[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 194 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18248-S18249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          CONFEREES MOVING IN WRONG DIRECTION ON THE INTERNET

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to share with my 
colleagues my great concern about the actions of the House 
telecommunications conferees.
  Despite what appeared to be some movement away from the regulation of 
constitutionally protected speech, I understand that the conferees 
adopted an amendment yesterday which would subject adult Internet users 
to criminal penalties for so-called indecent speech. Rather than 
focusing on materials that are truly harmful to minors, the language 
agreed to yesterday would prohibit great works of literature from being 
made available on line. It would make subject to criminal penalties 
frank discussions between adults about the prevention of AIDS. This 
amendment will extinguish many on-line support groups dealing with 
issues such as child abuse and sexual assault. It will likely place 
severe limitations on the materials discussed on many online scientific 
forums. In the ultimate irony, the amendment does virtually nothing to 
address the problem of the already illegal victimization of children 
over computer networks. Rather than focus on real issues and real 
concerns, this amendment focuses on indecency. It places blame on a 
technology rather than on the perpetrators of crimes against children.
  Mr. President, despite the fact that the materials and communications 
on the Internet that are of the greatest concern to many parents, such 
as obscenity, child solicitation, and child pornography, are already 
subject to criminal penalties, and despite the fact that technologies 
already exist to allow parents to control what their children have 
access to on the Internet including indecent materials, the House 
conferees chose to take this unwise step towards censorship.
  Mr. President, there is still time to reverse this action and for the 
conferees to direct their efforts towards providing parents with even 
greater ability to protect their children using tools offered in the 
market place. I urge my colleagues to recognize just what this 
amendment will mean if it remains in the telecommunications bill. I 
urge them to recognize that indecency is not the same as obscenity or 
pornography. The distribution of obscene materials on the Internet is 
already illegal and those crimes are already being aggressively 
prosecuted.
  Indecent speech, on the other hand, is far different than obscenity 
and is protected by the constitution. Indecency includes four letter 
words that many adults use routinely in their everyday speech. Indecent 
words include those that are among the first words many children speak, 
not because they learned them from the Internet, but because they heard 
them in the school yard, in child care settings, and in some cases, in 
their own homes. While it is unfortunate that children are exposed to 
such speech at young ages, it is not a reason to censor 
constitutionally protected speech between adults on the Internet. 
Creating criminal penalties for indecency as stringent as those imposed 
on traffickers of obscenity is extreme, unwarranted, and unnecessary.
  As I said earlier this week in this Chamber, this type of law will 
have a tremendous chilling effect on speech over the Internet. What two 
adults can say over the phone to one another, they will not be able to 
say over the Internet for fear a minor might read their words. The fact 
that America Online censored the word ``breast'' on their service, 
albeit temporarily, should forewarn members of things to come. 
Screening by online service providers will be necessary if they wish to 


[[Page S 18249]]
protect themselves from criminal liability. It is quite conceivable 
that discussions involving scientific terms for other bodily parts will 
no longer be allowed for fear they might offend a user and land the 
service in court.
  Guaranteeing the Internet is free of speech restrictions, other than 
the statutory restrictions on obscenity and pornography which already 
exist, should be of concern to all Americans who want to be able to 
freely discuss issues of importance to them regardless of whether 
others might view those statements as offensive or distasteful.
  Shifting political views about what types of speech are unsuitable 
should not be allowed to determine what is or is not an appropriate use 
of electronic communications. While the current target of our political 
climate is indecent speech--the so-called seven dirty words--a 
weakening of First Amendment protections could lead to the censorship 
of other crucial types of speech, including religious expression and 
political dissent.
  I believe the censorship of the Internet is a perilous road for the 
Congress to walk down. It sets a dangerous precedent for First 
Amendment protections and it is unclear where that road will end.
  I urge the conferees to reject restrictions on constitutionally 
protected speech when the full conference committee votes on this 
legislation.

                          ____________________