virus: Re: Major Censorship of the Net
Luree Dell-Bryan (luree@islandnet.com)
Thu, 9 Nov 95 10:02 PST
>On Thu, 9 Nov 1995, Eric P Rudnick wrote:
>
>> >
>> > : ========================================================================
>> > : CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
>> > : (SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END)
>> >
>> > : Update: -Latest News:
>> > : The Christian Coalition is pushing Congress to censor
>> > : the net more heavily than even Sen. J.J. Exon ever imagined.
>> > : There is the very real possibility that they may succeed.
>> >
>> > : You should be very worried. We are.
>> >
>> > : -What You Can Do Now:
>> > : Follow the directions below and call House Speaker
>> > : Gingrich and Senate Leader Dole. Implore them not
>> > : to allow parents to make choices for their children,
>> > : instead of government censors.
>> >
>> > : Volunteer to join the fight by helping organize in your
>> > : home town.
>> >
>> > : CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
>> > : Nov 2, 1995
>> >
>> > : PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
>> > : REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL December 1, 1995
>> > : REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS
>> >
>> > : ________________________________________________________________________
>> > : CONTENTS
>> > : The Latest News
>> > : What You Can Do Now
>> > : The letter from Ed Meese and the Christian Right
>> > : Chronology of the CDA
>> > : For More Information
>> > : List Of Participating Organizations
>> >
>> > : ________________________________________________________________________
>> > : THE LATEST NEWS
>> >
>> > : Since the very first day that Senator J.J. Exon (D-NE) proposed
>> > : censorship legislation for the Internet, the Christian Right has
>> > : pushed for the most restrictive regulations they could think of.
>> >
>> > : The Religious Right (which does not necessarily speak for all
>> > : religious people concerned with this issue) recently tipped their
>> > : hand in a letter to Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) and Rep. Thomas
>> > : Bliley (R-VA) requesting a new and more restrictive net
>> > : censorship proposal.
>> >
>> > : There are essentially three new dangerous elements of their
>> > : campaign to shut down cyberspace:
>> >
>> >
>> > : INTERNET PROVIDERS, ONLINE SERVICES, AND LIBRARIES CRIMINALLY
>> > : LIABLE FOR EXPRESSION ONLINE
>> >
>> > : The Religious Right has proposed to hold anyone who provides
>> > : access to the Internet or other interactive media, including
>> > : online services providers, ISP's, BBS's, Libraries, and Schools,
>> > : criminally liable for all speech carried on the network.
>> >
>> > : In order to avoid liability under this provision, service
>> > : providers would be forced to monitor user's electronic
>> > : communications to be assured that no "indecent" material is
>> > : transmitted across their networks.
>> >
>> > : This proposal is MORE RESTRICTIVE than the Exon Communications
>> > : Decency Act, or any other net censorship legislation currently in
>> > : Congress.
>> >
>> > : In their letter to Congress, the Religious Right says:
>> >
>> > : [Providers] would simply be required to avoid KNOWING
>> > : violations of the law. [emphasis added]
>> >
>> > : However, the "knowing" standard is vague enough that the mere
>> > : knowledge that such material exists could be sufficient to
>> > : trigger criminal liability. A single complaint or even a news
>> > : report could force a service provider to take down a web page,
>> > : remove posts to chat rooms or other discussion forums, or shut
>> > : down listservs in order to avoid going to jail and facing huge
>> > : fines.
>> >
>> >
>> > : A STANDARD FOR INDECENCY
>> > : The proposals pushed by the Christian Coalition relies on the
>> > : unconstitutional "indecency standard". Like the Exon
>> > : Communications Decency Act, the Christian Coalition seeks to
>> > : regulate all indecent speech online.
>> >
>> > : Indecency is a broad category that includes everything from
>> > : George Carlin's "seven dirty words" to such classic novels and
>> > : "The Catcher in the Rye" and "Lady Chatterly's Lover".
>> >
>> > : The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on indecent speech
>> > : are Constitutional only if they rely on the "least restrictive
>> > : means". Broad indecency restrictions on interactive media do not
>> > : satisfy the "least restrictive means" test, because interactive
>> > : media allows users and parents tremendous control over the
>> > : information they receive.
>> >
>> > : Any legislation which attempts to apply an indecency restriction
>> > : to the Internet is unconstitutional on its face.
>> >
>> > : The Christian Coalition's proposal that relies on an indecency
>> > : restriction contemplates dumbing down every conversation, web
>> > : page, newsgroup, and mailing list on the Internet to the level of
>> > : what is not offensive to children.
>> >
>> > : What kind of discussions between adults are possible in an arena
>> > : where everything has been reduced to the level of the Lion King?
>> >
>> >
>> > : UNPRECEDENTED CONTROL OVER ONLINE SPEECH FOR THE FCC
>> > : The Christian Coalition would give the FCC broad jurisdiction
>> > : over cyberspace. It would allow the FCC jurisdiction over your
>> > : online speech, and over the design Internet software, such as web
>> > : browsers and filtering programs that parents can use to control
>> > : their children's access to the Internet.
>> >
>> > : The Internet has developed from a government project to a
>> > : market-driven economic boom for thousands of businesses. Giving
>> > : the FCC authority over this medium would significantly hinder the
>> > : growth of this new industry.
>> >
>> > : ________________________________________________________________________
>> > : WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
>> >
>> > : 1. The proposals from the Religious Right will literally destroy
>> > : online speech as we know it. The odds of stopping this are
>> > : not certain.
>> >
>> > : There is a very real chance that this legislation will pass,
>> > : and we will experience a period of uncertainty and chilling of
>> > : speech while an appropriate test case attempts to reach the
>> > : Supreme Court (should it even get there!)
>> >
>> > : The Religious Right has a strong grass-roots network. We need
>> > : to counter their energy and ensure cyberspace is not lost due
>> > : to them.
>> >
>> > : IMMEDIATELY CALL House Speaker Gingrich (R-GA) and Senate
>> > : Leader Dole (R-KS) and urge them to oppose the Christian
>> > : Coalition's proposal.
>> >
>> > : Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax
>> > : ======================== ============== ==============
>> > : R GA Gingrich, Newt 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656
>> > : R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952
>> >
>> > : If you're at a loss for words, try one of the following:
>> >
>> > : Please oppose the recent proposal from the Religious Right to
>> > : censor the Internet. The only effective way to address
>> > : children's access to the Internet is through parental control
>> > : tools outlined by the Cox/White/Wyden approach.
>> >
>> > : or
>> >
>> > : As a religious person and a parent, I oppose the Religious
>> > : Right's attempts to censor the Internet. I am the best
>> > : person to monitor my child's access to the Internet using
>> > : parental control tools as outlined in the Cox/White/Wyden
>> > : approach.
>> > :
>> > : 2. Join the online fight by becoming a volunteer for your district!
>> >
>> > : Check to see if you're legislator is in the list below. If
>> > : they are not, consult the free ZIPPER service that matches Zip
>> > : Codes to Congressional districts with about 85% accuracy at:
>> >
>> > : URL:http://www.stardot.com/~lukeseem/zip.html
>> >
>> > : The conference committee legislators are:
>> > : House: Barr (R-GA), Barton (R-TX), Berman (R-CA), Bliley
>> > : (R-VA), Boucher (D-VA), Brown (D-OH), Bryant (D-TX), Buyer
>> > : (R-IN), Conyers (D-MI), Dingell (D-MI), Eshoo (D-CA), Fields
>> > : (R-TX), Flanagan (R-IL), Frisa (R-NY), Gallegly (R-CA),
>> > : Goodlatte (R-VA), Gordon (D-TN), Hastert (R-IL), Hoke (R-OH),
>> > : Hyde (R-IL), Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Klug (R-WI), Lincoln (D-AR),
>> > : Markey (D-MA), Moorhead (R-CA), Oxley (R-OH), Paxon (R-NY),
>> > : Rush (D-IL), Schaefer (R-CO), Schroeder (D-CO), Scott (D-VA),
>> > : Stearns (R-FL), White (R-WA)
>> >
>> > : Senate: Burns (R-MT), Exon (D-NE), Ford (D-KY), Gorton (R-WA),
>> > : Hollings (D-SC), Inouye (D-HI), Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ),
>> > : Pressler (R-SD), Rockefeller (D-WV), Stevens (R-AK)
>> >
>> > : If your legislator is on the conference committee, you have a
>> > : chance to influence their vote on this issue with your power
>> > : as a constituent. Volunteer to help educate your legislator by
>> > : sending mail to volunteer@vtw.org. A coalition volunteer will
>> > : be in touch with you.
>> >
>> > : You can starting working to help spread the word in your
>> > : district by sending this letter to five friends. Ask them to
>> > : call Dole and Gingrich as well.
>> >
>> > : 3. The People for the American Way (PFAW) and the American Civil
>> > : Liberties Union are organizing a letter from ORGANIZATIONS to
>> > : the Conference Committee to oppose the censorship provisions.
>> >
>> > : If you are a representative of an organization that would like
>> > : to signon to this letter, you should contact jlesser@pfaw.org
>> > : IMMEDIATELY.
>> >
>> > : 4. We can't suggest relaxing at this point. The stakes are too
>> > : high, and the risk is too great. Everything now hangs in the
>> > : balance.
>> >
>> > : ________________________________________________________________________
>> > : THE LETTER FROM ED MEESE AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT
>> >
>> > : October 16, 1995
>> > :
>> > : The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Chairman
>> > : Committee on Commerce
>> > : United States House of Representatives
>> > : Washington, DC 20515
>> > :
>> > : The Honorable Larry Pressler, Chairman
>> > : Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
>> > : United States Senate
>> > : Washington, DC 20510
>> > :
>> > : Re: Computer Pornography Provisions in Telecommunications Bill
>> > :
>> > : Dear Mr. Chairmen:
>> > :
>> > : We are writing to urge the conference committee seeking to
>> > : reconcile the telecommunications bills passed by the House and
>> > : Senate include in the final bill the strongest possible criminal
>> > : law provisions to address the growing and immediate problem of
>> > : computer pornography without any exemptions, defenses, or
>> > : political favors of any kind accorded to those who knowingly
>> > : participate in the distribution of obscenity to anyone or
>> > : indecency to children. While there is no perfect solution to the
>> > : problem of computer pornography, Congress could not hope to solve
>> > : this problem by holding liable only some who are responsible for
>> > : the problem.
>> > :
>> > : The recent Justice Department prosecution project targeting those
>> > : who violated federal child pornography law using America On-Line
>> > : is instructive in this regard. More than ninety individuals were
>> > : targeted for prosecution although many others, perhaps as many as
>> > : 3,000 according to one press report, were originally targeted by
>> > : the Department of Justice as potential violators of child
>> > : pornography laws. Apparently due to a shortage of investigative
>> > : and prosecutorial resources, the project was limited. Since there
>> > : are insufficient resources to investigate and prosecute but a
>> > : fraction of those that are trafficking in child pornography by
>> > : computer, then there will likely be even fewer resources
>> > : available to investigate and prosecute those involved in
>> > : obscenity and indecency.
>> > :
>> > : Thousands of individuals both in this country and abroad are
>> > : regularly placing obscenity and indecency on the Internet. It is
>> > : not possible to make anything more than a dent in the serious
>> > : problem of computer pornography if Congress is willing to hold
>> > : liable only those who place such material on the Internet while
>> > : at the same time giving legal exemptions or defenses to service
>> > : or access providers who profit from and are instrumental to the
>> > : distribution of such material. The Justice Department normally
>> > : targest the major offenders of laws. In obscenity cases
>> > : prosecuted to date, it has targeted large companies which have
>> > : been responsible for the nationwide distribution of obscenity and
>> > : who have made large profits by violating federal laws.
>> >
>> > : Prosecution of such companies has made a substantial impact in
>> > : curbing the distribution of obscenity, with many such offenders
>> > : going out of business altogether. So too will prosecution of
>> > : access providers which _knowingly_ traffic in obscenity have a
>> > : substantial impact, a far greater impact than just the
>> > : prosecution of a person who places one or a few prohibited images
>> > : on the Internet. Such a person could not traffic in pornography
>> > : without the aid or facilitation of the service or access
>> > : providers.
>> >
>> > : Indeed, if Congress includes provisions protecting access or
>> > : service providers in whatever bill is finally passed, it is
>> > : likely that most in this country who are trafficking in indecency
>> > : to children or obscenity would continue to do so since the threat
>> > : of prosecution would be minuscule, given the numbers of those
>> > : currently involved in this activity. It is also likely that those
>> > : outside our country who are engaged in these activities would
>> > : continue to do so since it would be nearly impossible to
>> > : extradite them to the United States for prosecution. Thus, unless
>> > : all who knowingly participate in such matters are subject to the
>> > : law, the Internet will remain the same and Congress will have
>> > : failed in its responsibilities to the children and families of
>> > : America.
>> > :
>> > : Federal law has traditionally assigned equal liability both for
>> > : those who commit a crime and those who aid and abet a crime. See
>> > : Title 18 U.S.C. Code Section 2: "(a) whoever [sic] commits an
>> > : offense against the United States or aids, abets, councils [sic],
>> > : commands, induces, or procures its commission, is punishable as a
>> > : principle [sic]." Service or access providers who knowingly
>> > : participate in the distribution of indecency to children or in
>> > : obscenity to anyone are aiders and abettors in the commission of
>> > : those crimes and thus should have liability under any law
>> > : Congress passes. Current federal law on child pornography
>> > : provides no no exemption or defense for access providers. Thus,
>> > : the child pornography law provides a strong deterrent against
>> > : trafficking in child pornography for those who would otherwise
>> > : knowingly participate in its distribution by computer whether
>> > : pedophile or access provider.
>> > :
>> > : The changes in law which we support would not hold an access
>> > : provider criminally liable for all illegal pornography on the
>> > : Internet which their services may be used to obtain. Nor would it
>> > : require that access providers check all communications to ensure
>> > : that no violations of the law are occurring. They would simply be
>> > : required to avoid knowing violations of the law. This is an
>> > : obligation imposed on all citizens. Technology exists today for
>> > : access providers, through a simple process, to target or flag and
>> > : remove files containing objectionable material.
>> > :
>> > : We support the House-passed language insofar as it addresses
>> > : obscenity by amendment Title 18, Sections 1462, 1465, and 1467 of
>> > : the United States Code. The provision restricting transmission of
>> > : indecency in the House-passed bill, an amendment to Section 1465,
>> > : is inadequate, and we urge that it be substantially revised.
>> > :
>> > : Attached is the specific language we support which includes the
>> > : House passed language on obscenity and includes revisions on both
>> > : the House passed language on indecency, which would amend Title
>> > : 18 and the Senate-passed language on indecency, which would amend
>> > : Title 47. The combination of these provisions, we believe, would
>> > : provide effective laws to curb obscenity and indecency on the
>> > : Internet by establishing that all who knowingly participate in
>> > : the distribution or facilitation of obscenity to anyone or
>> > : indecency to children would be subject to the law.
>> > :
>> > : Thank you for your concern and attention to this matter.
>> > :
>> > :
>> > : [signed]
>> > :
>> > : Edwin Meese III
>> > :
>> > : Ralph Reed
>> > : Christian Coalition
>> > :
>> > : Donald E. Wildmon
>> > : American Family Association
>> > :
>> > : Alan Sears, Former Executive Director
>> > : Atty General's Commission on Pornography
>> > :
>> > : Phyllis Shafly
>> > : Eagle Forum
>> > :
>> > : Beverly LaHaye
>> > : Concerned Women for America
>> > :
>> > : Reverend Louis P. Sheldon
>> > : Traditional Values Coalition
>> > :
>> > : Jay Sekulow
>> > : American Center for Law and Justice
>> > :
>> > : Paul Weyrich
>> > : Free Congress Foundation
>> > :
>> > : Paul McGeady
>> > : Morality in Media
>> > :
>> > : Len Munsil
>> > : National Family Legal Foundation
>> > :
>> > : Robert Peters
>> > : Morality in Media
>> > :
>> > : Kenneth Sukhia
>> > : Former United States Attorney, N.D., FL
>> > : Former Chairman, Atty General's Advisory Committee
>> > : Subcommittee on Child Exploitation and Obscenity
>> >
>> >
>> > : --------------------------
>> >
>> > :
>> > : Section 1465 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended to punish
>> > : distribution by computer of indecent material to minors by adding at the
>> > : end the following:
>> > :
>> > : Whoever knowingly communicates, transmits, or makes available for
>> > : communication or transmission, in or effecting interstate or
>> > : foreign commerce an indecent communication by computer to any
>> > : person the communicator or transmitter believes has not attained
>> > : the age of 18 years of age, knowing that such communication will
>> > : be obtained by a person believed to be under 18 years of age,
>> > : shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
>> > : years, or both.
>> > :
>> > : TITLE IV -- OBSCENE, HARASSING, AND WRONGFUL UTILIZATION OF
>> > : TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
>> > :
>> > : SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE
>> > : This title may be cited as the "Communications Decency Act of
>> > : 1995".
>> > :
>> > : Sec. 402. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER
>> > : THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
>> > :
>> > : Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended --
>> > : (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu of [sic]:
>> > : ``(a) Whoever--
>> > : ``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
>> > : communications --
>> > : ``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly--
>> > : ``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
>> > : ``(ii) initiates the transmission of,
>> > : any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
>> > : communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
>> > : indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass
>> > : another person;
>> > : ``(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a
>> > : telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or
>> > : communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and
>> > : with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person
>> > : at the called number or who receives the communication;
>> > : ``(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly
>> > : or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at
>> > : the called number; or
>> > : ``(D) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly
>> > : initiates communication with a telecommunications device,
>> > : during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to
>> > : harass any person at the called number or who receives the
>> > : communication;
>> > : ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility
>> > : under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by
>> > : paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for
>> > : such activity,
>> > :
>> > : shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more
>> > : than two years, or both.''; and
>> > :
>> > : (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
>> > :
>> > : ``(d) Whoever--
>> > : ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign
>> > : communications with the United States by means of
>> > : telecommunications device makes or makes available any
>> > : indecent communication in any form including any comment,
>> > : request, suggestion, proposal, or image, to any person under
>> > : 18 years of age regardless of whether the
>> > : maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the
>> > : communication; or
>> > : ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility
>> > : under such person's control to be used for an activity
>> > : prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be
>> > : used for such activity,
>> > : shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more
>> > : than two years or both.
>> > : ``(e) Defenses to subsections (a) and (d), restrictions on
>> > : access, judicial remedies respecting restrictions for
>> > : persons providing information services and
>> > : access to information services--
>> > : "(1) It is a defense to prosecution that a person has complied
>> > : with regulations designed to restrict access to indecent
>> > : communications to those 18 years old or older as enacted by the
>> > : Federal Communications Commission which shall prepare final
>> > : regulations within 120 days of the passage of this bill. Until
>> > : such regulations become effective, it is a defense to
>> > : prosecution that the person has blocked or restricted access
>> > : to indecent communications to any person under 18 years
>> > : of age through the use of verified credit card, adult access
>> > : code, or adult personal identification number (PIN).
>> > : Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to treat
>> > : enhanced information services as common carriage."
>> > : "(2) No cause of action may be brought in any
>> > : court or any administrative agency against any person on account
>> > : of any activity which is not in violation of any law punishable
>> > : by criminal or civil penalty, which activity the person has taken in
>> > : good faith to implement a defense authorized under this section or
>> > : otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to,
>> > : a communication specified in this section.
>> > : (f) Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any State or
>> > : local government from enacting and enforcing laws and regulations
>> > : which do not result in the imposition of inconsistent obligations on
>> > : the provision of interstate services. Nothing in this subsection
>> > : shall preclude any State or local government from governing conduct
>> > : not covered by subsection (d)(2)."
>> > : (g) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), or (e) or in the
>> > : defenses to prosecution under (e) shall be construed
>> > : to affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other
>> > : Federal law.
>> > : (h) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this
>> > : section shall not impose new obligations on (one-way) broadcast
>> > : radio or (one-way) broadcast television operators licensed by the
>> > : Commission or (one-way) cable services registered with the
>> > : Federal Communications Commission and covered by obscenity and
>> > : indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act.
>> > :
>> > : Sec. 403. OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION.
>> > :
>> > : Section 639 (47 U.S.C. 559) is amended by striking "10,000" and
>> > : inserting "$100,000"
>> > :
>> > : Sec. 404. BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON THE RADIO.
>> > :
>> > : Section 1466 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by
>> > : striking out "$10,000" and inserting "$100,000".
>> > :
>> > : Sec. 405 SEPARABILITY
>> > :
>> > : "(a) If any provision of this Title, including amendments to this
>> > : Title of [sic] the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
>> > : held invalid, the remainder of this Title and the application of such
>> > : provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
>> > : thereby."
>> >
>> > : ________________________________________________________________________
>> > : CHRONOLOGY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
>> >
>> > : Sep 26, '95 Sen. Russ Feingold urges committee members to drop
>> > : Managers Amendment and the CDA from the Telecommunications
>> > : Deregulation bill
>> > : Aug 4, '95 House passes HR1555 which goes into conference with S652.
>> > : Aug 4, '95 House votes to attach Managers Amendment (which contains
>> > : new criminal penalties for speech online) to
>> > : Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555).
>> > : Aug 4, '95 House votes 421-4 to attach HR1978 to Telecommunications
>> > : Reform bill (HR1555).
>> > : Jun 30, '95 Cox and Wyden introduce the "Internet Freedom and Family
>> > : Empowerment Act" (HR 1978) as an alternative to the CDA.
>> > : Jun 21, '95 Several prominent House members publicly announce their
>> > : opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich
(R-GA),
>> > : Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR).
>> > : Jun 14, '95 The Senate passes the CDA as attached to the Telecomm
>> > : reform bill (S 652) by a vote of 84-16. The Leahy bill
>> > : (S 714) is not passed.
>> > : May 24, '95 The House Telecomm Reform bill (HR 1555) leaves committee
>> > : in the House with the Leahy alternative attached to it,
>> > : thanks to Rep. Ron Klink of (D-PA). The Communications
>> > : Decency Act is not attached to it.
>> > : Apr 7, '95 Sen. Leahy (D-VT) introduces S.714, an alternative to
>> > : the Exon/Gorton bill, which commissions the Dept. of
>> > : Justice to study the problem to see if additional
legislation
>> > : (such as the CDA) is necessary.
>> > : Mar 23, '95 S314 amended and attached to the telecommunications
reform
>> > : bill by Sen. Gorton (R-WA). Language provides some
provider
>> > : protection, but continues to infringe upon email privacy
>> > : and free speech.
>> > : Feb 21, '95 HR1004 referred to the House Commerce and Judiciary
committees
>> > : Feb 21, '95 HR1004 introduced by Rep. Johnson (D-SD)
>> > : Feb 1, '95 S314 referred to the Senate Commerce committee
>> > : Feb 1, '95 S314 introduced by Sen. Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA).
>> >
>> > : ________________________________________________________________________
>> > : FOR MORE INFORMATION
>> >
>> > : Web Sites
>> > : URL:http://www.vtw.org/exon/
>> > : URL:http://epic.org/
>> > : URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
>> > : URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html
>> > : URL:http://outpost.callnet.com/outpost.html
>> >
>> > : FTP Archives
>> > :
URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/policy/freespeech/00-INDEX.FREESPEECH
>> > : URL:ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
>> >
>> > : Gopher Archives:
>> > : URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon
>> > : URL:gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/Alerts
>> >
>> > : Email:
>> > : vtw@vtw.org (put "send alert" in the subject line for the latest
>> > : alert, or "send cdafaq" for the CDA FAQ)
>> > : cda-info@cdt.org (General CDA information)
>> > : cda-stat@cdt.org (Current status of the CDA)
>> >
>> > : ________________________________________________________________________
>> > : LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
>> >
>> > : In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have
>> > : joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the
>> > : Communications Decency Act.
>> >
>> >
>> > : American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication
>> > : Association * American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology
>> > : Society * Association of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll
>> > : productions * Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression *
>> > : Californians Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy
>> > : And Technology * Centre for Democratic Communications * Center
>> > : for Public Representation * Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Cloud
>> > : 9 Internet *Computer Communicators Association * Computel Network
>> > : Services * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility *
>> > : Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge *
>> > : Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * ECHO Communications Group,
>> > : Inc. * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier
>> > : Foundation * Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic
>> > : Frontiers Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic
>> > : Frontiers New Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center *
>> > : Feminists For Free Expression * First Amendment Teach-In *
>> > : Florida Coalition Against Censorship * FranceCom, Inc. Web
>> > : Advertising Services * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for
>> > : Students * Hands Off! The Net * Inland Book Company * Inner
>> > : Circle Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications *
>> > : Internet On-Ramp, Inc. * Internet Users Consortium * Joint
>> > : Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action Committee * The
>> > : Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project * Metropolitan Data
>> > : Networks Ltd. * MindVox * MN Grassroots Party * National Bicycle
>> > : Greenway * National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National
>> > : Coalition Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task
>> > : Force * National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers
>> > : Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People
>> > : for the American Way * Republican Liberty Caucus * Rock Out
>> > : Censorship * Society for Electronic Access * The Thing
>> > : International BBS Network * The WELL * Voters Telecommunications
>> > : Watch
>> >
>> > : (Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities,
>> > : not EFF chapters or divisions.)
>> >
>> > : ________________________________________________________________________
>> > : End Alert
>> > : ========================================================================
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
*****************************
* ADDICTED TO CYBER SURFING *
*****************************
http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/youdoit.html