IP: Wearing a blue ribbon for the net (fwd)

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

(Reposting of the following is authorized by The American Reporter and 
Joe Shea.)


CYBERLAND
+
by David Hipschman
American Reporter Correspondent
Casper, Wyo.
2/5/96
censors
700/$7.00


                        WEAR A BLUE RIBBON TO SAVE THE NET
                                by David Hipschman
                         American Reporter Correspondent


        CASPER, Wyo. -- In the wake of Congress' passage of the
Telecommunications Act, and its "indecency" provisions, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF), has launched a campaign using a blue ribbon to
symbolize support for free speech. 
        Internet content providers, from the commercial giants to
individual home pages, can display a link to EFF's "Blue Ribbon" page
(http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html); here it houses pictures, HTML
anchors and information on the progress of the campaign. 
        I'm going to find a blue ribbon to wear in my lapel. You might
want to also. Here's why: 
        The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) contained in the
telecommunications bill, for the first time gives the federal government
the job of regulating the Internet and online services. (Read it yourself
at http://www.commlaw.com or http://www.bell.com) It prohibits the use of
interactive computer services to make available any indecent communication
to minors. 
        I've been asked, by my non-Net-savvy friends, why this is such a
big deal. Isn't it about protecting kids, they wonder. Isn't it about
pornography, they ask. 
        The bill's purpose is not to protect children - it is to censor
adults. Its effect will be to take the marvelous library of the Net - a
library rapidly becoming the repository of all human knowledge and
endeavor - and restrict its users to the "children's section." 
        The bill's real purpose is not about pornography. It is already
illegal under state and federal law to distribute obscene materials either
on the Net or off. And there are already laws protecting children from
exposure to materials deemed "harmful to minors." 
        The bill's misguided backers (only a handful of our elected
representatives voted against it) seem to have mislaid the Bill of Rights.
They've forgotten that the First Amendment was written specifically to
protect speech that is disturbing, or controversial, or offensive - ever
wonder why no one ever tries to ban any other kind? 
        The bill is a dangerous attack on both the First Amendment and
each and every citizen's exercise of free speech. 
        Consider that many college students are legally minors. Exposing
them to "indecent" language would expose universities to criminal
prosecution under the bill. Universities will inevitably (many already
have) censor anything that could be illegal under the bill. 
        OK, so college students won't be able to look at "provocative"
pictures, but their discussion of and education about many other things -
sexuality, abortion, history, art etc. - will also be stifled. 
        Abortion you say? Yes, the bill's right-thinking agenda covers
that too. It bans information relating to abortion in what Colorado
Representative Pat Schroeder called "the most egregious gag rule about
abortion-related speech Congress has ever seen." 
        The bill makes it a federal crime to bring "into the United States
... or knowingly use any ... interactive computer service (to make
available) any ... article, or thing designed, adapted or intended for
producing abortion, ... or any written or printed card, letter, circular,
book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice ... giving information, directly
or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means (such
abortion-related materials) may be obtained ..." 
        Sure sounds like I can't email, or download or even look at a Web
site having anything to do with abortion, doesn't it? Maybe even
information suggesting alternatives to abortion? 
        I guess if the Internet means freedom to communicate, and that we
are each a "publisher," you need "thought police" in order to impose the
cultural agenda Congress seems to want. 
        President Clinton appears ready to sign this agenda into law, even
though there doesn't appear to be any constitutional authority for
Congress to have this degree of control over our lives, our thinking or
what information we are allowed to access. 
        There's an election in November, if we still get to hold one.
Meanwhile, you can automatically send email to every member of the Senate
and House that has an email address by sending it to: Senate () Mailbot com
and to House () Mailbot com - you might also want to make your feelings known
to Clinton (president () whitehouse gov) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich
(georgia6 () hr house gov). 
        Lest you think these issues only face Americans, governments
around the world are taking similar actions: 
        - In France, "Le Grand Secret," a book about Francois Mitterrand's
battle with cancer by Dr. Claude Gubler, the late president's physician,
(it was banned by French courts.) has been published on the Net. The man
who put it online has been arrested. You can read it at
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/declan/www/le-secret/complete/
        - Japanese police have arrested a man for distributing pornographic
pictures on his home page. The arrest is ironic in a land where graphic,
often sadistic pornography is sold everywhere. 
        -  A German court has already forced CompuServe to block access to
about 200 of the thousands of Usenet newsgroups on the Net for carrying
sexual material. 
        - China has temporarily suspend new Internet memberships, supposedly
for technical problems. Insiders say it wants to build a
centrally-administered Net service that would allow control of email. 


                                -30-


   (David Hipschman is Editor-in-Chief of The Casper Star-Tribune.)