roundtable: An open letter from Rep. Rick White to the Internet Comm

roundtable: An open letter from Rep. Rick White to the Internet Comm

An open letter from Rep. Rick White to the Internet Comm

Craig A. Johnson (caj@tdrs.com)
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:18:23 +0000 

Message-Id: <199512060321.WAA07969@clark.net>
From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj@tdrs.com>
To: telecomreg@relay.doit.wisc.edu
Date:          Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:18:23 +0000
Subject:       An open letter from Rep. Rick White to the Internet Comm


For those who have not seen it, here is Rep. White's "open letter." 
The latest rumors are that his proposal is in for rough sledding, with 
opponents from both left and right scattering stones all over the 
track.


Craig
=============================================
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY

December 4, 1995

To members of the Internet Community and Concerned Citizens:

     For the past several months, I have closely followed the online
debate over Congressional attempts to impose content controls on the
Internet.  Your phone calls, letters, and email were instrumental in
convincing 420 of my House colleagues to support the Cox/Wyden/White
"Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act."

     As you may know, on Wednesday, December 6th, the
Telecommunications
Reform Legislation Conference Committee, of which I am a member, will
choose between two competing proposals:  one offered by my colleague,
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL), and my own
proposal.  I believe that the decision we reach on Wednesday will have
a significant impact on the future of the Internet.  While many of us
who use the Internet feel that Congress should steer clear of any new
regulation of the Internet and online information services, the
reality is that proponents of more severe restrictions on online
content have been successful in convincing many in Congress that new
regulations are necessary.

     The conference committee is charged with reconciling several
competing approaches to addressing children's access to objectionable
material online.  In June, the Senate, by an overwhelming majority
passed the Exon/Coats "Communications Decency Act."  In August, the
House passed the Cox/Wyden/White "Internet Freedom and Family
Empowerment Act," which emphasized parental empowerment over
government content regulations. At the same time, the House also
approved a new indecency crime sponsored by Chairman Hyde.

     As an avid Internet user and a strong believer in the enormous
potential of cyberspace to educate, expand commercial opportunities,
and create  jobs, I have developed an alternative proposal that I
expect to offer to conferees on Wednesday.  My proposal will ensure
freedom of speech and encourage the development of technological tools
to help parents prevent their children from accessing inappropriate
material online.  It would also prohibit the Federal Communications
Commission from controlling online content and from meddling in the
underlying technologies of the net.

     In addition, my proposal will create tough penalties for those
few bad actors who send truly objectionable material directly to
minors or

display such material.  However, those who make good faith, reasonable

efforts to label content and enable it to be blocked or filtered by
parental control technologies (such as the PICS standards currently
being developed by MIT and the World Wide Web Consortium) would be
immune from prosecution.

     Briefly, my proposal:

*  Substitutes the narrow, "harmful to minors" standard instead of the
   broad, vague, and constitutionally suspect "indecency" standard.
   The "harmful to minors" standard refers to material that is
sexually
   explicit and, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
   political or scientific value for minors.

*  Prohibits the Federal Government from regulating online content or
   from having oversight over the underlying technologies of the  net.

*  Would prohibit displaying material that is "harmful to minors," but
   create immunity for those who make good faith and reasonable
efforts
   to implement parental empowerment technologies that enable
screening
   of unwanted content.

*  Would not impose liability on online service providers merely for
   transmitting the messages of their users.

     At this time, the only option for the conference committee is to
choose between the White proposal or the Hyde substitute amendment. As
the only option that minimizes government intrusion on freedom of
speech, relies on parents to make their own choices about what
material comes into their homes, and prevents the FCC from imposing
regulations on online content, I hope you, as well as my colleagues in
Congress, will

agree with my approach.

                              Sincerely,
                                   /s/
                              Rick White
                              Member of Congress

*************************************************
http://www.house.gov/white/welcome.html
repwhite@hr.house.gov
*************************************************

[CNI Home Page]