------------------------------

It looks like a serious proposal has come up once again in Congress to
fight 'computer pornography' by  setting heavy penalties not only on
the originators of such material, but as well by making the networks
responsible for policing themselves more closely and censoring out such
material. Under the new proposal, described below, not only will users
be subject to prison and heavy fines for transmitting 'indecent material'
but networks will likewise be subject to fines for not stopping it!

As usual, the old bugaboo is 'child pornography'; and while this is a
problem which merits attention, and while it is true that -- in my own
personal estimation, speaking for myself only -- there is a lot more hard
core pornography on the net than I feel comfortable with, the solution
being proposed seems to be more draconian than the problems it purports
to solve.

It is true that on systems like Compuserve and America On Line there
are a large number of instances of men posing as women for the purpose
of enticing other males on line into an exchange of sexual fantasies which
the 'victim' (if you want to call him that, I'm not sure you can) would
never participate in if the gender of the other party was known. To a
lesser extent there are women who pose as men in order to entice other
women into the same situations. Both services have innumerable crude and
rude users who think nothing of just broacasting a message to every user
with a 'female name' which asks point blank if they want to hot chat.
It is pretty well assumed that if you are in fact female, and you login
to one of the commercial services on a weekend evening legitimatly, for
reasons of your own, you'll be tormented and harassed by any number of
users who assume you are there looking for sex. One female user on America
On Line specifically put in her profile:

        I don't do cyber ... I don't do fone ...
        No IM's please!  Not here to hot-chat!

(IM = Instant message, AOL's version of Compuserve's /page command.)

And yet the IM's kept rolling in; as lewd as they come. Finally she
changed her screen name, which previously had simply been her real name.

And yes, that child pornography: truly the pedophiles have a field day
on the commercial services; after all on CIS/AOL/IRC you are whoever you
say you are; who is to say otherwise?  At least on Internet's own version
of chat (Internet Relay Chat or IRC) anomynity is relatively more difficult
to pull off; your username@site is there for people to see. On CIS you've
always got the User ID to fall back on; no matter what the handle given
for the occassion, the User ID is a constant the user cannot change or
hide. On AOL with its virtual non-security, changing screen names is
child's play; for all but the super-users (guides and admin people) when
a screen name vanishes, the person may as well have fallen off the edge
of the earth; that's it, they are gone.

Smart, manipulative users on line, be they pedophiles or whatever their
bent in life, always manage to get their way in online conversations with
other users. There are a lot of 50 year old guys having conversations and
whatever on line with 12 year old kids. There is a lot of disk space given
over to .gif files of all sorts. There are stories on every topic under
the sun, so much of which -- again this is my personal opinion -- would
be so much better left unsaid, unseen and unread.

I guess I am a person who believes the United States in particular and
the world in general was a lot better place when the thing known as 'shame'
played a prominent part in our lives; when there were things we just did
not let hang out for everyone else to see and talk about.  We no longer
have any shame, and this is reflected in among other things, this online
culture of ours. I think younger folks, the kids today who have been in the
world only a decade or two have gotten morally and ethically cheated as a
result of this loss of 'shame'. I won't push that, its just how I think.

But if you could not see the handwriting on the wall -- or should I say
on the screen of your terminal -- a few years ago, I hope you can see it now.
Whether I like it or not does not matter. Whether you like it or not
does not matter.  We have visitors -- people who intend in their own
misguided way to 'clean up the net' ... no matter what the cost, no matter
who gets hurt, they intend to change things quite a lot around here.

And, in my opinion, some things *do* need to be changed, but not in the
awful ways being proposed in the messages you will read next in this
special mailing. What we need to do is convince the people in congress
who are making the proposals you will read about to instead concentrate
on *individual users* who misbehave. They need to be convinced that our
site admins and the common carriers used throughout the net will cooperate
in identifying and prosecuting miscreants, and that there is no need to
virtually silence the entire net in the process, which is what will happen
if SB-314 becomes the law of the land.

I don't know whether you want to sign the petition which is enclosed
below or not. Perhaps you have better ideas, but I hope you will read
carefully the messages presented below and take some kind of action
now.

First, John A. Thomas will introduce the bill and discuss it a little.


  From: [e-mail] (John A. Thomas)
  Subject: SB314 -- Major change for telcos?
  Keywords: SB314 Exon obscenity
  Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
  Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 14:18:57 GMT


I've been reading S. 314 ("The Communications Decency Act of 1995"),
and I'm not sure if this is some sort of staff goof-up or if Sen. Exon
really means it.  Here's the gist of the changes proposed.

Old law prohibited acts (47 USC 223): "Whoever ... by means of
telephone ... makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which
is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent..."

New law prohibited acts: "(Whoever ... by means of [telecommunications
device] makes [, transmits, or otherwise makes available] any comment,
request, suggestion, proposal, [image, or other communication] which
is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent...

New material in brackets.

It seems that the telephone companies, long-distance providers, and
internet service providers all become liable for merely "transmitting"
or "making available" the offensive material, regardless of whether
they are common carriers.  Before, the carriers did not "make"
the comments, etc., and thus were not liable for what their
subscribers did.  Do the telecom lawyers on the list see it this way?

Most comments on the net about this bill are fulminating about the
extension of obscenity regulation to the net.  This is irrelevant.
The dangerous part of this legislation is the shift in responsibility
to add the carriers, as well as the maker.


John A. Thomas          | [phone]   | [e-mail]
Bowles & Thomas, L.L.P. |      Voice       | CompuServe 75236,3536
410 N.W Eleventh St.    | [phone]   |
Grand Prairie, Tx 75050 |       Fax        | PGP public key available


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think it is quite as irrelevant
as you apparently do. Indeed, the legislation is dangerous, but I do
believe net.obscentity largely brought us to where we are today.  PAT]

Richard Stallman remarked:

   Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 02:29:35 -0500
   From: Richard Stallman <[e-mail]>
   Subject: FW: PETITION to Stop S.314

This is not directly related to the GNU project, but it's about an
issue affecting the freedom for all network users.  Bill S.314
proposes censorship requirements for all network access facilities.
I've signed the petition against it and I hope you will too.

    From: slowdog  <[e-mail]>
    Subject: PETITION to Stop S.314
    Date: Thursday, February 16, 1995 10:47

*** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE ***

This document is an electronic Petition Statement to the U.S. Congress
regarding pending legislation, the "Communications Decency Act of
1995" (S. 314) which will have, if passed, very serious negative
ramifications for freedom of expression on Usenet, the Internet, and
all electronic networks.  The proposed legislation would remove
guarantees of privacy and free speech on all electronic networks,
including the Internet, and may even effectively close them down as a
medium to exchange ideas and information.

For an excellent analysis of this Bill by the Center for Democracy and
Technology (CDT), refer to the Appendix attached at the end of this
document.  The text to S. 314 is also included in this Appendix.

This document is somewhat long, but the length is necessary to give
you sufficient information to make an informed decision.  Time is of
the essence, we are going to turn this petition and the signatures in
on 3/16/95, so if you are going to sign this please do so ASAP or at
least before midnight Wednesday, March 15, 1995.

Even if you read this petition after the due date, please submit your
signature anyway as we expect Congress to continue debating these
issues in the foreseeable future and the more signatures we get, the
more influence the petition will have on discussion.  And even if
Congress rejects S. 314 while signatures are being gathered, do submit
your signature anyway for the same reason.

Please do upload this petition statement as soon as possible to any
BBS and on-line service in your area.  If you have access to one of
the major national on-line services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL,
etc., do try to upload it there.  We are trying to get at least 5000
signatures.  Even more signatures are entirely possible if we each put
in a little effort to inform others, such as friends and coworkers,
about the importance of this petition to electronic freedom of
expression.

Here is a brief table of contents:

(1) Introduction (this section)
(2) The Petition Statement
(3) Instructions for signing this petition
(4) Credits
(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 (LONG but excellent)


******(2) The Petition Statement

In united voice, we sign this petition against passage of S. 314 (the
"Communications Decency Act of 1995") for these reasons:

S. 314 would prohibit not only individual speech that is "obscene,
lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent", but would prohibit any
provider of telecommunications service from carrying such traffic,
under threat of stiff penalty.  Even aside from the implications for
free speech, this would cause an undue - and unjust - burden upon
operators of the various telecommunications services.  In a time when
the citizenry and their lawmakers alike are calling for and passing
"no unfunded mandates" laws to the benefit of the states, it is
unfortunate that Congress might seek to impose unfunded mandates upon
businesses that provide the framework for the information age.

An additional and important consideration is the technical feasibility
of requiring the sort of monitoring this bill would necessitate.  The
financial burden in and of itself - in either manpower or technology
to handle such monitoring (if even legal under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act) - would likely cause many smaller
providers to go out of business, and most larger providers to
seriously curtail their services.

The threat of such penalty alone would result in a chilling effect in
the telecommunications service community, not only restricting the
types of speech expressly forbidden by the bill, but creating an
environment contrary to the Constitutional principles of free speech,
press, and assembly - principles which entities such as the Internet
embody as nothing has before.

By comparison, placing the burden for content control upon each
individual user is surprisingly simple in the online and interactive
world, and there is no legitimate reason to shift that burden to
providers who carry that content.  Unlike traditional broadcast media,
networked media is comparatively easy to screen on the user end -
giving the reader, viewer, or participant unparalleled control over
his or her own information environment.  All without impacting or
restricting what any other user wishes to access.  This makes
regulation such as that threatened by this S. 314 simply unnecessary.

In addition, during a period of ever-increasing commercial interest in
arenas such as the Internet, restriction and regulation of content or
the flow of traffic across the various telecommunications services
would have serious negative economic effects.  The sort of regulation
proposed by this bill would slow the explosive growth the Internet has
seen, giving the business community reason to doubt the medium's
commercial appeal.

We ask that the Senate halt any further progress of this bill.  We ask
that the Senate be an example to Congress as a whole, and to the
nation at large - to promote the general welfare as stated in the
Preamble to the Constitution by protecting the free flow of
information and ideas across all of our telecommunications services.


******(3) Instructions for signing the petition

          ======================================
          Instructions for Signing This Petition
          ======================================

It must first be noted that this is a petition, not a vote.  By
"signing" it you agree with *all* the requests made in the petition.
If you do not agree with everything in this petition, then your only
recourse is to not sign it.

In addition, all e-mail signatures will be submitted to Congress, the
President of the United States, and the news media.

Including your full name is optional, but *very highly encouraged* as
that would add to the effectiveness of the petition.  Signing via an
anonymous remailer is highly discouraged, but not forbidden, as an
attempt will be made to separately tally signatures from anonymous
remailers.

Because this is a Petition to the U.S. Congress, we ask that you
state, as instructed below, whether or not you are a U.S. citizen.  We
do encourage non-U.S. citizens to sign, but their signatures will be
tallied separately.

Signing this petition is not hard, but to make sure your signature is
not lost or miscounted, please follow these directions EXACTLY:

1) Prepare an e-mail message.  In the main body (NOT the Subject line)
of your e-mail include the ONE-LINE statement:

SIGNED <Internet e-mail address> <Full name> <US Citizen>

You need not include the "<" and ">" characters. 'SIGNED' should be
capitalized.  As stated above, your full name is optional, but highly
recommended.  If you do supply your name, please don't use a pseudonym
or nickname, or your first name -- it's better to just leave it blank
if it's not your full and real name.  If you are a U.S. citizen,
please include at the end of the signature line a 'YES', and if you
are not, a 'NO'.  All signatures will be tallied whether or not you
are a U.S. Citizen

****************************************************
Example: My e-mail signature would be:

SIGNED [e-mail] Dave C. Hayes YES
****************************************************

2) Please DON'T include a copy of this petition, nor any other text,
in your e-mail message.  If you have comments to make, send e-mail to
me personally, and NOT to the special petition e-mail signature
address.

3) Send your e-mail message containing your signature to the following
Internet e-mail address and NOT to me:

              ===========================
                [e-mail]
              ===========================

4) Within a few days of receipt of your signature, an automated
acknowledgment will be e-mailed to you for e-mail address verification
purposes.  You do not need to respond or reply to this acknowledgement
when you receive it.  We may also contact you again in the future
should we need more information, such as who your House Representative
and Senators are, which is not asked here as it is unclear whether
such information is needed.

Thank you for signing this petition!


******(4) Credits

The petition statement was written by slowdog <[e-mail]>,
super.net.freedom.fighter.

The rest of this document mostly collated from the net by Dave Hayes,
net.freedom.fighter.

Much help came from Jon Noring, INFJ and self.proclaimed.net.activist
who made a few suggestions and will be tallying the signatures.

Thanks to the EFF and CDT for the excellent analysis of the bill.

(p.s., send your signature to [e-mail])


******(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314

[This analysis provided by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a
non-profit public interest organization.  CDT's mission is to develop
and advocate public policies that advance Constitutional civil
liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications
technologies.  For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger
<[e-mail]>.]

CDT POLICY POST 2/9/95

SENATOR EXON INTRODUCES ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION

A.  OVERVIEW

Senators Exon (D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have introduced
legislation to expand current FCC regulations on obscene and indecent
audiotext to cover *all* content carried over all forms of electronic
communications networks.  If enacted, the "Communications Decency Act
of 1995" (S. 314) would place substantial criminal liability on
telecommunications service providers (including telephone networks,
commercial online services, the Internet, and independent BBS's) if
their network is used in the transmission of any indecent, lewd,
threatening or harassing messages.  The legislation is identical to a
proposal offered by Senator Exon last year which failed along with the
Senate Telecommunications reform bill (S.  1822, 103rd Congress,
Sections 801 - 804). The text the proposed statute, with proposed
amendment, is appended at the end of this document.

The bill would compel service providers to chose between severely
restricting the activities of their subscribers or completely shutting
down their email, Internet access, and conferencing services under the
threat of criminal liability.  Moreover, service providers would be
forced to closely monitor every private communication, electronic mail
message, public forum, mailing list, and file archive carried by or
available on their network, a proposition which poses a substantial
threat to the freedom of speech and privacy rights of all American
citizens.

S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step backwards on the
path to a free and open National Information Infrastructure.  The bill
raises fundamental questions about the ability of government to
control content on communications networks, as well as the locus of
liability for content carried in these new communications media.

To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital media, CDT is
working to organize a broad coalition of public interest organizations
including the ACLU, People For the American Way, and Media Access
Project, along with representatives from the telecommunications,
online services, and computer industries to oppose S. 314 and to
explore alternative policy solutions that preserve the free flow of
information and freedom of speech in the online world.  CDT believes
that technological alternatives which allow individual subscribers to
control the content they receive represent a more appropriate approach
to this issue.


B.  SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF S. 314

S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and harassment
on telephone services to all telecommunications providers and expand
criminal liability to *all* content carried by *all* forms of
telecommunications networks.  The bill would amend Section 223 of the
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take
steps to prevent minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext and
criminalizes harassment accomplished over interstate telephone lines.
This section, commonly known as the Helms Amendment (having been
championed by Senator Jesse Helms), has been the subject of extended
Constitutional litigation in recent years.

* CARRIERS LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ALL USERS ON THEIR
  NETWORKS

S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including telephone
companies, commercial online services, the Internet, and BBS's) liable
for every message, file, or other content carried on its network --
including the private conversations or messages exchanged between two
consenting individuals.

Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes
available any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication" which is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
indecent" using a "telecommunications device" would be subject to a
fine of $100,000 or two years in prison (Section (2)(a)).

In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers would be
forced to pre-screen all messages, files, or other content before
transmitting it to the intended recipient.  Carriers would also be
forced to prevent or severely restrict their subscribers from
communicating with individuals and accessing content available on
other networks.

Electronic communications networks do not contain discrete boundaries.
Instead, users of one service can easily communicate with and access
content available on other networks.  Placing the onus, and criminal
liability, on the carrier as opposed to the originator of the content,
would make the carrier legally responsible not only for the conduct of
its own subscribers, but also for content generated by subscribers of
other services.

This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to the free flow
of information throughout the online world and the free speech and
privacy rights of individual users.  Forcing carriers to pre-screen
content would not only be impossible due to the sheer volume of
messages, it would also violate current legal protections.

* CARRIERS REQUIRED TO ACT AS PRIVATE CENSOR OF ALL
  PUBLIC FORUMS AND ARCHIVES

S. 314 would also expand current restrictions on access to indecent
telephone audiotext services by minors under the age of 18 to cover
similar content carried by telecommunications services (such as
America Online and the Internet).  (Sec (a)(4)).

As amended by this provision, anyone who, "by means of telephone or
telecommunications device, makes, transmits, or otherwise makes
available (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication
for commercial purposes which is available to any person under the age
of 18 years of age or to any other person without that person's
consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed
the call or initiated the communication" would be subject of a fine of
$100,000 or two years in prison.

This would force carries to act as private censors of all content
available in public forums or file archives on their networks.
Moreover, because there is no clear definition of indecency, carriers
would have to restrict access to any content that could be possibly
construed as indecent or obscene under the broadest interpretation of
the term. Public forums, discussion lists, file archives, and content
available for commercial purposes would have to be meticulously
screened and censored in order to avoid potential liability for the
carrier.

Such a scenario would severely limit the diversity of content
available on online networks, and limit the editorial freedom of
independent forum operators.

ADDITIONAL NOTABLE PROVISIONS

* AMENDMENT TO ECPA

Section (6) of the bill would amend the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (18 USC 2511) to prevent the unauthorized interception and
disclosure of "digital communications" (Sec. 6).  However, because the
term "digital communication" is not defined and 18 USC 2511 currently
prevents unauthorized interception and disclosure of "electronic
communications" (which includes electronic mail and other forms of
communications in digital form), the effect of this provision has no
clear importance.

* CABLE OPERATORS MAY REFUSE INDECENT PUBLIC ACCESS
  PROGRAMMING

Finally, section (8) would amend sections 611 and 612 of the
Communications Act (47 USC 611 - 612) to allow any cable operator to
refuse to carry any public access or leased access programming which
contains "obscenity, indecency, or nudity".

C.  ALTERNATIVES TO EXON: RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE USER
    CONTROL CAPABILITIES OF INTERACTIVE MEDIA

Government regulation of content in the mass media has always been
considered essential to protect children from access to
sexually-explicit material, and to prevent unwitting listeners/views
from being exposed to material that might be considered extremely
distasteful.  The choice to protect children has historically been
made at the expense of the First Amendment ban on government
censorship.  As Congress moves to regulate new interactive media, it
is essential that it understand that interactive media is different
than mass media.  The power and flexibility of interactive media
offers a unique opportunity to enable parents to control what content
their kids have access to, and leave the flow of information free for
those adults who want it.  Government control regulation is simply not
needed to achieve the desired purpose.

Most interactive technology, such as Internet browsers and the
software used to access online services such as America Online and
Compuserve, already has the capability to limit access to certain
types of services and selected information.  Moreover, the electronic
program guides being developed for interactive cable TV networks also
provide users the capability to screen out certain channels or ever
certain types of programming.  Moreover, in the online world, most
content (with the exception of private communications initiated by
consenting individuals) is transmitted by request.  In other words,
users must seek out the content they receive, whether it is by joining
a discussion or accessing a file archive.  By its nature, this
technology provides ample control at the user level.  Carriers (such
as commercial online services, Internet service providers) in most
cases act only as "carriers" of electronic transmissions initiated by
individual subscribers.

CDT believes that the First Amendment will be better served by giving
parents and other users the tools to select which information they
(and their children) should have access to.  In the case of criminal
content the originator of the content, not the carriers, should be
responsible for their crimes.  And, users (especially parents) should
be empowered to determine what information they and their children
have access to.  If all carriers of electronic communications are
forced restrict content in order to avoid criminal liability proposed
by S. 314, the First Amendment would be threatened and the usefulness
of digital media for communications and information dissemination
would be drastically limited.


D.  NEXT STEPS

The bill has been introduced and will next move to the Senate Commerce
Committee, although no Committee action has been scheduled.  Last
year, a similar proposal by Senator Exon was approved by the Senate
Commerce committee as an amendment to the Senate Telecommunications
Bill (S.  1822, which died at the end of the 103rd Congress).  CDT
will be working with a wide range of other interest groups to assure
that Congress does not restrict the free flow of information in
interactive media.


TEXT OF 47 U.S.C. 223 AS AMENDED BY S. 314

**NOTE:         [] = deleted
                ALL CAPS = additions

47 USC 223 (1992)

Sec. 223.  [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District
of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications]

OBSCENE OR HARASSING UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES AND
FACILITIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMUNICATIONS"

   (a) Whoever--

   (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
communication by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICE--

   (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST,
SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION which is
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

   [(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues,
without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse,
threaten, or harass any person at the called number;]


"(B) MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR UTILIZES A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICE, WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATIONS
ENSUES,WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS IDENTITY AND WITH INTENT TO ANNOY,
ABUSE, THREATEN, OR HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO
RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION;


   (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the
called number; or

   [(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation
ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or]

(D) MAKES REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS OR REPEATEDLY INITIATES
COMMUNICATION WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, DURING WHICH
CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATION ENSUES, SOLELY TO HARASS ANY PERSON
AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION,

   (2) knowingly permits any [telephone facility]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used
for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more
than $[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned  not more than [six months] TWO
YEARS, or both.

   (b)(1) Whoever knowingly--

   (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly or by recording device)
any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person,
regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the
call or INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or

  (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with
title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both.

   (2) Whoever knowingly--

   (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone],
makes BY MEANS OF TELEPHONE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, MAKES,
TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly or by recording device) any
indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available
to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without
that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such
communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or


   (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than
$[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months]
TWO YEARS, or both.


   (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this
subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited
communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance
with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the
Commission may prescribe by regulation.

   (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever,
within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph
(1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $[50,000]
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1)
or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000]
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either--

   (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or
any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the
Commission for such purposes, or

   (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative
proceedings.

   (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate
district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice
which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   (c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or
within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not,
to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a
communication specified in subsection (b) from the
telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in
writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the
carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such
communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the
provider of such communication.

   (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may
be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common
carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers,
directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on
account of--

   (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good
faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection; or

   (B) any access permitted--

   (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation
by a provider of communications that communications provided by
that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or

   (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not
allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to
restrict access to communications described in subsection (b).

   (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider
of communications services to which subscribers are denied access
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action
for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such
action shall be limited to the question of whether the
communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within
the category of communications to which the carrier will provide
access only to subscribers who have previously requested such
access.

*********************************************

NOTE: This version of the text shows the actual text of current law as
it would be changed.  For the bill itself, which consists of unreadable
text such as:

[...]
             (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
                    (A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above
                  subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications device';
                    (B) by striking out `makes any comment, request,
                  suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
                  `makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any
                  comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
                  communication';
                    (C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the
                  following:
                    `(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a
[...]

See:

ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill


- dog
  http://www.phantom.com/~slowdog
  Stop the Communications Decency Act!

                    ---------------------------

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And there you have it. Is this just an
overreaction by the EFF and others?  A few years ago I would have
probably said it was, but with the United States Congress controlled
as it is today, I really can't be sure. Therefore I respectfully
suggest that all readers of the Digest give this their careful consid-
eration and respond as you feel appropriate with the Petition.

*If you mail the petition, **FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY** please!

And if you feel, as I do, that in fact there is some merit to the
claims by those members of congress who would silence us all in an
effort to clean up the worse elements of our online community, then
suggest alternatives in good faith.

I've had this Petition and the commentary which came with it around here
for a couple days; uncertain whether to run it or not toss it out, I
finally reached the conclusion this is something that does need to be
addressed. I hope you feel the same way.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Editor