Internet resolution sparks complaints, debate
On Feb. 7, President William J. Clinton signed into law a major telecommunications bill that will change the operations of many common forms of communication, including telephone, cable television and the Internet. The House had approved the bill by a vote of 414-16, and the Senate passed it 91-5.
Much of the nearly 100-page bill involves deregulation of long-distance telephone services and cable companies, which allows overlap in the industries and allows smaller services to compete with the large services that currently dominate the industry. It deregulates small cable companies immediately and other companies by March 31, 1999, or sooner if a cable company competes with a telephone company for cable customers. It also increases the number of stations a TV company can own.
The bill also requires new televisions to be built with a computer chip that would allow individuals to block certain shows from entering their homes.
The part of the bill that is generating the most discussion and controversy is known as the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which makes it unlawful to transmit indecent material to those under the age of 18. Because the Internet is public and anyone can access any page, this would allow the prosecution of anyone who posts indecent material on any public web page. What constitutes "indecent material" is not defined in the bill.
This is the first major step the government has taken to regulate the Internet, which has until now been basically unrestricted. Opponents of the CDA believe that it may be too restricting.
"Besides overhauling the telecommunications industry, the act includes provisions intended to change the Internet from arguably the most unrestricted communications medium in existence to the most restricted," said Prentiss Riddle, administrator of RiceInfo.
Sid Richardson College freshman Jonah Mainwaring agreed. "It is a stupid idea attached onto a great bill. As a whole the Telecommunications Act is about opening options [and] allowing the free exchange of ideas. The CDA portion of the act is simply nonsense," he said.
Users of the Internet expressed displeasure at the prospect of their forum being regulated.
"I've always thought that one of the greatest things about the Net is that it was free," said Karsten Braatenspace, a physics and astronomy graduate student.
The use of the word "indecent" rather than "obscene" to define what is allowed has also raised concerns, as some things not considered obscene may be considered indecent. This means that the new bill may prohibit items that are not illegal in other forums.
" `Indecency' is a vague category, but prior to this bill it referred largely to material which is explicitly not prohibited as obscene, including material of recognized artistic or scientific value. Thus the act criminalizes a broad range of expression which is perfectly legal in print and which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said cannot be criminalized under the First Amendment," Riddle said.
One issue which may be affected by the CDA portion of the Telecommunications Act is the abortion debate. Advocates on both sides of the debate fear that the act may render abortion discussion on the Internet illegal.
Lovett College senior Analisa Norris of Rice for Life says that both she and the organization are opposed to the bill.
"The only way the issue will be resolved is by intelligent discussion. And there's plenty of it going on right now," she said. She also felt that the bill violates the First Amendment.
In protest, many Internet users and administrators of World Wide Web pages have turned their pages black with white lettering, indicating that they are opposed to the bill.
"I was awfully tempted to turn RiceInfo's pages black," Riddle said. But he decided that he shouldn't use RiceInfo to express his own opinions and left Rice's pages as they were. CNN is also avoiding turning its pages black because they feel it violates their journalistic objectivism.
As dissatisfied with the bill as they are, opponents of the bill do not believe it will stand up in court.
"The CDA was written and passed in the full expectation that it would be found unconstitutional by the courts," Mainwaring said.
Protests and discussion about the act continue as new Internet newsgroups such as alt.fuck.the.communications.decency.act appear.
"It may be time for some constructive civil disobedience," Braaten says. "If we don't exercise and fight for our freedoms, we will lose them."
Rice students discuss the bill on the usenet group rice.politics , and information can be found at http://www.cnn.com/US/9602/telecom_bill/ and at http://mirrors.yahoo.com/eff/speech.html .
This item appeared in the News section of the February 16, 1996 issue.
Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights
Reserved.
This document may be distributed
electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety
and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted
without the express written permission of:
The Rice
Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX, 77005, USA.
The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@rice.edu