[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17962-S17963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.
  Thereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:14 p.m.; 
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding 
Officer (Mr. Kempthorne).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is recognized for up to 6 minutes.


 TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE PROPOSALS FOR REGULATING SPEECH ON THE 
                                INTERNET

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in some ways parody is becoming reality. I 
refer to the debate that is going on in the telecommunications 
conference over how we are to impose Government regulation over 
constitutionally protected speech on the Internet.
  Last year, the magazine PC Computing published an April Fool's 
parody. Let me tell you a little bit about it. It said that I 
introduced a bill, No. 040194--for April 1, 1994--to ban drinking on 
the information superhighway. According to the article, this bill that 
I supposedly introduced would prohibit anybody from using a public 
computer network while intoxicated. They also said there was a rider on 
this bill to make it ``a felony to discuss sexual matters on any public 
access network, including the Internet, America Online, and 
CompuServe.'' Senators were chided for thinking there is a physical 
highway and that a permit was required to ``drive'' a modem on the 
information highway. The article noted that complaints about the 
imaginary bill are ``getting nowhere'' because ``who wants to come out 
and support drunkenness and computer sex?''
  The parody concludes on a gloomy note, with the following words:

       There is nothing to stop this bill from becoming law. You 
     can register your protests with your Congressperson or Ms. 
     Lirpa Sloof in the Senate Legislative Analyst's Office. Her 
     name spelled backwards says it all.

  I enjoy using a computer, as a lot of us do, but sometimes some who 
use them do not have a tremendous sense of humor, just as some Members 
of Congress do not. They did not notice that the name spelled backward 
is ``April fools.'' The bill number was April 1, 1994. It should have 
told somebody something. But some actually thought this was real, and I 
started getting calls over the phone and messages over the Internet to 
my office saying, ``What are you doing about this drunk driving on the 
information superhighway bill?'' But that was then, and that was a 
joke. Today, unfortunately for all Internet users, the debate taking 
place in the telecommunications conference about imposing far-reaching 
new crimes for indecent speech over the Internet is not a parody but 
very real.
  The conferees have been meeting and going over this enormous task 
determining how parts of telecommunications would work, how you 
regulate cable operators, wireless systems, and how you protect 
universal service. You would think they would not have time to look at 
something like cyberporn, but that seems to be one major consideration 
they have. Even though there are no members of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee at that conference, they are trying to figure out how to make 
new Federal crimes as part of the telecommunications bill.
  The Senate, of course, passed the Exon-Coats Communications Decency 
Act, which would punish with a 2-year jail term any Internet user who 
posted a message with indecent language or used a four-letter word in a 
message to 

[[Page S 17963]]
a minor. As originally written, it would make it illegal to receive 
indecent material whether or not the user knew the material was 
indecent at the time he downloaded it. Service providers would also 
risk criminal liability and fines for their subscribers' use of 
indecent language.
  Now, we have to ask ourselves if this makes such sense. We saw what 
happened in Vermont last week. A Vermonter from Underhill, VT, found 
that her personal profile on America Online had been deleted. She asked 
why it was deleted and was told it was because vulgar words were used 
on it. So she checked to see what was the vulgar word. The word 
``breast'' was used. Why? Because she was a breast cancer survivor and 
was using America Online to correspond with other breast cancer 
survivors. So, this word came up and because of hypersensitivity over 
Congress being worried about words used on the Internet, she was yanked 
off. This is ridiculous in this day and age.

  One wonders if, in the future, recipes for chicken cacciatore sent 
online will only call for dark meat to avoid using the ``B-'' word.
  We should understand there are plenty of laws on the books that apply 
to the Internet by banning obscenity, child pornography and threats 
from being a distributed. What we are talking about is regulating 
constitutionally protected speech. One proposal under consideration by 
the conference would impose penalties on anybody who transmits 
protected speech if it is considered indecent.
  In addition to effectively banning indecent speech, the conference is 
considering proposals to impose criminal liability on both the speakers 
of indecent content as well as online service providers. The result 
would be to draft the service providers into the role of Net police. 
Service providers like America Online and Prodigy, telephone companies 
providing modem connections, and libraries and schools hooking our 
Nation's children up to this brilliant new medium would face the risk 
of being fined and even jailed.
  To avoid liability, service providers, libraries, and schools would 
bear the onus of asserting complicated defenses to prosecution. The 
implications of being hauled into court in the first place--especially 
for schools and libraries--should not go unnoticed. Many providers will 
seek to avoid the risk of litigation altogether by censoring all online 
speech to that appropriate for kindergarten children, or refusing to 
serve children at all.
  These extreme proposals on the table in the telecommunications 
conference would leave online communications in a severely 
disadvantaged position in our society. While Newsweek magazine's recent 
cover story trumpeted the vision of the computer mogul Bill Gates, the 
U.S. Congress is simultaneously poised to shut down this new medium and 
vastly change the landscape of the information age. We must stop being 
paternalistic Luddites and embrace our new communications potential.
  Because indecency means very different things to different people, an 
unimaginable amount of valuable political, artistic, scientific and 
other speech will disappear in this new medium. What about, for 
example, the university health service that posts information online 
about birth control and protections against the spread of AIDS? With 
many students in college under 18, this information would likely 
disappear under threat of prosecution.
  I understand that Representative White will make an alternative 
proposal to the telecommunications conference tomorrow. His proposal 
avoids regulating constitutionally protected speech, and limits any 
regulation to materials harmful to minors. This is a step in the right 
direction, but still leaves Internet users guessing at what may be 
considered harmful to minors in different areas of this diverse 
country.
  The Internet and other computer networks hold enormous promise for 
enhancing our lives in ways that would have been unthinkable only a 
brief decade ago. But the growth of this network will no doubt be 
chilled if users fear that they risk criminal liability by using 
particular words that might, in some jurisdictions, be considered 
indecent. Or, if service providers simply refuse to provide Internet 
access to children under 18 years of age, due to the risk of criminal 
liability.
  I have written, along with several other Members, to the chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee urging the conferees to 
appreciate the implications that these proposals will have for the 
Internet. They should not rush consideration of these weighty issues. 
This is a great new communications medium and the conference should 
deliberate carefully before it gives its blessing to new crimes for 
saying things that some people, some where in this country, may deem to 
be indecent for children.
  We should all be concerned lest the parody becomes reality.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________