[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 60]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



REGARDING THE RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY 
   ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF THEIR USERS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DAVID DREIER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 3, 2001

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as the Internet has grown in importance to 
our economy and our culture, Congress has considered a succession of 
bills addressing unsavory conduct on the Internet. While many of these 
proposals have been well-intentioned, they have proposed widely 
differing, sometimes technologically unrealistic, or unconstitutional 
approaches to this important issue.
  The Internet offers Americans an unprecedented avenue for 
communication and commerce, changing the way we work, play, shop, and 
communicate. This phenomenon, referred to by the United States Supreme 
Court as the ``vast democratic fora of the Internet'' can be attributed 
chiefly to the policy embraced by the House in an amendment to the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 offered by my distinguished colleagues 
Chris Cox and Ron Wyden, and that I was pleased to support.
  The Cox-Wyden amendment ensures that Internet service providers, 
website hosts, portals, search engines, directories and others are not 
burdened by the threat of civil tort liability for content created or 
developed by others. This measure has provided welcome certainty and 
uniformity with regard to civil tort liability on the Internet, while 
in no way limiting remedies against the provider of illegal content.
  However, criminal bills continue to take widely varying and often 
quite different approaches to this issue. In addition, foreign nations 
and courts in Europe and Asia are stepping up efforts to hold U.S. 
companies liable for website content located in the United States that 
is criminal under their laws, but entirely lawful under our First 
Amendment. There is even a Cyber-crime Treaty that the Clinton 
Administration has been negotiating with countries that are part of the 
Council of Europe that could restrict Congress' ability to legislate in 
this area if we do not act soon.
  For these reasons, I believe that the 107th Congress must act to 
preserve strong criminal penalties against criminals on the Internet, 
while creating a uniform and sensible structure limiting service 
providers' liability for content that third parties have stored or 
placed on their systems, but that may violate some criminal law. Given 
the importance of U.S. global leadership in the Internet industry, and 
of keeping the Internet open so that individuals can communicate and do 
business with one another, we cannot afford to cede the initiative or 
authority in this important area.

                          ____________________