[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12042-S12043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     INTERNET CENSORSHIP AND CHINA

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, almost 1 year to the day after 
the Senate approved the Communications Decency Act [CDA], the Federal 
District Court in Philadelphia concluded that congressional approval of 
the CDA was ``unquestionably a decision that placed the CDA in serious 
conflict with our most cherished protection--the right to choose the 
material to which we would have access.''
  Mr. President, this fall the Supreme Court will consider an appeal of 
that Federal District Court decision, issued in June 1996, which found 
the CDA to be unconstitutionally vague and a violation of free speech. 
The action by the Supreme Court will, without doubt, be one which 
determines whether the Congress will continue to encroach upon one of 
our most fundamental rights.
  The Communications Decency Act was badly flawed in a number of ways--
and I have spoken of those flaws often and in great detail on the floor 
of this Senate--but its most serious flaw was that it criminalized 
speech transmitted via the Internet which the Supreme Court has ruled 
is protected by the first amendment--so-called indecent speech. While 
its proponents claimed to be most concerned about sexually explicit and 
obscene materials on the Net--the transmission of which is already a 
violation of criminal law--the CDA swept more broadly, effectively 
prohibiting speech which is perfectly legal if it appears in a 
newspaper, magazine, or book.
  Mr. President, when I and other Senators pointed out the great danger 
of the act's overly broad prohibitions of on-line speech, we were told 
that we were overreacting. We were told that this minor erosion on 
speech rights will not lead to greater restrictions on the rights of 
Americans.
  But, Mr. President, what danger could be greater than a Congress 
willing to subjugate speech rights to the political needs of the day? 
While indecency may have been the target of Congressional disapproval 
in 1995, when the Communications Decency Act was first considered, the 
target of our current political climate appeared to be violence in 
media. The Senate Commerce Committee has considered and reported 
legislation that puts the Federal Government in the business of 
determining

[[Page S12043]]

what violent television programming is acceptable and what is not. In 
the name of protecting children, this Congress has edged closer and 
closer to Federal content regulation of speech in mass media. It is an 
unfortunate but true fact, that the propensity is high for Congress to 
jeopardize speech rights for the sake of political expediency.
  That the United States Congress has taken the same path of countries 
which do not hold free speech as one of their most cherished rights--
such as China and Singapore--should be of great concern to the American 
people.
  For example, earlier this year, China passed a law allowing use of 
the Internet, but prohibited so-called harmful information on the 
Internet. According to media reports, as of September 10, Chinese 
officials had blocked access of China's 120,000 Internet users to more 
than 100 different sites on the World Wide Web. China considers 
``harmful information'' to include sexual material, political material, 
and other types of news information that might somehow be harmful to 
China's people. China has blocked access to Web sites operated by 
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as to foreign 
media sites such as the Washington Post, Cable News Network, and the 
Wall Street Journal.

  China also requires Internet providers to use government phone lines 
which allow information to be routed to government choke points where 
access can be blocked. And Internet users are required to register with 
the government. Media reports indicate, however, that the censors are 
already missing some sites such as the Swedish-Tibet Network and that 
many computer users have found ways to circumvent the ban.
  Why are China's actions so significant? The Chinese Government has 
shown us three things. First, they have shown how fear of a new form of 
electronic communications leads to excessive regulation and censorship. 
While censorship is acceptable in China, it is repugnant and 
unacceptable to most citizens of the United States.
  Second, they have shown us that once certain types of speech are 
prohibited by a government, the ban must be enforced. The regulations 
imposed by China to enforce their ban--the required use of government 
phone lines and the registration of users with the Government--has led 
to even greater erosion of civil liberties of the Chinese people. And 
third, they have shown us that speech and access prohibitions are 
ineffective when broadly applied to this new form of electronic 
communication. China's ban on certain types of speech is being 
circumvented. Their misguided efforts to protect the public from 
foreign sources of information and other sites are not likely to be 
effective.
  Surely, the actions of the 104th Congress in approving the CDA are 
substantially different from the Chinese Government's actions. 
Nevertheless, Mr. President, there are some striking similarities.
  China reacted to the freedom of the Internet by applying the same 
type of controls they have used for centuries to control information--a 
ban on speech and prohibition on access. Similarly, Congress reacted to 
the presence of objectionable and offensive materials on the Internet 
by imposing the same types of speech restrictions that have been used 
in broadcasting. Both governments reacted in fear to a new and poorly 
understood technology by imposing overly restrictive controls that do 
not take into account the unique nature of the Internet. The difference 
is that China has a centuries-old tradition of restricting speech while 
Americans hold their first amendment rights among their most cherished 
freedoms. Governments with such vastly different values should not be 
following the same path on speech restrictions.
  Senator Leahy and I urged this body to take the time to study how we 
might more effectively protect children on the Internet without 
jeopardizing free speech rights. There are less restrictive and more 
effective means of protecting children on the Internet than the 
unconstitutional Communications Decency Act. Instead, like China, 
congressional fear of the unknown led this body down the perilous path 
of censorship.
  Some in this body might find China's methods of enforcing the ban 
completely inapplicable to the Communications Decency Act. Surely, the 
United States would never require adults to register to use the 
Internet. However, the Department of Justice hasn't yet determined 
quite how the CDA would be effectively enforced. They have suggested 
credit card verification, which may not yet be viable. They have also 
suggested adult identification cards and tagging systems. Some involved 
in the debate of the CDA last year suggested that users be required to 
get an information superhighway drivers' license. That sounds 
remarkably like the registration requirements employed by the Chinese.
  Mr. President, the fact is that the only way to effectively enforce 
the CDA is to dramatically restrict the constitutional rights of adult 
Americans. And that is simply unacceptable.
  Congressional passage of the Communications Decency Act was a 
misguided attempt to reach an honorable goal--protecting children from 
those who seek to harm them on the Internet. While we should continue 
our efforts to protect children, we must seek more effective and 
constitutional means to achieve that goal.
  The 104th Congress failed to honor its obligation to uphold the 
Constitution when it passed the Communications Decency Act. After the 
Federal District Court ruling, the Congress should have repealed the 
CDA--a law we knew to be unconstitutional.
  I hope that the 105th Congress will repeal this unconstitutional 
statute soon after it convenes next year. Maybe then we can get down to 
the business of protecting children.

                          ____________________