[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
TWP on Indecency Protest
The Washington Post, February 5, 1996, p. A8.
Language on 'Indecency' Sparks Telecommunications Bill
Protest
By John Schwartz
Provisions in the overhaul of the nation's
telecommunications laws that call for regulating adult
materials on the Internet have sparked a storm of anger and
protest on that medium.
"This is the kind of legislation you'd see from a lot of
senators and congressmen who have never logged on," said
Michael Godwin, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, a civil liberties group. "The Christian Right
thinks they've hit a home run here, but the inning isn't
over."
The provisions, proposed by Sen. J. James Exon (D-Neb.),
have gained momentum with support from religious
conservative organizations. The legislation would make it
illegal to make "indecent" material available to minors via
computer, with penalties of two years in prison and up to
$250,000 in fines. Exon called passage last week "a victory
for children and families," adding, "We've come to a
successful closing of the 'peep show' doors to our youth."
President Clinton has said he will sign the bill.
Those opposed to the regulations, however, said the
"indecency" standard, which has been used in broadcast
regulation cases, is too vague and would seriously restrict
the potential of the emerging on-line medium.
"I am concerned this legislation places restrictions on the
Internet that will come back to haunt us," said Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). He warned that quoting from such
works as "Catcher in the Rye" and "Ulysses" in on-line
discussions could court prosecution and said that making it
illegal to "make available" indecent language would outlaw
posting of messages or images that a child might see.
"Imagine if the Whitney Museum ... were dragged into court
for permitting representations of Michelangelo's David to
be looked at by kids."
But John McMickle, an aide to Sen. Charles E. Grassley
(R-Iowa), said drafters rejected the idea that Userious
works of redeeming value" would fall within the law, which
he said would apply only to "patently offensive" material.
McMickle said the bill "is not a Comstock-type effort to
wipe out literature or political speech."
The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation and other organizations are preparing a lawsuit
challenging the indecency provisions on constitutional
grounds. Other legal actions are in the works. An on-line
publication, American Reporter, has announced it will soon
publish a column by a Texas judge denouncing the
legislation intentionally salted with "indecent" language;
Randall Boe, a Washington attorney for the American
Reporter, said he would immediately sue after publication.
"We want to move promptly to have this statute set aside as
unconstitutional," Boe said. "The longer it's in place, the
greater the harm done to the Internet and to the First
Amendment." Boe's firm, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin &
Kahn, was defense council in the landmark "seven dirty
words" case, which set the legal standard for indecent
language in broadcasting based on a monologue by comedian
George Carlin.
Cathleen Cleaver, director of legal studies for the Family
Research Council, said yesterday she expected such suits
and that her conservative organization, which has pushed
for on-line regulation, would fight to uphold it.
The Justice Department has stated that the legislation
would be vulnerable to attack on constitutional grounds.
But in response to a letter from Grassley, Assistant
Attorney General Andrew Fois noted last week that the
department is defending the indecency standard in
legislation "and will continue to defend similar statutes
against constitutional challenges, so long as we can assert
a reasonable defense consistent with the Supreme Court
rulings in this area."
-----