[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 69 (Thursday, May 22, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  BAN UNSOLICITED JUNK ELECTRONIC MAIL

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 22, 1997

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the 
Netizens Protection Act of 1997. My legislation is aimed at protecting 
the internet user from the unseemly practices of the junk e-mailer. The 
internet user, or Netizen, is in a vulnerable position in the new 
medium and we in Congress cannot stand idly by as law-abiding citizens 
have their privacy invaded on an almost regular basis. And no one 
should have to pay for any such intrusion.
  This is a bill that has moved, as Justin Newton of the Internet 
Service Provider Consortium so succinctly stated, from the community to 
the legislature, not one that was produced by the legislature and then 
forced upon the community. We are empowering the consumer and the 
individual to take action against an egregious breach of consumer and 
individual rights.
  As increasing numbers of Americans go on-line and become passengers 
on the information superhighway, consumers' rights must not be eroded, 
abridged, or mitigated along the way.
  The Internet--and e-mail--are becoming part of our everyday lives. 
And no one--from the consumer to the small businesses who run servers--
should be forced to pay for unsolicited advertisements. This is not a 
question of curbing speech. I believe in the first amendment as much as 
anyone else. However, the idea of shifting the financial burden of 
speech on to an unwilling audience is one that needs to be addressed.
  From the netizen who may incur costs in the form of charges spent 
online reading and disposing of the messages--there are still millions 
of internet users who pay in increments of time spent online--to users 
who assume the costs of both accessing and storing mail they did not 
want, consumers should not be unwilling, and paying, recipients.
  Furthermore, junk e-mailers occupy time and space on an Internet 
Service Provider's ISP servers and forces the ISP to make technical 
improvements. The cost of these improvements are passed on to the 
consumer--you and me. In effect, the consumer is paying to have their 
privacy breached and invaded.
  And no one remains unaffected by these intrusions. The business owner 
or ISP with their own server often unwittingly distributes unsolicited 
advertisements by acting as an exploder site or mail relay site. Not 
only is this trespassing on another person's property, but it is an 
outright theft of another person's resources.
  Even more disturbing is the fact that a large portion of the 
unsolicited junk e-mail comes in the form of fraudulent get rich quick 
schemes, unproven medical remedies, and other unsavory solicitations.
  Let me reiterate that my legislation is targeted at unsolicited 
commercial e-mail. The paths of communications between friends and 
acquaintances and businesses and their customers remains wide open. As 
a matter of fact, this legislation still offers the opportunity for 
legitimate direct marketers to do business. Certainly, the traditional 
avenues of direct marketing which do not shift the burden of cost to 
the recipient, such as postal mail, remain unchanged; and individuals 
will have the right to opt-in and be reached by legitimate direct 
marketers via e-mail. And let us not forget that we will still be 
exposed to electronic billboard and banner advertising on the Internet.
  My legislation will make unsolicited advertisements unlawful by 
amending the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 which banned 
unsolicited junk faxes. The banning of junk e-mails is a natural 
extension of existing law. Based on a Ninth Circuit Court decision in 
Destination Ventures v. FCC (1995), there is substantial Government 
interest in protecting consumers from having to bear the costs of 
third-party advertising. In addition, the court also held that 
advertisers have no right to turn consumers into a ``captive audience'' 
that is ``incapable of declining to receive a message.''
  I believe I have crafted a bill--although it is just the beginning of 
a process which includes hearings and committee work--that is 
acceptable to most parties involved. It allows people to ``opt in'' and 
receive unsolicited advertisements if they give their consent, but it 
does not put the onus on the individual to stop the unsolicited 
advertisers as an ``opt out'' plan would do. Today, at a press 
conference Ray Everett, a representative of the proconsumer group 
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, and Justin Newton, a 
representative from the pro-business Internet Service Providers 
Consortium--each coming at the issue from different sides--both came to 
the same conclusion--this legislation would be an effective way to put 
a stop to unsolicited advertisements.

                          ____________________