roundtable: (Fwd) ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert #5

roundtable: (Fwd) ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert #5

(Fwd) ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert #5

Barry Steinhardt (barrys@aclu.org)
Sun, 28 May 1995 14:29:41 -0400 

From: Barry Steinhardt <barrys@aclu.org>
Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 14:29:41 -0400
Message-Id: <199505281829.OAA14163@pipe3.nyc.pipeline.com>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: (Fwd) ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert #5


----- Forwarded message (Lynnclu@aol.com) -----< 
 
ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert: 05/26/95 
Feinstein Amendment Would Censor Online Info About "Explosive Materials" 
 
Senator Feinstein (D-CA) has indicated that she will offer an amendment 
to the   broad counter-terrorism bill (an incredibly unconstitutional 
and anti-liberty   bill) now pending in the U.S. Senate. 
 
The ACLU opposes the Feinstein amendment as a blatant violation of the 
First Amendment's free speech guarantees.  While the amendment applies 
to all media, it grew out of Senator Feinstein's vilification of the 
internet at the Senate's  May 11 counter-terrorism hearings. 
 
The Feinstein amendment must be **rejected** -- it cannot be "fixed." 
 
Join the ACLU, People for the American Way, and others in opposing this  
amendment. 
 
**ACT NOW** 
 
Fax, write, or call Senator Feinstein to express your opposition to the  
amendment. 
 
Senator Dianne Feinstein 
FAX   202/228-3954 
Voice 202/224-3841 
SH-331 SOB 
Washington, DC 20510-0504 
----------------------------------------- 
 
Earlier today, the ACLU faxed the following letter in opposition to the  
amendment to all U.S. Senators. 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 
American Civil Liberties Union 
Washington National Office 
122 Maryland Avenue, NE 
 
VIA FAX 
 
 
RE:  The Feinstein Amendment on Disseminating Information on Explosives 
 
Dear Senator: 
 
The American Civil Liberties Union has already communicated its position 
on the proposed anti-terrorism legislation.  Senator Feinstein has 
indicated she intends to introduce an amendment making a criminal offense 
out of the dissemination of information about manufacturing explosives. 
 
The Feinstein amendment would, for example, make it a felony, punishable 
by 20 years imprisonment, for any person "to disseminate by any means 
information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of 
explosive materials if the person . . . reasonably should know that" the 
materials are likely to be used to further a federal crime. 
 
Because it covers pure speech, without even a focus on a particularized 
threat of violence, the Feinstein amendment is clearly unconstitutional.  
In fact, it is difficult to contemplate an amendment in this area that 
would be more demonstrably unconstitutional. 
 
The amendment is also unnecessary.  Current law, 18 U.S.C.sec. 231, makes 
it a felony to teach explosives to any person if it is known or should 
have been known that that person intended to use the explosives unlawfully 
in furtherance of a civil disorder. Current law, however, focuses on a 
particular person using the information for a particular criminal purpose. 
The Feinstein amendment, however, criminalizes merely putting out 
information -- in print, on radio or television, in cyberspace -- without 
any requirement of knowledge of the particular would-be criminal or 
would-be crime. 
 
In fact, the media coverage of the Oklahoma City bombing has left 
everyone with sufficient knowledge so that everyone could be prosecuted 
if he or she published information on explosives, regardless of the 
purpose.  Even an article that described how a fertilizer-based bomb was 
built in order to suggest prophylactic measures to preclude such threats 
could be the basis of its author's prosecution. 
 
Under the Feinstein amendment, all the newspapers and broadcasters who  
described how bombs are built in the coverage on Oklahoma City could be  
prosecuted if they ran similar stories again. 
 
There are many reasons -- quite distinct from engaging in violence -- why 
individuals might wish to disseminate information about explosives.  These 
range from county extension agents with suggestions on tree stump removal, 
to OSHA guidelines on demolition of buildings, to construction company 
planning excavations, to newspapers reporting on current events.  The 
Feinstein amendment would subject to criminal prosecution the people 
involved in all these situations -- because, after Oklahoma City all of 
them would meet the absurdly low standard for criminal culpability in the 
amendment. 
 
As the ACLU, People for the American Way and others have noted:  The 
Feinstein amendment takes the lowest standard used for culpability under 
the criminal statutes and seeks to apply it to actions the Constitution 
requires be given the highest level of protection -- the exercise of 
their right of free speech. 
 
Because the Feinstein amendment would criminalize such a broad scope 
of First Amendment-protected activity, it would also enormously increase 
the investigative and surveillance authority of the FBI.  In order words, 
the Feinstein amendment would turn a whole host of actions into crimes 
thereby establishing the criminal predicate for which the FBI guidelines 
allow an investigation to be pursued. 
 
Even worse, the FBI investigates when it merely has a "reasonable 
indication" that a crime might have been committed. This means that 
anyone who simply disseminates -- on paper, over the airwaves, or in 
cyberspace -- information on manufacturing explosives is made subject 
to investigation by the FBI. This would happen even if the disseminator 
had no grounds to believe the information could be used for a crime, 
because the FBI could claim merely to be investigating to see whether a 
crime had been committed. 
 
The Feinstein amendment would also have the effect of forcing the 
internet -- as well as libraries, broadcasters and publishers -- to do 
the impossible task of prescreening the recipients of their information.  
Such a requirement is obviously impossible to meet. It also destroys 
the very purpose of both the internet and libraries -- providing the 
widest possible access to information. 
 
The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the United States 
Senate to defeat the Feinstein amendment on disseminating information 
relating to explosives. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Laura Murphy Lee, Director 
ACLU Washington National Office 
 
Donald Haines 
Legislative Counsel 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
For more information about the ACLU's Cyber-Liberties efforts and our  
opposition to the counter-terrorism bill, see our online resources: 
 
ACLU Free Reading Room -- gopher://aclu.org:6601 ACLU Constitution Hall 
on America Online -- keyword ACLU To request our FAQ, or be added 
to/dropped from our list, write to infoaclu@aclu.org 

-- 
Barry Steinhardt         barrys@aclu.org 
Associate Director 
ACLU 
132 West 43 St. New York, N.Y 10036 
212-944-9800 ext 614 (voice) 
212-354-5290 (fax)

[CNI Home Page]