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?

dmendoza@tmn.com
Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:30:54 GMT 

Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:30:54 GMT
Message-Id: <199502151730.RAA29730@purple.tmn.com>
From: dmendoza@tmn.com
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Carriers Liable for Content?


First, what does this mean (printed at end of Greg Boozell's comments?):

 *** Message content is not printable ***

Is this a transmission problem, editing, censorship...?


Now for comments on Exon Bill:

This bill would restrict freedom of artistic expression, among other 
types of expression, as well as being unconstitutional (as noted by Greg
Boozell).  With the Info Super Highway being touted for all manner of
telecommunicaton, one of the most commonly mentioned is
"arts/culture/entertainment."  It does not take a constitutional expert
attorney to wonder, for example: Could Allen Ginsburg's poetry be
transmitted?  Henry Miller's writing?  Marlon Riggs' "Toungues Untied?" 
You get the drift.

My organization (along with the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights)
are providing legal counsel in a lawsuit against the Natl Endowment for
the Arts (Finley v. NEA) which, in part, challenges the "standards of
decency" clause in the NEA's authorizing legislation.  Like the Exon/Gorton
legislation, it appears obviously  unconstitutional to many of us. The
status of our litigation is that the Federal 9th District court (Los
Angeles) Judge Wallace Tashima ruled in our favor in a very good 44-page
ruling.  The Clinton administration appealed the ruling and on February 3,
1994 the oral arguements were heard in the Appeals Court. We are awaiting 
a ruling.

The implementation of the "decency" clause by the NEA was to target gay
and lesbian artistic expression as "indecent."  The determination with
respect to "decency" was left to the NEA chairperson, according to the 
law.  This led to ther terminology referring to the NEA chairs as 
"Decency Czars" which is, in effect, what the legislation implies.

Since this litigation was initiated in 1990, NCFE has seen an increasing
effort to prohibit nudity in art in public spaces. We are currently
supporting a lawsuit on behalf of an artist in Austin against the city of
Austin, for removing his sculpture form a group exhibition in the city 
hall gallery because of nudity (a classical-style bronze male nude torso). 
In photography it has become even more of a problem. Is a painted nude more
deccent than a photograph of a real nude? You can expand on this question
easily.

A further issue we are experiencing is that nudity in art is being
"accused" of sexual harrassment. For example, two contemporary tapestries
depicting Norse mythology were removed from a  City Hall in A suburb of
Seattle because some women employees found the Norse Sea god arising out 
of the sea entwined in seaweed but otherwise nude, to be "sexual
harrassment."  Eventually one of these cases will go to court and will 
end up with the Supremes.

These are just some "iceberg tips" with respect to the problems with the
Exon-Gorton bill from our perspective vis a vis the arts.

David Mendoza
Natl Campaign for Freedom of Expression
dmendoza@tmn.com

[CNI Home Page]