IP: Rep. White letter on Internet censorship legislation, to

[Dave Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>]

Posted-Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 20:50:13 -0500
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>


Below is an open letter to Internet users from Rep. Rick White (R-WA), 
co-sponsor of the Cox/Wyden/White anti-censorship legislation, discussing
his new proposed amendment to the telecom bill, which is now in joint 
conference committee.  As most of you are aware, several amendments to
to the bill, many of them conflicting, are to be "reconciled", with the 
result, constitutional or otherwise, being sent to both houses of 
Congress for (likely) final approval, and thence to the President for his 
(at least fairly likely) signature.  Among those amendments are several 
patently unconstitutional proposals, from the original Exon/Coats 
"Communications Decency Act", to a new, even more censorious amendment 
supported by the Christian Coalition, Ed Meese, and other representatives 
of the "religious right".  


EFF does not endorse any of the proposals that have been floated in 
the conference committee.  We take the position that no content-control 
legislation should be passed. EFF remains committed to mounting 
constitutional challenges in court to any such legislation that passes.




[begin forward]


From: REPWHITE@HR.HOUSE.GOV
Date: 04 Dec 1995 22:07:22 EST
Subject: An open letter from Rep. Rick White to the Internet Communi
To: mech@EFF.ORG


Please forward this message to interested members of the Internet community.


Thank you.


Congressman Rick White



--


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