Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: IP: Reforming the Communications Decency Act:
From: Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:26:58 -0500
From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj () tdrs com> To: Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu> Dave, FYI, this interview is somewhat disingenuous, since Eshoo's bill is an attempt to install a standard at the federal level -- the "harmful to minors" standard -- which contains the "patently offensive" criterion which we have challenged as unconstitutional, as presented in the CDA. The "harmful to minors" standard has never been tested at the federal level, and it would create an entirely new federal category of speech crimes. Most importantly, it perpetuates the problem that the "community standards" for "patently offensive" in the most repressive community in the U.S. could be applicable to the entire Net. Eshoo states, in the interview with Interactive Age Digital: REP. ESHOO: This indecency proposal that became part of the overall bill did not go either through the committee, nor was it amended on the floor of the House. This was slipped in when we were in the conference committee. So, my experience there -- and it was a very close vote on this indecency proposal - really took me back. It said that First Amendment rights, in my view, would be violated. Right alongside of that, the government -- not moms and dads -- would be the decider on what is harmful to minors. I'd been working with various individuals and organizations to shape legislation that would correct this, and that's what the Online Parental Control Act of 1996 represents. Eshoo's bill does precisely what she so adamantly eschews: It says that "the government -- not moms and dads..." will decide on what is "harmful to minors," a standard, which again is part of her Online Parental Control Act of 1996. But, in this case, it is hundreds of little fiefdom-governments that will tell these "moms and dads" what their children can see online. How can the online community possibly support a bill that is so transparently flawed. Varying levels of censorship will exist from community to community, with widely different standards pertaining over distances of five to 10 miles. This is progress?! But, it is after all an election year, and the smoke-generators are running at full tilt up on the Hill. Best wishes, Craig Craig A. Johnson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Telecommunications/Information Policy Specialist Transnational Data Reporting Service, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ caj () tdrs com
Current thread:
- IP: IP: Reforming the Communications Decency Act: Dave Farber (Mar 29)