Netly interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats staffer

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

[The day before the CDA decision came down, I interviewed David Crane from
Sen. "CDA II Real Soon Now" Coats' office and Noah interviewed Donna
Rice-Hughes. Recall Coats was the chief GOP sponsor of the original CDA.
Here are excerpts. --Declan]

***********

http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/rice.html

Interview with Donna Rice-Hughes, Enough is Enough

The Netly News
June 26, 1997

[...]

Q: WHY DO YOU SAY THERE IS SO MUCH MISUNDERSTANDING
ABOUT THE CDA IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY?

I think there's been a lot of misinformation about
what this is all about and what the CDA would do if it
is upheld. I think there have been some scare tactics,
quite frankly, and that's why you have people
concerned about speech. This is an area that the
public hasn't had to understand the nuances of until
now.

You have a lot of people who have been using the
Internet for years for the contructive purposes for
which it was designed. Now it's becoming more
commercial and you have pedophiles, pornographers and
people who are just posting their private collections
of pornography and polluting it, exploiting that
technology. A few bad apples are spoiling it for
everyone else. If it wasn't for that then we wouldn't
be having this problem.

Long before any of this it would have been great if
the Internet community had said, "Hey, don't pollute
this technology," and had imposed their own controls.
But that didn't happen and it isn't happening.

***********

http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/crane.html

An Interview With David Crane, Legislative Assistant
to CDA Cosponsor Dan Coats

The Netly News
June 26, 1997

[...]

Q: WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY? CHANGE THE
WORDING OF THE CDA?

I don't think so. One of the frustrations we
experienced has been the tremendous amount of debate
that has centered around the indecency standard -- and
the portrayal of those who oppose it as a broadcast
standard. The very federal statute we amended was a
dial-a-porn statute. It was telephony, which is
inherently an interactive method of communication.

Despite representations to the contrary, there was a
tremendous dialogue with representatives of the
computer industry. We tried to strike the best balance
we could.

Q: YOU TOLD ME EARLIER THAT INTERNET USERS DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CDA REALLY IS ALL ABOUT.

What Congress said was you're only held responsible
for "knowing" violations. At that point you become
responsible to solve that problem. You can't be held
liable for unknowing violations. That's a distinction
that's been lost in the politicking over this issue.
And that's unfortunate.

This is new technology and evolving technology. That's
why Congress was careful not to codify a specific
method of preventing access for children. What's
effective today may not be effective tomorrow. We
tried very much to have the CDA be flexible and be a
living statute, one that would provide for advanced
technologies and more restrictive technologies over
time.

Q:CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES?

A good example is PICS [a framework for Internet
rating systems]. Look at the PC Week editorial.

Q:THE ONE YOUR BOSS WAVED AROUND THE SENATE FLOOR?

The industry has waved around PICS and said that's a
solution. But what's the incentive -- for someone
who's providing pornography on the Internet -- to
subscribe to PICS? You're asking him to limit his
potential marketplace in a voluntary way. That doesn't
work. The need for the CDA is you want to say: Yes,
apply technology, but you must restrict access to
pornographic materials for children. If you don't do
it, you'll be subject to prosecution.

Q: WHAT WILL YOU DO IF THE SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN
THE CDA?

If the Supreme Court strikes down the CDA, we'll
acknowledge that the current composition of the court
is saying we don't have it right [to pass such a law]
and we'll go back and operate on the precedent that
was established and try again.

The final verson of the CDA -- the compromise that was
struck in the conference committee -- was passed
overwhelmingly. There's precedent to this: the
dial-a-porn law. It took several attempts before it
was upheld by the Supreme Court.

I think that everyone involved -- from the ACLU to a
lot of the reporters on the Internet -- has
misrepresented the CDA in many respects. Saying that
it is a ban on indecency, that adults wouldn't be able
to communicate with each other. That's patently wrong.

Q: YOU SOUND LIKE YOU FEEL OUTGUNNED.

The newspapers have a vested interest. Every major
newspaper editorialized against the law during
drafting and afterward.

You're not going to be a darling of the media. The
media likes to portray this as a free speech issue.
This is part of the process.

Q: SO NOW THE PRO-CDA FORCES ARE THE UNDERDOGS?

One of the virtues of the Internet is the free flow of
information. But only part of the information is being
put out and that's unfortunate.

This representation by opponents of the CDA that
considerations of the unique nature of the Internet
were not taken into account or that members and staff
didn't understand the Internet or that somehow
Congress didn't like the Internet or saw great danger
beyond this issue -- all that is simply not true.

There was consultation with the computer industry at
every step of the way. We wanted to create a living
law -- a flexible law -- that could grow as
technologies evolved.



-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/