[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17963-S17964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CENSORING THE INTERNET

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to follow the 
Senator from Vermont who spent a few minutes to address a matter which 
was reported by the news media throughout the country this weekend in 
which the Senator from Vermont referred to and has a great relevance to 
legislation which the Senate passed this summer and will consider soon 
again.
  The telecommunications conferees may within the next 24 hours decide 
whether this Congress is going to take the unwise step of censoring the 
Internet.
  I am speaking of the Communications Decency Act which passed the 
Senate overwhelmingly as an amendment to the telecommunications 
deregulation bill in June. The Communications Decency Act contained 
criminal penalties for the transmission of constitutionally protected 
speech over computer networks. The penalty for transmitting indecent 
speech which might be accessed by a minor was up to 2 years in prison 
and fines of up to $100,000. Indecency, unlike obscenity, is 
constitutionally protected. Indecent language has thus far, only been 
defined by the FCC in regard to the time, place, and manner in which it 
may be transmitted. The definition includes the so-called seven-dirty 
words including what some might call mild profanity.
  When this legislation was offered as an amendment in the Senate, I 
objected for a number of reasons. My fundamental concern was, and 
continues to be, that prohibitions on speech labeled indecent are 
unconstitutional. While courts have upheld restrictions on indecency to 
minors on other some forms of media, the Communications Decency Act 
would restrict communications between adults as well. The legislation, 
as passed by the Senate, could subject consenting adults communicating 
over a public USENET group to criminal penalties if their conversation 
took place in a forum that was accessed by a minor. I believe that not 
only is that unacceptable, it is also unconstitutional. Adults should 
not have to self-censor their words over public information forums. A 
profane exchange between two adults on a street corner which is 
overheard by a child would not subject those adults to criminal 
sanctions. However, if that exchange occurred on a public forum over 
the Internet and a child accessed that forum, those same adults could 
land in jail.
  During the floor debate, I raised serious concerns that the 
Communications Decency Act would have a chilling effect on computer 
networks, forcing adults to self-censor their words to what is 
appropriate for the youngest of children in the most conservative 
communities in the country. I, along with my colleague from Vermont, 
Senator Leahy, suggested that this type of censorship would also have a 
chilling effect on the many socially valuable forums that exist via the 
Internet. There exist currently many on-line support groups for child 
abuse victims, rape victims, victims of disease, for those coping with 
AIDS, and other social issues. In addition, there exist chat groups, 
bulletin boards and USENET groups to discuss presumably adult topics 
which might contain the seven dirty words or other adult language. I 
suggested that the Communications Decency Act would suppress those 
types of forums, limit the content of the discussions within those 
forums, and ultimately result in their termination. 

[[Page S 17964]]

  The proponents of the Communications Decency Act assured the Senate 
that such was not the intent of the amendment. In fact, Mr. President, 
some suggested that these types of concerns were raised in an effort to 
spin the issue. They suggested these fears were not real and were not 
likely to be realized.
  I suggest to Members of this body that news reports over the weekend 
confirm just how quickly those fears could be realized if the 
Communications Decency Act became law. One of the companies providing 
on-line services to consumers, America Online, in an effort to screen 
out filthy, vulgar and obscene language, apparently included the word 
``breast'' in the list of prohibited words on AOL's services.
  Mr. President, the word ``breast'' has been used many times on the 
Senate floor with respect to health care legislation, is not even among 
the so-called seven dirty words. It is not indecent. It is not profane. 
Yet it was screened out by a service which has been under tremendous 
fire for not policing its networks carefully enough.
  Of course, the deletion of the word breast was met with an enormous 
outcry by women who participate in a breast cancer survivors online 
support group. According to press reports the deletion of the word 
breast from allowable AOL language became known when an AOL subscriber 
created her member profile identifying herself as a breast cancer 
survivor. She received a message from AOL indicating she could not use 
``vulgar words.'' AOL soon was barraged by complaints by other users of 
the breast cancer survivors chat room. The word ``breast'' was 
subsequently allowed back on the service. However, an AOL spokesperson 
caveated that with ``as long as it is used in an appropriate manner.''
  I mention this incident not to fault America Online. They are 
responding to a series of calls by interest groups, Members of 
Congress, and others to police speech over their services and to keep 
AOL family friendly. AOL like other on-line service providers is 
anticipating additional Government restrictions on speech over the 
Internet. When under the threat of Government imposed speech 
restrictions and potential criminal sanctions, it is quite reasonable 
to overreact, to be overly cautious, and to restrict more than that 
which is necessary.
  Mr. President, this is exactly what I fear will happen if the 
Communications Decency Act becomes public law. Words will be banned. 
Speech will be restricted. This, Mr. President, is the chilling effect 
that Senator Leahy and I referred to on the Senate floor just 5 months 
ago. Perfectly reasonable and acceptable language will be restricted 
and prohibited.
  Mr. President, while it may seem ridiculous that the word ``breast'' 
was, at least for a short period of time, considered vulgar, it would 
not be unreasonable for a company like AOL to restrict such words if 
the Communications Decency Act becomes law. Indecency is a largely 
undefined term. We know how the FCC has defined indecency for 
broadcast, but it is unclear what would be indecent on computer 
networks. If such restrictions are imposed, people will err on the side 
of caution in their speech. Under the Communications Decency Act, to 
protect themselves from criminal liability, on-line services will 
likely find themselves prohibiting the word ``breast'' as well as many 
other words. Adults with direct Internet access will also be forced to 
self-censor their speech, guessing what might be indecent, and guessing 
who might access their communications.

  In Saturday's Chicago Tribune, Barbara LeStage, a member of the 
American Cancer Society, commented on the AOL prohibition on the use of 
the word ``breast''. Her comments, I think are fairly insightful. She 
stated

       I don't have any problem with AOL trying to keep dirty 
     words off their service. But I don't consider breast to be a 
     dirty word. If you have people who see it as dirty, for 
     whatever reason, then this [prohibition on use] is going to 
     continue to happen.

  Mr. President, Ms. LeStage is exactly right. If indecency is going to 
be outlawed and the term therefore defined by community standards and 
the courts, this will continue to happen. People differ in their 
beliefs about what is appropriate for children, about what is dirty, 
vulgar or indecent. To some individuals even extreme profanity may not 
be indecent, to others, perhaps the word ``breast'' is indecent. When 
AOL determined that ``breast'' would be allowed under appropriate 
circumstances, we must wonder under what circumstance would it be 
inappropriate and who decides.
  This is the danger of government censorship of the Internet. Who 
defines what can be said without criminal sanctions? Who defines what 
is indecent? Who defines when certain terms are used appropriately and 
when they are not?
  Mr. President, Congress has entered a very dangerous area in its 
attempt to restrict constitutionally protected speech on the Internet. 
In the next 24 hours, the Telecommunications conferees will decide 
which road to take--that of Government excess or that of caution.
  I urge the conferees to err on the side of caution and to protect 
first amendment rights of Internet users. Such a goal is not 
inconsistent with our overriding objective of protecting children. 
Technology exists now to allow parents to screen out materials they 
find objectionable for their children. Obscenity, child pornography, 
and solicitation of minors via the Internet is already a violation of 
criminal law and is being aggressively prosecuted by the Department of 
Justice.
  I urge my colleagues not to take the step toward censorship. I 
believe we will immediately regret it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
South Carolina is to be recognized to speak.
  Mr. SIMON. I have the consent of my colleague from South Carolina to 
speak for 2 minutes, if there is no objection, and I ask unanimous 
consent to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I have to be at a 
negotiating session at 3 o'clock. I introduced this bill 4 years ago, 
so I ask if maybe I could have some time before 3 o'clock, 10 minutes 
or something?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest that we grant the unanimous-
consent request of the Senator from Illinois, during which time--not to 
be disrespectful to his announcement--we sort out the time on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair must clarify that under the previous 
order, the Senator from Utah is to be recognized, then the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  Mr. SIMON. I ask my colleague from Utah if he would permit me to 
speak for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________