roundtable: Re: Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Carriers Liable for Content?

roundtable: Re: Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Carriers Liable for Content?

Re: Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Carriers Liable for Content?

Greg Boozell (CANTV@WWA.COM)
Fri, 10 Feb 95 11:51 CST 

Message-Id: <m0rczVf-000br7C@sashimi.wwa.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 11:51 CST
To: roundtable@cni.org
From: CANTV@WWA.COM (Greg Boozell)
Subject: Re: Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Carriers Liable for Content?


>        Senators Exon and Gorton have introduced S.314 (aka the
>Communications Decency Act of 1995): "To protect the public from misuse
>of the telecommunications network and telecommunications devices and
>facilities."  From Sec. 2:
>
>         (B) by striking out `makes any comment, request, suggestion,
>             or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting `makes,
>             transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment,
>             request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
>             communication';
>
>        Inserting the word "transmits" appears to make telecommunications
>carriers (e.g. telephone companies, BBS operators, Internet service 
>providers) liable for content, which will produce a chilling effect on 
>speech.  Further analysis, anyone?
>
>Michael Chui
>mchui@cs.indiana.edu


S.314 is extremely problematic for PEG access as well.  

"SEC. 8. CABLE OPERATOR REFUSAL TO CARRY CERTAIN PROGRAMS

(a)Public, Educational, and Governmental Channels: Section 611(e) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 531(e)) is amended by inserting 
before the period the following: `, except a coble operator may refuse 
to transmit any public access program or portion of a public access 
program which contains obscenity, indeceny, or nudity."

It is interesting to note that while much of the rest of this bill 
addresses obscene speech (constitutionally unprotected), this section 
includes "indecency, or nudity." (constitutionally protected).  Similar 
language was included in the 1992 Cable Act and was successfully 
challenged in court by a coalition of public interest groups led by the 
Alliance for for Community Media.

How about passing a law which makes legislators liable for enacting laws 
which are clearly unconstitutional?  While Exon and Gorton know portions 
of this bill are unconstitutional, I'm sure they have no problem forcing 
public interest groups with meager resources to challenge their bad works 
in court.  Even if the court overturns their law, these Senators can still 
feel satisfied knowing that limited public interest resources were 
expended correcting unconstitutional legislation rather than extending 
free speech opportunities further.

Greg Boozell
Program Director
Chicago Access Corporation
CANTV@wwa.com

[CNI Home Page]