Return To Spring 1996 Index
Censorship is a word normally associated with the more dictatorial governments around the world. It is not a word we in Europe equate with the USA. Strange then that, on 08 February 1996, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) became law (as part of the Telecommunications Reform Bill.)
This bill, according to some civil liberties' groups sounds the death knell for the First Amendment of the American Constitution, by potentially placing broad and harsh restrictions on what's transmitted over the Internet.
The controversial section (click for extract) would see offenders subject to up to 2 years in prison and a $250,000 fine
This outlaws words that are readily available in print, and because the wording is so vague it could even apply to personal e-mail.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argue the bill would effectively restrict expression to that only for children. On the day the bill was passed, the ACLU (together with 19 other organisations), launched a court action which succeeded in obtaining a temporary restraining order. This order prohibits the enforcement of the indecency provisions of the CDA.
However, the Court has left open the possibility that the US Government could still prosecute under the patently offensive provisions of the bill.
The indecency provision will now be sent forward to a three judge court in Philadelphia. These judges will consider entry of a permanent injunction against this section of the new law, by testing its constitutional validity.
The Net responseThe bill has upset a lot of the citizens of Cyberspace and as well as the court action a campaign was organised to black out web pages for 48 hours after the bill was passed. On February 22, 1996, the 24 hours in Democracy campaign invited submissions on freedom of speech from all over the world. The Panix server, taking part in this campaign reported a daily rate of 10 million hits.
There are also moves afoot to politicise the net, organisations like the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) are encouraging people to register to vote, and then test their representatives' position on the issue of free speech. (I should point out that it is election year in the US, not just for the President but for the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate.)
John Perry Barlow (founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation) has published a Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. This not only points out the hypocrisy of the people who made this bill but also the difficulties they will face trying to regulate a world of that is both everywhere and nowhere.
Some groups and individuals seem to be revelling at the thought of becoming outlaws on the electronic frontier, and are prepared to fight a guerrilla war in Cyberspace. One such manifesto declares, jihad, holy war, against those who call for regulation of the Net by government occupational forces. The writers believe the fight will be easy; the military roots of the Internet make it very difficult to turn off.
The bills passage into law seems to have drawn a line in the sand, with the US Government on one side and disparate groups of Netizens on the other. At the moment the Netizens have won the first battle of the war but one can't help feeling that Uncle Sam has a few more tricks up his sleeve.
SEC. 502. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934. Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended-- (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof: (a) Whoever-- (1) in interstate or foreign communications-- (B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;Return to article
