 |
|
| Robert Luessen |
by Andrew Rees
The year was 1996. Computers were connecting to the internet at the blinding fast speed of 56 kilobits per second. For years the information super highway was a vast, lawless space filled with anything the heart desired (so long as those things were animated GIFs and porn). But soon it would all change.
There was a new gunslinger in town: The U.S. Government. Armed with morality and family values, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a subset of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The CDA, which banned “patently offensive” material from being available to children, was later partially overturned by a Supreme Court decision (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union) in 1997, as it infringed upon the rights guaranteed by the
First Amendment.
After doing a little digging in the dusty filing cabinets in the Reporter archives, we found a few articles published shortly after the passing of the CDA. Enjoy.
from 02.16.96 | volume 77, number 15
What Constitution? The Communications Decency Act
by Elizabeth J. Croteau
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
This is the text of the First Amendment of the Consitution of the United States of America. It was printed out from a site on the Internet, a place where the spirit and protection of this law has been erased, as of February 8, 1996.
The Communications Decency Act
Passed by a Congressional majority of two to one, a new telecommunications act was signed into law by President Clinton on Thursday, February 8. This law deregulated cable television and phone companies, allowing more free competition between the two. In a side provision, it also put stringent restrictions on the Internet.
This provision (Section 223, Title IV of S.652) states that anyone who “knowingly
transmits … any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person is subject to penalty under law.” It also states that “whoever knowingly … by means of telecommunications device makes or makes available any indecent comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image to any person under 18 years of age regardless of whether the maker of such communications placed the call or initiated the communication … shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisioned not more than two years, or both.” In other words anything that could be construed as “indecent,” be it a centerfold, a conversation in an IRC Chatroom about abortion, or a picture of Michelangelo’s “David” sculpture, is henceforth unacceptable for electronic transmission.
How does this affect us?
As a technical school with Internet access, many students may feel the impact of this act. Students at RIT have been given permission to construct their own Web pages, many of these Web pages have links to other pages throughout the Web. If any of these links should happen to lead to an “indecent” page, the student could easily be held liable under the law. And if your page should happen to be indecent…
This law does not just affect web browsers. It affects anyone who uses the Internet. E-mailing someone with poorly-phrased criticism about a post on Netnews, for example, could lead to a suit under the law. Posting a story or anecdote with sexual content onto IRC could get you fined or arrested. Anything that can be construed as “indecent” can be prosecuted.
What’s being done about it?
Already, these provisions have caused a hotbed of debate. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against the United States to block these provisions, citing a gross violation of free speech. They claim that these provisions could punish Internet users for publicizing safe-sex issues, human rights violations like rape and incest, and possibly even court briefs on obscenity cases. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for eastern Pennsylvania shortly after Clinton signed the bill.
In addition to the ACLU’s protest, an internet-wide protest began that very evening. Known by some as “A Thousand Points of Darkness”, a 48 hour protest against the bill was waged via the World Wide Web, when thousands of web pages were transformed into black screens with blue ribbons on them. Already, people across the Web have declared that they will not change what they offer on their pages, one of the most notable being the Playboy web page. Playboy Enterprises has stated that they will not be pulling the Playmate of the Month off its pages, nor will they be changing the content.
Responses to the new legislation range form parental relief to outrage over the restriction of speech. As it stands now, the movement to suppress “indecency” on the ‘Net has won… for now. Allegations that this law is too broad will be tested in the courts as soon as the ACLU case is brought up, but for now the world waits with blue ribbons on their screens.
Under Cover of Night
by Burda
“I’m turning Japanese, I think I’m turning Japanese...I really think so...”
The waitresses were told to dance in the cages that were mounted on both sides of the DJ’s table. Two story gothic black-light gargoyles decorated the far walls, staring down into the dance floor. The light show was like the bad acid trip I never had.
New York Nights. The club was less than a week old and the crowd was sparse. My drinking buddies said it was just a matter of time until the club caught on. Once the word got out, college students would come in droves and the club would make a mint.
I asked two of the bartenders for a pen and a drink. I’ve found that both are mandatory for any insightful writing experience.
Jim gave me the pen.
Gina gave me a scotch.
Ah, yes. Journalism and Alcoholism, the only two ism’s I subscribe to (well, maybe chauvinism, but only after the second drink). And though time seemed to stand still around me that night, the world was changing.
I put away my third scotch. A few hundred miles away, four years of bickering and scheming came to a head. Under cover of the night, the National Telecommunications Bill cleared two houses of Congress in a matter of hours. The bill is the largest electronic media overhaul in 62 years. It will forever alter how Americans send and receive information.
And if I had any clue what was transpiring that night, I would have drank until I was staggering and vomiting in the toilet.
The following morning, the Times and Post would advocate the bill’s strengths: Deregulation of an out-dated system, lower telephone rates, mandatory V-chips in all new TVs. They wrote that the bill will target child pornographers and clean up the Internet “in terms patently offensive as measured by contempary community standards” — a line that will become a thorn in the Supreme Courts side for years to come, no doubt.
However, the papers made little note that the on-line carriers, such as America On-line, are not held responsible for transmitting these and other “pornographic” materials. There was no mention of the restrictions on such topics as abortion and other sensitive political issues over the net. However, these are almost insignificant points when one looks at what the bill as a whole will do to the current system of media ownership.
The big three networks will now be allowed to consolidate with cable networks, as well as buy local television stations. The same holds for AM and FM radio outlets. In short, a very small number of companies will own the majority of the radio and television stations you watch and listen to. Not just locally but nationally.
A diminutive number of Americans will become amazingly wealthy. An even smaller number will control what we know and how much we will pay to know it.
Information is wealth in this new global economy. The Telecommunications Bill will ensure that very few of us have asccess to it. The night was getting late. I was broke. The last 30 minutes I spent gnawing on scotch-flavored ice. I would pick up the paper the next morning and read about all this nonsense. It was a hard reminder that in an instant the world could
change drastically.
