[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1646-S1647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have just had one of the most remarkable 
and rewarding meetings of my career with a 10-year-old girl and her 
mother from the Washington, DC, area. I will only use her first name. 
She and her mother called and asked to see me today.
  Lea is a sweet girl, 10 years of age, who was preparing for a 
computer project to earn a Girl Scout merit badge this week. In 
preparation for that project, Lea and her mother signed on to the 
Prodigy computer service and logged on to a so-called chat room for 
children, where kids from around the country can play checkers and do 
other such things that kids do with each other. It was Lea's very first 
time on the Internet.
  Within minutes--I emphasize, Mr. President--within minutes, someone 
was attempting to engage young Lea, a 10-year-old, in conversations of 
a sexual nature. Needless to say, she was shocked and screamed. Lea and 
her mother were upset and very angry.
  If I can be allowed a personal comment, this really brought this 
problem that I and others have been trying to do something about home, 
because my wife and I have been blessed with two 10-year-old 
granddaughters of our own. When Lea came in to see me, it was life as 
it exists and life as I know it.
  At the time of this most unfortunate event, Prodigy did not provide 
the supposedly child-safe space with an alert button, which notifies 
the system operator that children's checkers room was being misused. A 
similar service was available for adults, in the adult chat room, but 
not for children, as strange as that might seem.
  Together, the mother and the daughter contacted Prodigy and the news 
media. Within hours, Prodigy agreed to make the alert button available 
and the alarm available to those on these children's areas.
  I heard this story on the news this morning, on the radio, and met 
with the mother and the daughter at their request this afternoon. I 
bring this story to the attention of the U.S. Senate because, since the 
passage of the Communications Decency Act as part of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, there has been a great deal of 
attention placed on this new law. With that attention, some have also 
continued their campaign of misinformation about the new law in the 
press and now in the courts.
  Mr. President, Lea's story demonstrates and illustrates better than 
anything else that I know of that there are, indeed, real dangers on 
the Internet, especially for children and especially with the 
interactive computer services that are available. But more important, 
the very quick response from Prodigy to this problem illustrates that 
the new law is starting to work.

  Opponents of the new law use harsh language like ``censorship'' to 
describe the Communications Decency Act that was jointly sponsored by 
myself and Senator Coats from Indiana and overwhelmingly passed in the 
U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives and made part of the 
telecommunications bill. Those who cry censorship hide behind the first 
amendment to make defense of those who would give pornography to 
children and engage children in sexual conversations. What a travesty.
  I hope more adults, whether they have children or grandchildren or 
not, will come to realize and recognize and see that the law is 
operational.
  In respect to the first amendment, Mr. President, it is almost a 
sacred text with this Senator.
  That is why I worked so closely--even with the new law's opponents--
to assure that our legislation was constitutional. The final 
legislation was the produce of nearly 3 years of investigation, 
research, negotiation, and compromise.
  The Communications Decency Act makes it a crime to send indecent 
communications to children by means of a computer service or 
telecommunications device, to make indecent communications available to 
children on an open electronic bulletin board, to use a computer to 
make the equivalent of an obscene phone call to another computer user, 
and to use a computer or facility of interstate commerce to lure a 
child into illegal sexual activities.
  The law makes computer services responsible for what is on their 
system. To comply with the new law, a computer service must take 
reasonable, effective and appropriate measures to restrict child access 
to indecent communications.
  While it is fair to wonder why the alert button service has not been 
made available earlier, Prodigy is to be recognized for their quick 
response when this problem was brought to their attention. This is the 
type of response, that the Communications Decency Act sought to 
encourage and help prevent in the first place.
  What the ACLU and their fellow travelers and the computer service 
companies have difficulty dealing with is that it is wrong--
despearately wrong--for an adult to electronically molest or corrupt a 
child.
  And thinking people en masse want to do something about it.
  The Communications Decency Act is not a cure-all. But, at a minimum, 
children and families deserve to have a law on their side 
notwithstanding the

[[Page S1647]]

protests from the profiteers of child pornography that are rampant on 
the Internet today.
  The heart and soul of the new law is its protections for children. It 
is not censorship. It is not prudishness. The new law does not prohibit 
consenting adults from engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
  Published reports indicate that Penthouse and Hustler have removed 
indecent material from their publicly available bulletinboards in 
response to the new law and their material are now only available only 
to adults through credit card access.
  That is another step in the right direction.
  I count this action as a success for the new law. In these two cases, 
free samples of pornography are no longer given to children. We are 
making progress.
  If the Internet and other computer services are to be a place of 
commerce, community, and communication, then it must be a place which 
is friendly to families. Indeed, the technology necessary to comply 
with the Communications Decency Act is the same technology which can 
tell a computer service whether a user is old enough to enter into a 
binding contract or not.
  Before the passage of the Communications Decency Act, the Internet 
had been described as the Wild West. At last, there is now some degree 
of law and order. In effect, the new law is a zoning measure. Adults 
are free to engage in otherwise legal indecent activities and 
communications, just not with, or in the knowing presence, of children.
  Mr. President, later this month, a three-judge panel will hear 
arguments on the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act. 
An initial review by a Federal judge in Philadelphia protected the 
heart and soul of the new law from a temporary restraining order as had 
been requested by the ACLU. Only a small portion of the act was 
enjoined pending further court review. Ultimately, as we all know, Mr. 
President, this matter will come before a majority of the Supreme 
Court. And I hope that they will find--and believe that they will--the 
Communications Decency Act fully constitutional.
  Although the U.S. Department of Justice has agreed not to file cases 
under the new law until the three-judge panel has an opportunity to 
review the statute, the action by Prodigy, and others indicates that 
the Communications Decency Act can and is working.
  I thank all of my colleagues in the Senate and all of my colleagues 
in the House who have been up front in the support of this measure.
  I now thank President Clinton and his Justice Department for entering 
into the fray on the side of the kids to begin to make further advances 
in correcting this terrible wrong.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me commend my colleague from Nebraska for his 
diligence in bringing to our attention a very, very important matter 
that affects the youth of our Nation. I commend him.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague from Alaska, very much.

                          ____________________