Computer underground Digest Wed May 8, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 34 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #8.34 (Wed, May 8, 1996) File 1--LAWSUIT: Battle of the Briefs 5/4/96 File 2--FLASH: FBI Reviewing CompuServe "Indecency" File 3--(fwd) THE REGULATORS MEET THE INTERNET File 4--censorship & FCC (fwd) File 5--ACLU Update of State Net.Censorship Legislation File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 22:44:51 -0800 From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: File 1--LAWSUIT: Battle of the Briefs 5/4/96 Let the Battle of the Briefs begin! As Mission Specialist Declan McCullagh explains in his latest CDA update, the legal battle over the (un)constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act has moved outside the courtroom. Lawyers from both sides have now filed briefs with the court, and as you'll see below, the DoJ and their cronies are trying to pull off a major snow job. They would like us (and the court) to believe that the CDA's ban on "indecency" amounts to nothing more than a straightforward ban on pornography. But remember this: indecent speech IS NOT necessarily pornographic. Under the current definition of indecency upheld by the Supreme Court in FCC v. Pacifica, George Carlin's infamous "Seven Dirty Words" qualify as indecent speech. Indecent speech is not always polite, to be sure, but it ain't porn either. Quite often it's material with important social, artistic, or political value -- precisely the kind of stuff that the First Amendment was designed to protect. Also in this update: Confusion in the ranks: What's indecent? Theocratic right cites Rimm study in pro-CDA journal article Broad coalition files pro-ACLU brief What's next? Myriad thanks go out to Declan for passing along this update. Work the network! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine --------------------------------------------------------- Fight-Censorship Dispatch #9 --------------------------------------------------------- The CDA Challenge: Battle of the Briefs -------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan@well.com / Redistribute freely --------------------------------------------------------- In this update: Anti-porn groups egg on the Justice Department Confusion in the ranks: What's indecent? Theocratic right cites Rimm study in pro-CDA journal article Broad coalition files pro-ACLU brief What's next? MAY 4, 1996 -- The CDA is a "work of art" that "is sensitive to the First Amendment," Bruce Taylor and Cathy Cleaver argue in an amicus brief supporting the DoJ filed in Philadelphia earlier this week. The two longtime anti-pornsters submitted this weighty 85-page legal document -- complete with over 100 pages of attachments including Jake Baker's notorious snuff story -- on Monday, the same day the ACLU, ALA, and the DoJ submitted their post-trial briefs, findings of fact, and proposed conclusions of law. I had asked Enough is Enough! to FedEx me the Taylor/Cleaver draft, but The Brucester himself showed up at my office with a copy the next afternoon, chipper and grinning and bouncing about. ("Hide your porn!" he yelled as he walked in.) Taylor was in town for smut-research and he clearly was proud of his completed legal object d'art. What else could it be, with such delectable oeuvres as this: Expecting children to locate hidden Easter eggs sounds reasonable and enjoyable, unless those who have hidden the eggs are aware that they are rotten. No reasonable person, who cares about the well-being of children, would leave it up to children to find and dispose of rotten eggs. In the world of online communications, parents will be left as children, hunting frantically for thousands upon thousands of rotten eggs in a cyberworld of indecency, scurrying to find all of them before children are contaminated. [p35] The arguments advanced in the brief -- a joint venture of Morality in Media, the National Law Center for Children and Families, the Family Research Council, Enough is Enough!, and the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families -- center around one concept: indecency means pornography. That idea stinks like, well, a rotten egg. Their argument, which mirrors the DoJ's, goes as follows: 1. The CDA merely "updates" and "amends" Federal obscenity statutes and dial-a-porn laws. 2. All the CDA does is require adults who use "patently offensive" sexual expression to "put electronic blinder racks" in front of their "pornography." 3. The test for "indecency" is not vague or overbroad and does not apply to "serious works of literature, art, science, and politics." 4. What is indecent "is well known to the public and the operators of mass communications media facilities." (If "indecency" is too vague, the CDA is unconstitutional.) 5. The court has an obligation "to interpret these sections narrowly." That is, the three-judge panel should *reinterpret* the CDA to affect only "prurient pornography." Taylor calls this "judicial narrowing," and when I spoke with him he insisted that it was what the court will do. Equating "indecency" with "pornography" is misleading, since courts have held that George Carlin's monologue and Allen Ginsberg's poetry can be regulated as indecent. As cyberlibertarian attorney Harvey Silverglate writes on the fight-censorship mailing list: My objection to the current debate is that they talk of "smut." My client, Allen Ginsberg, wants to broadcast some of the finest poetry written this century in this country. The "family values" brief concludes: Purely selfish motivations based on one's desire to rebel against the "government" and be free from society's code of conduct in "cyberspace" is NOT a legal justification that should be accepted by the courts... Criminal laws against distributing pornography to children have literally saved countless lives. These lives are needed not for any threat posed by men of good will, but rather by those who would exploit the vulnerable and impressionable for their personal gain... Senators Exon and Coats deserve thanks from every family in America and the CDA deserves to be upheld. Do I detect some pride of CDA authorship from Taylor and Cleaver? Though the Hon. Jim Exon *does* deserve our thanks -- for retiring. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ CONFUSION IN THE RANKS: WHAT'S INDECENT? +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ The Justice Department and their anti-porn crusading allies can't even agree on who should be locked up under the CDA. On page 27 of his brief, Bruce Taylor cites the Amateur Action images and Jake Baker's explicit rape-and-murder story as examples of net.materials that are harmful to minors and that show "callous disregard for public decency." The EFF, a plaintiff in the ACLU coalition lawsuit, has Baker's story on its web site and has made it clear in an affidavit that they distribute such material online in the context of legal discussions. But the DoJ says in their post-trial brief filed on Monday: "It can be said that none of the plaintiffs' Web sites appear to engage in the type of speech which Congress has targeted in the CDA." So does Baker's story violate the CDA or not? Do you believe Taylor, a former Cleveland city prosecutor, a former senior trial attorney in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division of the DoJ -- a guy who crows that he played "a central role in the development and passage" of the CDA? Or the DoJ attorneys, who are charged with enforcing it?? Even the DoJ's own witnesses can't come up with a good working definition, as the ACLU illustrates in their post-hearing brief: The responses offered by government witnesses Schmidt and Olsen to the Court's questions illustrated just how freewheeling the subjective, discretionary judgments of police and prosecutors would be... Dr. Olsen opined that any of "the seven dirty words" made famous by the Pacifica decision, or their synonyms, could be subject to [the CDA] and should therefore be "tagged," as should nudes even if displayed on a museum web site. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ THEOCRATIC RIGHT CITES RIMM STUDY IN PRO-CDA JOURNAL ARTICLE +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice, Marty Rimm's bogus cyberporn study just won't die. The ACLJ is a legal advocacy group for the theocratic right -- Pat Robertson's response to the ACLU. Says Robertson: "Someone has got to stop the ACLU in court, and that's what we're going to do." They're trying -- the ACLJ submitted Yet Another amicus brief over a week ago supporting the Justice Department's defense of the CDA. In the latest issue of the Journal of Technology Law and Policy, the ACLJ defends the CDA and uncritically cites Rimm's discredited study. A clue to the quality, honesty, and integrity of the ACLJ's scholarship can be found in the way the group argues that Rimm's "research" and TIME magazine's cover story provide evidence of "smutty sex and scatologica" and justification for net-regulation: {17} On June 26, 1995, Senator Charles Grassley spoke in support of his legislation, the "Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995. [20] Speaking to the motivation for his bill, which would have amended the federal criminal code, Senator Grassley warned the Senate of "the availability and the nature of cyberporn." He advised the Senate on a Carnegie Mellon University study of visual images available on the Internet... Note the ACLJ's convenient fiction of the "Carnegie Mellon Study." The group never reveals that Rimm was an undergraduate passing himself off as a faculty member, that his study has no credibility outside theocratic right lobby groups, that the study itself is fraudulent, and that CMU is investigating Rimm for ethical violations. Somehow I'm not surprised that the authors of the ACLJ article, Jay Alan Sekulow and James Matthew Henderson, overlooked those details. Sekulow did not respond to email inquiries. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ BROAD COALITION FILES PRO-ACLU BRIEF +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Last month a broad coalition of professional groups, academics, ISPs, and individuals opposed to the CDA submitted a Brief of Amici Curiae in support of the ACLU lawsuit and motion for a preliminary injunction. That brief is now online. Represented by the Philadelphia law firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, the coalition includes the Authors Guild, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Feminists for Free Expression, Palmer Museum of Art, Philadelphia Magazine, Psinet, Inc., and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Some of my favorite excerpts: It is not only speakers on the Internet who feel the chill posed by the CDA. The millions who access speech on the Internet feel it as well. [...] Recipients of speech are equally entitled to protection under the First Amendment. That protection is afforded "to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both." Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 756 (1976). Abuses involving "indecent" and "patently offensive" behavior also are perpetrated today, and the Internet is the quickest and most effective tool for exposing them. One wonders whether the disappearances or indeed the Holocaust would have occurred so brazenly if the Internet had been reporting on them twenty or sixty years ago. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ WHAT'S NEXT? +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ The closing arguments for our case are scheduled for May 10, when the plaintiffs and the DoJ will present an expected four hours of closing arguments. The three-judge panel likely will issue a decision three or four weeks later, and appeals from either side go directly to the Supreme Court. What happens if we lose? The ACLU's Ann Beeson said on HotWired's Club Wired last week: Losing the facial challenge would not by any means end the matter -- that is, we could still argue that the CDA is unconstitutional "as applied" to particular defendants that DOJ decided to prosecute. Of course, in the meantime we'd still see a huge chill on protected speech... It is clear that we have the facts on our side -- the much harder question is the law itself, and unfortunately, it is a rare day that a federal court will overturn an Act of Congress. (But I remain cautiously optimistic.) If you're near Philly, stop by the Federal courthouse at 7th and Market Streets at 9:30 am on Friday. The courtroom will be packed. Stay tuned for more reports. -------------------------------------------------------- We're back in court on May 10 for closing arguments. Mentioned in this CDA update: Excerpts from DoJ and anti-porn groups' CDA briefs: Transcript of Olsen's "-L18" description and other testimony: More on ACLJ and Rimm study: Jake Baker story on EFF's web site: ACLJ's "Cyberporn Alert Fact Sheet," dated December 14, 1995: Harvey Silverglate on Allen Ginsberg and "indecency": RFC -- Encoding indecent speech with a new MIME content-type: ACLJ journal article ACLU post-hearing brief Pro-ACLU amicus brief Fight-Censorship list Rimm ethics critique Int'l Net-Censorship This and previous Fight-Censorship Dispatches are available at: To subscribe to the fight-censorship announcement mailing list for future Fight-Censorship Dispatches and related discussions, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" in the body of a message addressed to: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu Other relevant web sites: ------------------------------------------------------------ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+- This transmission was brought to you by.... THE CDA INFORMATION NETWORK The CDA Information Network is a moderated distribution list providing up-to-the-minute bulletins and background on efforts to overturn the Communications Decency Act. To subscribe, send email to with "subscribe cda-bulletin" in the message body. WARNING: This is not a test! WARNING: This is not a drill! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:40:03 -0700 From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: File 2--FLASH: FBI Reviewing CompuServe "Indecency" Brace yourselves: The Department of Justice has entered into an unholy cabal with the American Family Association. A few weeks back I told you how religious fundamentalists from the American Family Association wrote a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno citing CompuServe for "potential violations of the Communications Decency Act." Now, as it turns out, the AFA has found a friend in President Clinton's Department of Justice. As you'll read below, the AFA's letter was passed along to Terry R. Lord, Acting Chief of the DoJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. Lord, in turn, referred the matter to the FBI "for further review." Lord goes on to say, "With the passage of the CDA in 1996, we are turning our attention to the distribution of indecency on the Internet... While current litigation on the constitutionality of the CDA precludes certain actions until the matter is resolved, rest assured that we will pursue all other available options." The cyberporn witch hunt is indeed gathering steam, DESPITE the Temporary Restraining Order issued by U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter in February, blocking enforcement of the "indecency" provisions of CDA. Spread the word! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine ========================================= American Family Association Washington D.C. Office PRESS RELEASE Contact: Patrick A. Trueman (202) 544-0061 AFA Lauds Justice Department for Computer Porn Investigation CompuServe/H&R Block Complaint Referred to FBI For Immediate Release Thursday, May 2, 1996 The Justice Department has referred a complaint filed by the American Family Association against H&R Block and CompuServe, a division of H&R Block, to the FBI for review of possible violations of the Communications Decency Act. The AFA had alleged in an April 1, 1996 letter to Attorney General Janet Reno that H&R Block/CompuServe violated the CDA by offering pornography and other sexually oriented material on it on-line service to its users, including children. The FBI's involvement in this matter was confirmed in a recent letter from Terry R. Lord, Acting Chief of the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, in a letter to AFA's Patrick Trueman, who filed the complaint. (A copy of this letter is attached, below.) Trueman lauded Attorney General Reno for taking quick action to investigate H&R Block/CompuServe. "Every day that pornography is available on CompuServe more and more children will be harmed," said Trueman. ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 310 Washington Center 1001 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-5760, FAX: 202-514-1793 April 29, 1996 Dear Mr. Trueman: Your letters, dated April 1, and April 12, 1996, to Attorney General Reno concerning potential violations of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) by CompuServe, a division of H&R Block, Inc., has been forwarded to the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), and we are happy to respond. CEOS has referred your letter and accompanying materials to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for further review. As you well know, the Section has overseen and personally conducted prosecutions of individuals and companies for the distribution of child pornography and obscenity via computer, and we have been very successful in this effort. Unfortunately, even as prosecutions and investigations continue, individuals are constantly looking for loopholes or alternative methods of distributing illegal material or ways to harm children. Therefore, we are constantly, and with the aid of federal law enforcement agents, reviewing the current state of this activity to determine the best methods of identifying, investigating, and prosecuting violators with the goal of deterring similar conduct. Your information regarding CompuServe is helpful in this regard and we appreciate your bringing it to our attention. With the passage of the CDA in 1996, we are turning our attention to the distribution of indecency on the Internet. As you correctly point out, the distribution of these materials has a deleterious effect on minors. While current litigation on the constitutionality of the CDA precludes certain actions until the matter is resolved, rest assured that we will pursue all other available options. Please feel free to refer any additional information which you consider relevant to this issue directly to us. We will review and forward it to the appropriate federal investigative agency. We hope this information is useful and we applaud your efforts on behalf of children and families. Sincerely, Terry R. Lord Acting Chief ### +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+- This transmission was brought to you by.... THE CDA INFORMATION NETWORK The CDA Information Network is a moderated distribution list providing up-to-the-minute bulletins and background on efforts to overturn the Communications Decency Act. To subscribe, send email to with "subscribe cda-bulletin" in the message body. WARNING: This is not a test! WARNING: This is not a drill! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 14:01:02 +0100 (BST) From: Richard K. Moore Subject: File 3--(fwd) THE REGULATORS MEET THE INTERNET I'm forwarding this excellent article by Craig Johnson to several lists. I hope you find it useful, and please accept my apologies if you consider it off topic or if someone else already forwarded it. My only nitpick with Craig is one of perspective... he describes Internet as being free of regulation currently, and being under threat of coming under the attention of the FCC, for the first time. I see this differently. I'd say that the Internet has always been conciously regulated by the FCC -- and in a very enlightened way. The decision was made (in the late sixties, I believe) to allow Tymshare, GE, GTE/Telenet, and others, to offer value-added communication services, and to pay only standard rates for the leased or dial-up communications facilities they required to provide their service (or their customers required to access them). Internet was one of the natural consequences of the existence of this open, value-added marketplace. Thus Internet has been the intentional beneficiary of the regulatory regime we've lived under prior to the so-called Reform bill. From this perspective, it is the Reform-bill's _deregulation_ that threatens Internet, in that it destabilizes existing arrangements, and gives more leeway to the big operators to determine pricing structures. Thus while Craig's interpretation seems to be that regulation -- of any kind -- is the enemy, I claim that appropriate regulation has been our safe-haven birthplace, and that appropriate regulation should be the positive goal we pursue -- with a healthy appreciation of the benefits we've derived from the previous regime. But these are only philosophical nitpicks -- many thanks to Craig for summarizing the situation and alerting us to the opportunity to influence the FCC. Brilliant work, as usual. Regards, rkm (please Cc: rkmoore@iol.ie if replying) _________________| forwarded message follows |__________________ Date--Tue, 30 Apr 1996 From--"Craig A. Johnson" Subject--cr> Regulating the Internet It is highly recommended that those who are concerned about the coming communications regulatory regime read the FCC's recent NPRMs on "universal service" and "interconnection." --caj @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ANALYSIS-- FREE NET TELEPHONY + by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent Washington 4/29/96 net-regulation 1023/$10.23 THE REGULATORS MEET THE INTERNET by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent WASHINGTON -- Fears of Rambo-like regulation have spawned a sort of spring fever in the online world, with presumptive alarms and bulletins ricocheting all over the Net. Will the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) choke the Internet's wide-open pathways with regulatory underbrush? Will the petition filed by the Americas' Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA) on March 4 be granted, stopping Internet telephony or mandating access charges? (AR, No. 245 ) Or, even more catastrophically, will the Net somehow be swept under the FCC regime for telecommunications carriers? The answers, according to sources both inside and outside of the FCC, for the time being, are a qualified no. On April 19, the FCC gave its tentative response on the Net telephony problem, partially assuaging worries that new regulations will require access charges and tariffing for long distance voice over the Internet. Although the soft no from the FCC was reassuring, the wall protecting Internet voice as an "information service" has scores of cracks and may still crumble under the blows of a regulatory hammer. The issue was addressed in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on "interconnection," or more formally, "implementation of the local competition provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996." The NPRM is as interesting for what it does not say as for what it does. Generally, it poses a lot of questions, on which parties will file comments, and on the basis of which the FCC will finalize rules in August. The agency sees the proceeding and the consequent rules as establishing "the 'new regulatory paradigm' that is essential to achieving Congress' policy goals." The visible fractures in the old regulatory regime stood out prominently in the interconnection notice. Two aspects of the proceeding, in particular, directly relate to Internet access and pricing regimes. First, the FCC made it clear that current access charges and interconnection regulations are "enforceable until they are superseded." The FCC said, in regulatory-ese, that it wanted comments on "any aspect of this Notice that may affect existing 'equal access and nondiscriminatory interconnection restrictions and obligations (including receipt of compensation).'" Translated, this means that Net telephone providers and users can breathe a little more easily for the time being. But, the call for comments on the existing "restrictions and guidelines" should not be taken for granted. It is precisely these regulations -- which exempt "enhanced service" providers, like Internet and online service providers from paying access charges for their usage of the facilities and network components of local exchange carriers (LECs) -- which are on the table in this proceeding and related ones. A second aspect of the interconnection proceeding relates directly to definitions. The Commission asks for comment "on which carriers are included under" the definition of "telecommunications carriers" offered in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Critically, the agency asks: "How does the provision of an information service [as conventionally defined in the law and prior regulations], in addition to an unrelated telecommunications service, affect the status of a carrier as a 'telecommunications carrier?'" This is a call for commenters to address the issue of whether "information service providers," such as ISPs, who also provide "telecommunications services," should be treated as "telecommunications carriers" and therefore be subject to all, some, or none of the requirements of common carriers, including the payment of access charges and the filing of tariffs. In practical terms the FCC is asking the online community to persuade them that ISPs who permit Internet audio streaming applications, such as long distance voice, should not be considered under the same rules applying to "telecommunications providers." The FCC emphasizes that the interconnection rulemaking "is one of a number of interrelated proceedings," and explains that the answer to how, in which ways, and to what extent the Internet will be regulated will be a product of "the interrelationship between this proceeding, our recently initiated proceeding to implement the comprehensive universal service provisions of the 1996 Act and our upcoming proceeding to reform our Part 69 access charge rules." This should be seen as a warning flag that issues concerning access charges for the Internet have yet to be even taken up by the Commission, and will be one of the outcomes of several complex proceedings, with public comments invited from all consumer and business interests. The FCC NPRM and order establishing the joint federal-state universal service board, issued on March 8, for example, emphasizes the provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which stipulates that "[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the country." The FCC says that "commenters may wish to discuss Internet access availability, data transmission capability, ... enhanced services, and broadband services." In both this and the interconnection notices, the agency emphasizes its statutory authority to regulate the Internet. The news so far is relatively positive. The FCC claims it doesn't want to prematurely slap regulations on the Net which may stunt its remarkable growth and vitality. But the handwriting is on the wall -- in several different hands and scrawled over cracks. Arguments for Internet volume-based or per-packet pricing will be surely surface in comments in the FCC proceedings. The old argument for the "modem tax," which says that data bits should be priced differently than voice bits, will likely rear its scarred head. Internet access is on the charts and in the dockets at the Commission. It should have the same pride of place for all Internet activists and user group communities. The FCC is asking the Internet and computer user and business communities to wake up to an emergent regulatory regime in which the old comfortable dualities such as "information services" and "telecommunications services" -- which in the past have insulated the Internet from regulation -- may not be easily parsed. In short, the agency is begging for help in drafting the cyber-roadmaps for the future. (Note: Both the universal service NPRM and order and the interconnection NPRM can be accessed via the FCC's Web page -- http://www.fcc.gov. Many of the comments for the universal service proceedings are also now available at the site.) -30- (Craig Johnson writes on cyber rights issues for WIRED.) The American Reporter "The Internet Daily Newspaper" Copyright 1995 Joe Shea, The American Reporter All Rights Reserved The American Reporter is published daily at 1812 Ivar Ave., No. 5, Hollywood, CA 90028 Tel. (213)467-0616, by members of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Internet discussion list. It has no affiliation with the SPJ. Articles may be submitted by email to joeshea@netcom.com. Subscriptions: Reader: $10.00 per month ($100 per year) and $.01 per word to republish stories, or Professional: $125.00 per week for the re-use of all American Reporter stories. We are reporter-owned. URL: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html Archives: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/archives/ For more info on AR: http://oz.net/~susanh/arbook.html @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Visit The Cyber-Rights Library, accessible via FTP or WWW at: ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic, pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 13:36:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Avi Bass Subject: File 4--censorship & FCC (fwd) FCC Chief Backs "No Rules" On Internet Expression LOS ANGELES - Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt appeared to advocate freedom of speech over the Internet when he addressed a Town Hall Los Angeles audience. Asked how rulemakers might guarantee freedom of expression over the Internet, he replied, "the best guarantee is to have no rules on that topic." Hundt, who was speaking broadly on U.S. communications reform and educational technology and television, did not elaborate on the Internet issue. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 19:14:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 5--ACLU Update of State Net.Censorship Legislation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1/96 Update of State Bills to Regulate Online Speech "If you think Congress is full of Luddites, just wait until you read what your state legislators have been up to . . . " BILLS THAT BECAME LAW IN 1995: Connecticut: House Bill 6883 Creates criminal liability for sending an online message "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person." 6/95 Signed into law. Georgia: House Bill 76 Prohibits online transmission of fighting words, obscene or vulgar speech to minors, and information related to terrorist acts and certain dangerous weapons. 3/95 Signed into law. Illinois: Senate Bill 838 (began as SB 747) Prohibits sexual solicitation of a minor by computer. 7/95 Signed into law. Kansas: House Bill 2223 Expands child pornography statute to include computer generated images. 5/95 Signed into law. Maryland: Senate Bill 21 Expands law that prohibits distribution of obscene material to minors to include online transmission. 4/95 Signed into law. Montana: House Bill 0161 Expands child pornography statute to prohibit transmission by computer and possession of computer-generated child pornographic images. 3/95 Signed into law. New Jersey: Assembly Bill 38 Expands child pornography statute to outlaw "computer programs" that depict child pornography. Oklahoma: House Bill 1048 Prohibits transmission of obscenity, defined as harmful to minors, through online networks. 4/95 Signed into law. Virginia: Senate Bill 1067 Expands harmful to minors statute to criminalize electronic transmissions of child pornography. 5/95 Signed into law. BILLS CONSIDERED OR STILL PENDING: Alabama: House Bill 100 Prohibits electronic transmission of obscene materials to minors. California: Assembly Bill 295 Expands obscenity and child pornography statutes to prohibit transmission of images by computer. Florida: Senate Bill 238 Pornography Victims' Compensation Act. Creates private cause of action for victims of crimes related to pornography, including Florida's computer pornography statute. Maryland: Senate Bill 22 Prohibits transmission of child pornography by computer and sexual solicitation of a minor by computer. Massachusetts: House Bill 1804 Adds "inducement by computer" to the law prohibiting the luring of a minor for purposes of pornography. New York: Senate Bill 210C Prohibits the online dissemination of indecent materials to minors. 1/96 Both houses approved the bill, but they have not yet sent it to the governor's desk. Oregon: House Bill 2310 Creates crime of electronically furnishing obscene material to minors. 1/95 House Committe on Judiciary. Reported unfavorably. Pennsylvania: House Bill 1727 Makes it a crime to use a computer network to transmit information describing the production of explosives. Pennyslvania: House Bill 841 Prohibits pornographic communications by computer to minors. Washington: Senate Bill 5466 Prohibits electronic transmission of material deemed "harmful to minors." 5/95 Governor vetoed the bill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- For information on how to fight online censorship legislation in your state, contact Ann Beeson, ACLU, beeson@aclu.org, (212) 944-9800 x788. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/CuD ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #8.34 ************************************