New Internet Draft on protecting children AND free speech

Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) writes:

>All those schemes lead to censorship (both formal and informal) [see
>references]. Why should we believe that this scheme will be any
>different?

Darren New <dnew@sgf.fv.com> writes:

> Because it's the Internet, and every person this standard could affect is 
> capable of talking to every other person this standard could affect. And 
> it's virtually impossible to shut someone up just because you don't like 
> what they're saying, unless, of course, you are the government, and even 
> then it has to go one person at a time.

Virtually all laws, both just and unjust, are enforced one person at a
time. Except for a few cases of massive civil disobedience
one-person-at-a-time seems to do the trick. After a few successful
prosecutions most people will obey even an unjust laws.

[...]
> Have you ever seen one single law that said you couldn't say "fuck" on 
> the phone?  Think about it.

Actually, current U.S. law, read literally, prohibits the use of
"indecenty" in telephone conversations. And in _Pacificia_ the U.S.
Supreme court said that "fuck" was indecent. (This is the same law the
Senator Exon wants to amend to include computer communications.)
Fortunately, the courts have said that because of the right of
privacy, it would be unconstitutional to interpet the law as written
and have interpeted not to include consentual speech.

[...]
> The reason books are allowed to say "fuck" and radios aren't is (now 
> watch this one) RADIOS BROADCAST WHERE KIDS HEAR THEM.

Not true. The reason that Pacificia Radio was fined for broadcasting a
discussion of censorship that included the word "fuck" (much like this
discussion) was because the Court said the First Amendment doesn't
apply fully to radio and TV broadcasts. Why? Because the Courts said
that the radio and TV broadcast spectrum is so scarce and "uniquely
intrusive" that government regulation of content is justified.

But I've heard an FCC commissioner use the word "fuck" on C-SPAN
during the day (in a discussion of _Pacifica_). Why wasn't
C-SPAN fined? Because:

   'By mid-1985, decision in four cases, three of them brought in
   Utah, had found state cable obscenity and indeceny legislation in
   violation of the First Amendment. Courts threw out laws limiting
   indecent programming, finding them too broad in scope. Because
   cable does not use the open spectrum, the scarcity argument that
   had supported obscenity limitations on broadcasting could not be
   applied. Since cable was paid for, the courts reasoned, it was not
   as "uniqely intrustive" as broadcasting, and for similar reason it
   was consiered not as available to children. The judge in one case
   suggested that the real responsiblity for preventing children from
   seeing such programming rested with parrents (11 MLR 2217).'
      From _Broadcasting in America_ by Head and Sterling, 5th edition.
      [Also, many people disagree that broadcast spectrum is really
       scarce; but that is another discussion.]

- Carl

Received on Thursday, 8 June 1995 15:01:39 UTC