roundtable: Exon decency act

roundtable: Exon decency act

Exon decency act

Michael Eisenmenger (eisenmen@gandalf.rutgers.edu)
Sat, 11 Feb 95 10:45:21 EST 

Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 10:45:21 EST
From: Michael Eisenmenger <eisenmen@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Exon decency act
Message-Id: <CMM-RU.1.4.792517521.eisenmen@gandalf.rutgers.edu>


In response to:

>UNREASONABLE NETWORK POLICING PROPOSED
>   Yesterday, Senator Jim Exon (D-NE) introduced S.314, the
>Communications Decency Act of 1995, in the United States
>Senate.  In an effort to stamp out digital pornography, it
>makes all telecommunications providers doing business in the
>United States (from the telephone companies all the way down
>to offices that use LANs) liable for the content of anything
>sent over their networks.  To avoid the possibility of tens
>of thousands of dollars in fines and up to two years in
>jail, business owners would be forced to police their
>networks and monitor in advance all messages sent 
>over them.

A similar amendment was tacked onto the 1992 Cable 
Bill (rumor has it that the cable companies were 
involved). Immediately after passage of the bill, 
several of the larger cable companies sued on the 
grounds that the bill infringed on their 'rights of 
free speech'. It seems that since cable companies 
consider themselves 'forced' to carry public 
access, they consider being held liable for that 
programming content to be an infrigment of their 
corporate right to free speech. As Herb Schiller 
often points out, corporate rights to free speech 
often exceed the rights of ordinary citizens. The 
cable companies stategy of course is to eliminate 
the public access channels through legal channels 
as well as over-turning other requirements in the 
Cable Act.

I don't know where this curently stands in the 
courts (it may have been decided already), perhaps 
someone from ACM could provide an update. The point 
is that Exon seems to be giving the Telco's the 
same 'out' which would eventually have a chilling 
effect on all types of speech - not just 
pornography.

It's no secret that the cable companies dislike the 
public mandate and responsibility of providing 
public access channels and/or facilities. A Time 
Warner rep once complained that public access was 
'nickel and diming them to death' - an unbelievable 
statement coming from one of the largest media and 
entertainment conglomerates. These same companies 
don't hesitate at spending a fortune on legal 
battles that take advatage of legislative loopholes 
- loopholes that may be intentional since these 
companies often have better odds in the courts than 
in Congress.

Michael Eisenmenger
Paper Tiger TV - NY, NY
<eisenmen@gandalf.rutgers.edu>

[CNI Home Page]