Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 09 Issue 50
Computer underground Digest Thu June 26, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 50
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.50 (Thu, June 26, 1997)
File 1--USSC Upholds CDA Overturning (AP first report)
File 2--Syllabus of Supreme Court CDA Decision
File 3--EFF press release on CDA Decision
File 4--Plaintiff welcomes result in CDA case
File 5--CDA: It's Not Over Yet
File 6--Cato praises Supreme Court CDA Decision
File 7--Family Research Council on CDA decision
File 8--White House Statement on CDA Decision
File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:33:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Avi Bass <te0azb1@corn.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 1--USSC Upholds CDA Overturning (AP first report)
June 26, 1997
Court Nixes Internet Smut Provision
Filed at 10:15 a.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress violated free-speech rights when it
tried to curb smut on the Internet, the Supreme Court ruled today.
In its first venture into cyberspace law, the court invalidated a
key provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
Congress' effort to protect children from sexually explicit
material goes too far because it also would keep such material
from adults who have a right to see it, the justices unanimously
said.
The law made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online
where children can find it. The measure has never taken effect
because it was blocked last year by a three-judge court in
Philadelphia.
``We agree with the three-judge district court that the statute
abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,''
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.
``The (Communications Decency Act) is a content-based regulation
of speech,'' he wrote. ``The vagueness of such a regulation raises
special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling
effect on free speech.''
``As a matter of constitutional tradition ... we presume that
governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to
interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it,''
Stevens wrote.
Sexually explicit words and pictures are protected by the
Constitution's First Amendment if they are deemed indecent but not
obscene.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:07:27 -0500
From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest)
Subject: File 2--Syllabus of Supreme Court CDA Decision
From: the CIEC homepage at: http://www.ciec.org
-------------------
Syllabus of Supreme Court Decision
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for The Eastern District
of Pennsylvania
No. 96-511. Argued March 19, 1997 -- Decided June 26, 1997
Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA or Act)
seek to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet, an
international network of interconnected computers that enables
millions of people to communicate with one another in "cyberspace" and
to access vast amounts of information from around the world. Title 47
U. S. C. A. '223(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Supp. 1997) criminalizes the "knowing"
transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under
18 years of age. Section 223(d) prohibits the "knowin[g]" sending or
displaying to a person under 18 of any message "that, in context,
depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by
contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or
organs." Affirmative defenses are provided for those who take "good
faith, . . . effective . . . actions" to restrict access by minors to
the prohibited communications, '223(e)(5)(A), and those who restrict
such access by requiring certain designated forms of age proof, such
as a verified credit card or an adult identification number,
'223(e)(5)(B). A number of plaintiffs filed suit challenging the
constitutionality of ''223(a)(1) and 223(d). After making extensive
findings of fact, a three judge District Court convened pursuant to
the Act entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of both
challenged provisions. The court's judgment enjoins the Government
from enforcing '223(a)(1)(B)'s prohibitions insofar as they relate to
"indecent" communications, but expressly preserves the Government's
right to investigate and prosecute the obscenity or child pornography
activities prohibited therein. The injunction against enforcement of
'223(d) is unqualified because that section contains no
separatereference to obscenity or child pornography. The Government
appealed to this Court under the Act's special review provisions,
arguing that the District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated
both the First Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth
Amendment because it is vague.
Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive
display" provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by the
First Amendment. Pp. 17-40.
(a) Although the CDA's vagueness is relevant to the First Amendment
overbreadth inquiry, the judgment should be affirmed without reaching
the Fifth Amendment issue. P. 17.
(b) A close look at the precedents relied on by the
Government--Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629; FCC v. Pacifica
Foundation, 438 U.S. 726; and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475
U.S. 41--raises, rather than relieves, doubts about the CDA's
constitutionality. The CDA differs from the various laws and orders
upheld in those cases in many ways, including that it does not allow
parents to consent to their children's use of restricted materials; is
not limited to commercial transactions; fails to provide any
definition of "indecent" and omits any requirement that "patently
offensive" material lack socially redeeming value; neither limits its
broad categorical prohibitions to particular times nor bases them on
an evaluation by an agency familiar with the medium's unique
characteristics; is punitive; applies to a medium that, unlike radio,
receives full First Amendment protection; and cannot be properly
analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation because it is
a content based blanket restriction on speech. These precedents, then,
do not require the Court to uphold the CDA and are fully consistent
with the application of the most stringent review of its provisions.
Pp. 17-21.
(c) The special factors recognized in some of the Court's cases as
justifying regulation of the broadcast media--the history of extensive
government regulation of broadcasting, see, e.g., Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 399-400; the scarcity of
available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 637-638; and its "invasive"
nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115,
128--are not present in cyberspace. Thus, these cases provide no basis
for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be
applied to the Internet. Pp. 22-24.
(d) Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the
Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its
coverage render it problematic for First Amendment purposes. For
instance, its use of the undefined terms "indecent" and "patently
offensive" will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the
twostandards relate to each other and just what they mean. The
vagueness of such a content based regulation, see, e.g., Gentile v.
State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, coupled with its increased
deterrent effect as a criminal statute, see, e.g., Dombrowski v.
Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, raise special First Amendment concerns
because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech. Contrary to the
Government's argument, the CDA is not saved from vagueness by the fact
that its "patently offensive" standard repeats the second part of the
three prong obscenity test set forth in Miller v. California, 413 U.S.
15, 24. The second Miller prong reduces the inherent vagueness of its
own "patently offensive" term by requiring that the proscribed
material be "specifically defined by the applicable state law." In
addition, the CDA applies only to "sexual conduct," whereas, the CDA
prohibition extends also to "excretory activities" and "organs" of
both a sexual and excretory nature. Each of Miller's other two prongs
also critically limits the uncertain sweep of the obscenity
definition. Just because a definition including three limitations is
not vague, it does not follow that one of those limitations, standing
alone, is not vague. The CDA's vagueness undermines the likelihood
that it has been carefully tailored to the congressional goal of
protecting minors from potentially harmful materials. Pp. 24-28.
(e) The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when
a statute regulates the content of speech. Although the Government has
an interest in protecting children from potentially harmful materials,
see, e.g., Ginsberg, 390 U. S., at 639, the CDA pursues that interest
by suppressing a large amount of speech that adults have a
constitutional right to send and receive, see, e.g., Sable, supra, at
126. Its breadth is wholly unprecedented. The CDA's burden on adult
speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at
least as effective in achieving the Act's legitimate purposes. See,
e.g., Sable, 492 U. S., at 126. The Government has not proved
otherwise. On the other hand, the District Court found that currently
available user based software suggests that a reasonably effective
method by which parents can prevent their children from accessing
material which the parents believe is inappropriate will soon be
widely available. Moreover, the arguments in this Court referred to
possible alternatives such as requiring that indecent material be
"tagged" to facilitate parental control, making exceptions for
messages with artistic or educational value, providing some tolerance
for parental choice, and regulating some portions of the Internet
differently than others. Particularly in the light of the absence of
any detailed congressional findings, or even hearings addressing the
CDA's special problems, the Court is persuaded that the CDA is not
narrowly tailored. Pp. 28-33.
(f) The Government's three additional arguments for sustaining the
CDA's affirmative prohibitions are rejected. First, the contention
that the Act is constitutional because it leaves open ample
"alternative channels" of communication is unpersuasive because the
CDA regulates speech on the basis of its content, so that a "time,
place, and manner" analysis is inapplicable. See, e.g., Consolidated
Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U.S. 530,
536. Second, the assertion that the CDA's "knowledge" and "specific
person" requirements significantly restrict its permissible
application to communications to persons the sender knows to be under
18 is untenable, given that most Internet forums are open to all
comers and that even the strongest reading of the "specific person"
requirement would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a
"heckler's veto," upon any opponent of indecent speech. Finally, there
is no textual support for the submission that material having
scientific, educational, or other redeeming social value will
necessarily fall outside the CDA's prohibitions. Pp. 33-35.
(g) The '223(e)(5) defenses do not constitute the sort of "narrow
tailoring" that would save the CDA. The Government's argument that
transmitters may take protective "good faith actio[n]" by "tagging"
their indecent communications in a way that would indicate their
contents, thus permitting recipients to block their reception with
appropriate software, is illusory, given the requirement that such
action be "effective": The proposed screening software does not
currently exist, but, even if it did, there would be no way of knowing
whether a potential recipient would actually block the encoded
material. The Government also failed to prove that '223(b)(5)'s
verification defense would significantly reduce the CDA's heavy burden
on adult speech. Although such verification is actually being used by
some commercial providers of sexually explicit material, the District
Court's findings indicate that it is not economically feasible for
most noncommercial speakers. Pp. 35-37.
(h) The Government's argument that this Court should preserve the
CDA's constitutionality by honoring its severability clause, '608, and
by construing nonseverable terms narrowly, is acceptable in only one
respect. Because obscene speech may be banned totally, see Miller,
supra, at 18, and '223(a)'s restriction of "obscene" material enjoys
a textual manifestation separate from that for "indecent" material,
the Court can sever the term "or indecent" from the statute, leaving
the rest of '223(a) standing. Pp. 37-39.
(i) The Government's argument that its "significant" interest in
fostering the Internet's growth provides an independent basis for
upholding the CDA's constitutionality is singularly unpersuasive. The
dramatic expansion of this new forum contradicts the factual
basisunderlying this contention: that the unregulated availability of
"indecent" and "patently offensive" material is driving people away
from the Internet. P. 40.
929 F. Supp. 824, affirmed.
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia,
Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O'Connor,
J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting
in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 3--EFF press release on CDA Decision
Press Release
Contacts: Mike Godwin, Staff Counsel, +1 415 436 9333 or 1 510 548 3290
Stanton McCandlish, Program Director, +1 415 436 9333
Shari Steele, Staff Counsel, +1 301 375 8856
Washington, DC -- "As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the
content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of
ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of
expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven
benefit of censorship."
With this ringing reaffirmation of the American people's fundamental right
to freedom of expression, the United States Supreme Court ruled Thursday
that the Communications Decency Amendment censorship provisions of the
Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 regarding so-called "indecent"
content are unconstitutional on their face, and that free speech on the
Internet merits the highest standards of Constitutional protection. The
decision marks a major victory in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's
ongoing efforts to ensure that the long-standing American principles of
freedom of expression be preserved and extended to the Internet.
The extremely broad reach that the CDA would have had was reflected in the
range of plaintiffs who joined together to challenge the law. The EFF was
a leading party in a coalition comprising such diverse organizations as
Apple, Microsoft, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic
Privacy Information Center, Barnes & Noble, and journalists such as Brock
Meeks, in challenging the Communications Decency Amendment (CDA) which
would have banned a broad range of First Amendment-protected speech from
the public spaces of the Internet. These groups are united today in
celebration of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a law that
would have criminalized this constitutionally protected speech on the
Internet and other online forums.
The Court's ruling in Reno v. ACLU affirmed the unanimous decisions of
Philadelphia and New York federal courts, rejecting the controversial
"decency" amendment to the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 as an
unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The Court's opinion
firmly establishes that the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech
and of the press apply on the Internet.
Members of the technology and publishing industries, as well as civil
liberties watchdog groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the
ACLU, hailed the Court's decision as a victory for everyone who uses
computer communications. "Today marks a victory for all Americans, and we
think it's appropriate for everyone to celebrate the Court's recognition of
the free-speech significance of the Internet," said Lori Fena, executive
director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "What this means is that
the responsibility for controlling our content lies on us -- the citizens
and the parents -- and this is a call for all of us once again to
demonstrate how we can trusted to use this medium responsibly," she said.
"This means that the parents, rather than the government, are empowered to
make the choices about Internet content."
Mike Godwin, EFF staff counsel, stated, "The CDA would have abridged one
of the freedoms that Americans treasure most, and a freedom that is
central to any democratic society. The Supreme Court recognized, as had
the District Court, that this law was a wholly inappropriate exercise of
governmental power under the Constitution."
Esther Dyson, EFF chairman, noted that the decision stands for one of
EFF's principal positions regarding free speech online: "We believe in
free speech at the source -- and in the empowerment of any audience for
that speech to control what they see and hear.
"The Court's decision takes the responsibility for controlling and
accessing speech on the Net out of the hands of government and puts it
back where it belongs: in the hands of parents and other individuals," she
said. "Individuals have the technical means to make their own choices
about what they and their children read and see," Dyson noted.
EFF has long noted that such low-cost technical solutions, together with
existing anti-obscenity laws, offer a less intrusive and more efficient
answer to questions about protecting children in the online world.
"The government kept saying that this was a crisis that required harsher
censorship in the online world than in any other communication medium,"
Godwin said. "In fact, EFF and the other plaintiffs in this case showed
that it's possible to promote both freedom of speech and family values --
that the two goals don't oppose each other. By its decision today, the
Court expressly acknowledged that reality."
The constitutional challenge to the Communications Decency Act was grounded
in a series of basic arguments, including that law is unconstitutionally
overbroad (criminalizing protected speech), and that it it is
unconstitutionally vague (making it difficult for individuals and
organizations to comply).
The Court also reaffirmed the lower court's findings a) that the character
of this new medium means that any attempt at content regulation for the
Internet must meet the strictest Constitutional requirements under the
First Amendment, and b) that filtering technologies provided a less
restrictive means to achieve Congress's stated goal of protecting
children.
"We applaud today's Supreme Court decision declaring the CDA
unconstitutional," said Michael Sears, vice president and general manager
of SurfWatch Software, a division of Spyglass Inc. "After our testimony
in Philadelphia last year, I believe that we convinced the court that
parental control software like SurfWatch is a much more effective and less
restrictive solution than excessive government regulation."
Referring to the Court's four-decade-old anti-censorship decision in
Butler v. Michigan, the Supreme Court stated the speech restriction at
issue there amounted to "burn[ing] the house to roast the pig." In his
opinion for the Court, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that
"[t]he CDA, casting a far darker shadow over free speech, threatens to
torch a large segment of the Internet community."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:42:43 -0400
From: jw@bway.net
Subject: File 4--Plaintiff welcomes result in CDA case
Plaintiff Welcomes Supreme Court Decision in ACLU v. Reno
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jonathan Wallace
(212)513-7777 day
(718)797-9808 evening
jw@bway.net
NEW YORK, June 26, 1997--Jonathan Wallace, a plaintiff in the
ACLU v. Reno case, welcomed the Supreme Court ruling today.
"Its a sweeping victory," said Wallace, publisher of The Ethical
Spectacle (www.spectacle.org) and co-author with Mark Mangan of
Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (New York: Henry Holt: 1996) on Internet
censorship. "The Court has accorded the Internet the broadest
possible protection."
In the ruling, the seven justice majority agreed with the
District Court that the Internet is not "invasive" like broadcast
media and cable. While a child may stumble on an indecent
television program, accessing content on the Internet requires
too many steps for society to be equally concerned about the Net.
Additionally, the Court said, warning screens and the
availability of other measures to individual parents make the
Communications Decency Act unneccessary and therefore
unconstitutional.
"This means that the Court is prepared to treat the Internet like
print media, which has always been considered sacred in First
Amendment law," Wallace said.
He congratulated the ACLU attorneys and other lawyers who
represented the plaintiffs. "They worked hard and did a
tremendous job on this, educating the District Court and the
Supreme Court in the meaning of the new medium," Wallace said.
The Ethical Spectacle is a monthly Web-based newsletter focusing
on the intersection, or collision, of ethics, law and politics in
our society. Wallace joined the ACLU case as a plaintiff because
of his concern that socially valuable material in the
publication, such as a compilation of Holocaust material
(http://www.spectacle.org/695/ausch.html) might be considered
indecent under the Communications Decency Act.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Audrie Krause <akrause@igc.apc.org>
Subject: File 5--CDA: It's Not Over Yet
June 26, 1997
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Audrie Krause
Phone: 415-775-8674
E-mail: akrause@igc.org
NetAction Applauds CDA Ruling; Cautions More Free Speech Attacks
On Horizon
SAN FRANCISCO - NetAction applauded today's U.S. Supreme Court
decision rejecting the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as
unconstitutional, but cautioned free speech advocates not to
become complacent.
"This is not the end of it," warned Audrie Krause, Executive
Director of NetAction. "Local libraries are increasingly coming
under attack by the Christian right for providing Internet access
to citizens in their communities."
While today's Supreme Court victory and similar decisions issued
recently by state courts in New York and Georgia may put a halt
to direct attempts to censor Internet content, indirect attacks
are likely to increase, according to Krause.
"Instead of demanding that Internet access be banned outright,
would-be censors are now pressuring local public libraries to add
filtering software to computers that allow library patrons to go
online," Krause said.
"These filters are a far more insidious form of censorship," she
added, since many citizens have no way of accessing the Internet
except through computers in their public libraries.
In addition to banning access to pornographic Web sites, most of
the filtering software on the market today bans access to sites
with information about AIDS and safe sex practices, birth
control, and sexuality. Some even ban sites containing political
speech, such as the site hosted by the National Organization for
Women (NOW).
"Many of the proponents of filtering software are intent on
denying citizens access to ideas and values that differ from
their own," said Krause.
"It is unfortunate that the debate over Internet censorship was
framed around the issue of access to pornography," she added.
"What is really at issue is whether the Christian right can
impose its values on all citizens in cyberspace."
This will become more apparent, Krause predicted, as the
censorship debate moves from legislative arena to the local
libraries serving our communities.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: File 6--Cato praises Supreme Court CDA Decision
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:56:35 -0400 (EDT)
From--Robin Hulsey <rhulsey@cato.org>
To--rhulsey@cato.org
June 26, 1997
Cato scholars praise Supreme Court decision protecting Internet
liberty
"The First Amendment does not discriminate between bits and ink,"
said Tom W. Bell, director of telecommunications and technology
studies at the Cato Institute. Bell praised the Supreme Court's
decision today striking down the Communications Decency Act as
unconstitutional. "Today the Supreme Court has confirmed that
speech on the Internet deserves no less protection than speech on
paper."
According to Bell, "Today's decision protects not only free
speech, but also free markets. The Internet industry thrives
because politicians have largely refrained from meddling with
entrepreneurs. Consumers have enjoyed constantly improving
access, increasingly rich content and continually decreasing
costs. The CDA threatened to end all that growth and innovation."
Solveig Bernstein, Cato's associate director of
telecommunications and technology studies and author of "Beyond
the Communications Decency Act: Constitutional Lessons of the
Internet" (Cato Policy Analysis no. 262), explained that Congress
will not be able to "fix" the CDA. "Because legislators cannot
define 'indecent' clearly and coherently, no regulation of
computer network indecency, however carefully tailored, can pass
constitutional scrutiny."
Some lawmakers, Bernstein noted, have proposed a "harmful to
minors" standard to regulate Internet content. "Such a vague
standard would unconstitutionally chill Internet
speech-especially the sort of spontaneous and casual speech that
the Internet facilitates between unsophisticated and
noncommercial speakers," she explained.
Moreover, observed Bernstein, we don't need a political fix to
prevent children from accessing adult information on the
Internet. "The private sector has already demonstrated that it
can solve the perceived problem with such devices as software
filters that screen out offensive material and Internet service
providers that provide access only to child-safe materials."
Bell said that responsibility for Internet monitoring must rest
with parents. "Responsible parents would let their kids wander
alone through the Internet no sooner than they would let them
wander alone through Los Angeles."
Bell and Bernstein are both available to the media for comment on
today's Supreme Court decision.
Contact:
Tom W. Bell, director of telecommunications and technology
studies, 202-789-5283
Solveig Bernstein, associate director of telecommunications and technology
studies, 202-789-5274
Dave Quast, director of public affairs, 202-789-5266
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: File 7--Family Research Council on CDA decision
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 1997
CONTACT: Kristin Hansen, (202) 393-2100
COURT REAFFIRMS GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM
PORN, BUT STRIKES CDA AS TOO BROAD
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Today's ruling means that pornographers can
open their doors to children on the Internet. But pornographers
beware: this will not be the last word on protecting children
from your corrupting influence," Family Research Council Legal
Policy Director Cathy Cleaver said Thursday. "While Reno v. ACLU
said that the specific provisions of the CDA are too broad, the
Court also said that more narrowly tailored provisions could be
upheld."
Cleaver made her comments as the Supreme Court issued its ruling
striking down the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Cleaver
continued, "Parents still have no legal recourse to protect their
children from being sent a Penthouse centerfold. This is not
good news for the thousands of families who discover every day
that their children have accessed offensive and disgusting
material on the internet.
"At the same time, the Court has opened the door to new
legislation protection children. Americans should urge Congress
to take another look at the issue and draft a more narrowly
defined statute.
"But now, the flood gates remain open to purveyors of smut. With
no legal liability for those who pursue children with graphic
images and language on the internet, we need to act fast and
firmly to ensure that our country does not give pornographers
special rights."
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR INTERVIEWS,
CONTACT THE FRC PRESS OFFICE.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:41:58 -0500
From: jthomas2@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 8--White House Statement on CDA Decision
Source - http://www.whitehouse.gov
THE WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM
_________________________________________________________________
June 26, 1997
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Message Creation Date was at 26-JUN-1997 13:10:00
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release June 26, 1997
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the
Communications Decency Act
addressing indecency are not constitutional. We will study its
opinion closely.
The administration remains firmly committed to the provisions --
both in the CDA and elsewhere in the criminal code -- that
prohibit the transmission of obscenity over the Internet and via
other media. Similarly, we remain committed
to vigorous enforcement of federal prohibitions against
transmission of child pornography over the Internet, and another
prohibition that makes criminal the use of the Internet by
pedophiles to entice children to engage in sexual activity.
The Internet is an incredibly powerful medium for freedom of
speech and freedom of expression that should be protected. It is
the biggest change in human communications since the printing
press, and is being used to educate our
children, promote electronic commerce, provide valuable health
care information, and allow citizens to keep in touch with their
government. But there is material on the Internet that is clearly
inappropriate for children. As a parent, I understand the
concerns that parents have about their children accessing
inappropriate material.
If we are to make the Internet a powerful resource for learning,
we must give parents and teachers the tools they need to make the
Internet safe for children .
Therefore, in the coming days, I will convene industry leaders
and groups representing teachers, parents and librarians. We can
and must develop a solution for the Internet that is as powerful
for the computer as the v-chip will be for the television, and
that protects children in ways that are consistent with America
,s free speech values. With the right technology and rating
systems - we can help ensure that our children don ,t end up in
the red light districts of cyberspace.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #9.50
************************************
