roundtable: Testimony

roundtable: Testimony

Testimony

Jill Lesser -- Media Access Project - Washington (jlessern@counsel.com)
Thu, 11 May 95 15:10:01 EDT 

Date: Thu, 11 May 95 15:10:01 EDT
From: jlessern@counsel.com (Jill Lesser -- Media Access Project - Washington )
Message-Id: <9505111910.AA12856@ad0.reach.com>
To: Roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Testimony 


People For the American Way submitted the attached brief testimony
at the hearing held today by the Terrorism, Technology and
Government Information of the Senate Judiciary Committee on mayhem
manuals on the Internet and the First Amendment implications of
imposing additional government restrictions.  I thought that
members of the Roundtable would be interested.  

The panelists at the hearing were as follows:  Rabbi Marvin Hier,
Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Mr. Robert Litt, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, William
Burrington, America Online, Inc., Jerry Berman, Center for
Democracy and Technology, Professor Frank Tuerkheimer, University
of Wisconsin Law School (member of the board of EPIC)

Jill Lesser
<jlessern@counsel.com>


Testimony of People For the American Way Action Fund

People For the American Way Action Fund
(the "Action Fund") submits this testimony to emphasize the
importance of the First Amendment in discussions concerning
government control of speech on the Internet and other online
networks.   The Action Fund is a 300,000 member organization
committed to preserving the central values of the First Amendment
by promoting tolerance, free expression and vigorous public
debate.   We applaud Chairman Arlen Specter and the Judiciary
Committee for holding this hearing on these issues of critical
importance in the information age.  

      The American political landscape for years has been populated
with people who spread reckless and violent rhetoric.  Such
rhetoric and the debate that it has spurred in the aftermath of
Oklahoma City is particularly troubling to The Action Fund, which
is committed both to protecting freedom of expression and to
promoting a climate of tolerance and community.  We believe that
when presented with difficult issues like how we should respond to
political figures who tell supporters that their opponents are out
to destroy American society or to broadcasters who tell their
listeners or viewers that the government is the enemy of the
people, feeding fears that this nation's family, faith and
freedoms are under imminent threat of destruction, the answer is
not to silence such speech but to encourage more speech in
response.  	

     We are at the same time very concerned about the existence 
of "hate speech" and are unwilling simply to join the chorus of
people who claim that such speech has absolutely no impact on
behavior.  We believe very strongly that ideas do indeed have
consequences.  We do not believe that the existence of such
consequences, however, makes the case for government censorship. 
Instead, we must respond to intolerant and violent rhetoric by
encouraging Americans to stand against those voices and emphasize
the American values of liberty, justice and respect for the
differences inherent in a vibrantly pluralistic society.  The
"marketplace of ideas" strengthens democracy when everyone takes
the responsibility to be engaged in the debate.   We advocate not
censorship, but citizenship.

     In the wake of the horrible bombing in Oklahoma City, citizens of
this nation are rightly concerned with activities that appear to
threaten the safety of American citizens. But the Action Fund
believes that we must not let that incident diminish this nation's
commitment to the First Amendment.  Policy makers should not use
this tragic incident  to undermine the positive unifying aspects
of speech on computer networks and the value those networks add to
society. The Internet and other online computer networks are
already transforming the way people in this country and around the
world communicate, entertain themselves and behave as political
creatures.  The fact that these new technologies offer powerful
modes of information dissemination cannot alone justify government
intervention and intrusion into the constitutional rights of
American citizens.  If  we do so, the value of  such networks will
diminish, leaving this nation's role in the information age and
the values of the First Amendment threatened.	The Action Fund
acknowledges that the specific intent of this hearing is to
address the narrow questions raised by the government's power to
investigate and infiltrate the purveyors of violent or
mayhem-inducing computer communications.  And, we agree with the
general conclusion of the testimony being presented at this
hearing by Jerry Berman of the Center for Democracy & Technology
that the federal government already has ample investigative and
surveillance tools to ensure adequate protection of the American
public from violent speech on the Internet. 

     However, we are submitting our own testimony because we also feel
strongly that the question of whether the government should
control, track or investigate violent speech in the new online
environment is only one among many dilemmas that have surfaced in
response to the proliferation of computer networks and their
apparent ubiquity.  For example, just in the first three months of
the 104th Congress, we have seen significant attention paid to
legislative proposals that seek to restrict the transmission of
sex-related or adult material on the same computer networks.  

     While the legal analyses may differ slightly in particular
circumstances, the Action Fund believes that it is inadequate to
address government response to violent speech in the online
environment without recognizing that content regulation in one
subject area sets precedents for content regulation in other
areas. This Committee must scrutinize very carefully any efforts
to restrict or monitor any category of speech online which could
not lawfully be restricted or investigated in a bookstore,
library, newsstand, town square or other context.

     The Internet and other computer networks are unique.  They enable
Americans to be become publishers of information with the stroke
of a key.  In that way such networks operate like distributors of
newspapers or pamphlets put out by individual citizens.  Resources
like the World Wide Web greatly expand the sources of information
available to individuals in their own homes and enlarge the impact
that any one citizen with relatively few resources can have on
public debate. 

     The inherent potency of these networks in shaping debate must not
be used to justify government monitoring and censorship.  Instead,
it  should be seen as an opportunity to enhance democracy -- to
encourage more Americans to use these technologies to respond to
rhetoric they find either helpful or abhorrent. While the tragedy
in Oklahoma has made many in this country question the
implications of unfettered speech in several arenas, most
specifically in the media, it is important to remember that speech
in this country often serves its highest value when it challenges
our beliefs and values.  It is a basic tenet if American society
that effective discourse emerges most readily out of heated
emotions, be they positive or negative.  And it is through
effective discourse that conflicts are often peaceably solved.

     One of the most disturbing elements of the recent attempts to
censor speech on the Internet and other computer networks is the
general lack of familiarity with the technology and the resulting
willingness by policy makers to enact restrictions of speech,
rather than explore the ability of the technology itself to
empower users to make decisions about the kinds of content to
which they have access.  The debate during this Congress has
largely centered on the Communications Decency Act (S.314),
introduced by Senators Exon and Gorton, and recently added to the
S. 652, the pending telecommunications reform legislation.  That
legislation would establish an outright ban on speech that is
indecent, lewd, lascivious or filthy but nonetheless fully
protected by the Constitution, without any examination of  the
legislation's First Amendment implications or the technological
tools that may be available to enable adult users to make personal
content decisions.

     The Action Fund urges this Committee to recognize that the
Internet and other computer networks hold vast possibilities for
the reinvigoration of democratic discourse in this country. 
Neither the unfamiliarity with the technology, nor the fear
invoked by recent acts of random violence or the worry about
access by our nation's children to adult-oriented materials,
should lead Congress irreparably to damage the usefulness and
importance of those networks without a complete examination of
both the constitutional implications of restricting certain speech
and all facets of the technology.

[CNI Home Page]