The "Communication Decency Act(s)"

What About Censorship of the Internet?

Both the US Constitution and the International Declaration of Human Rights guarantee free speech. Regardless of the medium. In all of the US, and in the whole world.

If local communities want to restrict their free speech in a way that does not violate any of those higher laws, that is their problem. But the Internet is a global phenomenon. It cannot and should not be held hostage to local laws. If you don't like the Internet, don't use it.

It has been argued by Constitutional scholars that just the fact that a six year old somewhere might gain access to the Internet, does not automatically mean that the whole world-wide system should be tailored to the level of a six year old.

In 1996, the US Congress passed the "Communications Decency Act" (or CDA), a small section hidden in hundreds of pages of legislation about telephone companies and deregulation and other significant stuff. It was proposed by Senator James Exon, a Democrat from Nebraska. I seem to remember that President Clinton did not particularly like the bill, but for a variety of reasons, he was unable to veto it.

CDA was a first attempt by Congress to regulate the Internet. It tried to make it a crime, punishable by a $250, 000 fine or up to two years in prison, to make "indecent" material available to children on the Internet.

The problems with CDA were immediately obvious. It is unreasonably vague (how do you define "indecent"?) and broad. Since the Internet extends everywhere, it would make it a crime for anyone to publish any "indecent" material anywhere, even for adults, since there is always the possibility that somewhere, a child will pick it up.

This law even scared Internet service providers, because unless they would analyze every piece of information that is transmitted over their systems, they would have no way to stay out of legal trouble.

CDA (now called CDA 1) was a fiasco. An ill-conceived, if not downright malicious attempt, suggested by a moral minority and worked into a larger communications bill, to impose their restrictive views upon a majority, through a back door.

CDA 1 would have destroyed the Internet as we knew it.

Fortunately, a coalition of civil rights groups, Internet service providers and publishers immediately filed suit. CDA 1 was struck down by a lower court panel in Philadelphia, until the Supreme Court could debate whether the law should be reinstated or if it violated the First Amendment right to free speech.

At conflict was the constitutionally guaranteed free flow of information on the Internet, versus the rights of a community to restrict pornography.

Fortunately again, on 06/26/97, CDA 1 was definitively killed by the Supreme Court. Our democratic system worked. Common sense prevailed, at least for this time. Justice John Paul Stevens issued the following opinion: "As a matter of Constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contary, 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 the freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."

Unfortunately, CDA is back.

Another Internet censorship attempt was pushed this year by Rep. Michael Oxley, R-OH. This time, it was hidden deep in the $500 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill, which had been delayed several times and had to pass at all costs in order to keep the government running.

President Clinton objected, but given his legal and public relations trouble with Monica Lewinsky, and his pending impeachment, he was in no good spot to defend free speech.

The legislation passed.

http://www.ifea.net/joint_statement_9_98.html

That censorship stuff is scary. What if someone finds what I write here, "indecent"? Or "harmful" to kids? What if that someone is an 85 year old judge in a backwater town of 50 inhabitants somewhere in the swamps of the Old South?

Webster's dictionary definition:

• Characterized by by propriety of conduct, speech, manner or dress; proper; decorous; respectable
• Free from indelicacy; modest; chaste

It is clear that the definition of what is "decent" is rather vague. At the very least, it is

• subject to interpretation
• likely to be determined by local community standards

Therefore, I find it very odd indeed that the word alone would be used in federal legislation, affecting 250 million people of very diverse backgrounds, cultures and beliefs.

First of all: why would the federal government even want to be involved in such discussions?