Dear Colleagues,
As you may know, Congress broke for recess *before* passing the proposed
telecommunitions regulation bill which includes language prohibiting
"indecent" materials on telecommunications networks. This buys Net free
speech advocates some time to voice their opposition to the "indecency"
clause before the legislation comes up for a vote.
The following posting is a call for action to meet with your local
Congressional representative and voice your opposition to the clause. It
also offers good advice and strategies for how to conduct such a meeting.
(Actually, the advice is useful for museum professionals who meet with
their representatives for any constituent concern.) For those who have not
kept up with the issues, the posting also contains a good briefing on the
legislation and a timeline that details how it evolved over the last year.
IMHO, if representatives from one museum in each COngressional district
could take the time to meet with their representative to voice their
opposition to telecom "indecency" language, we would make a tremendous
impact. Museums carry an enormous cachet for many Congressional
representatives, and it wouldn't surprise me if such meetings would stick
out in their minds more so than a meeting with an individual citizen.
Also, most Representatives probably have not thought out the implications
of the "indecency" legislation for cultural organizations like museums --
they're just reacting to concerns about pornography.
Diane Zorich
Government Affairs Liaison
Museum Computer Network
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 23:59:21 -0500 (EST)
>From: Shabbir J. Safdar <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: ALERT: Visit your Congress-person; lobby them to oppose censorship
>
>
>========================================================================
> CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE NET CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION
> (SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END)
>
> Update: -Latest News: We've won our reprieve! Make this count!
>
> -What You Can Do Now: Meet with your Congress-person and
> ask them to oppose the Telecomm bill
>
> CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
> Jan 1, 1996
>
> PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
> REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL Jan 30, 1996
> REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>CONTENTS
> What You Can Do Now
> How To Setup A Really Good Meeting With Congressional Staff
> The Latest News
> Chronology of the CDA
> For More Information
> List Of Participating Organizations
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
>
>As you probably already know, Congress has attached legislation to the
>Telecommunications Deregulation bill that will criminalize much speech
>on the Internet that may be considered "indecent" with a 2 year jail
>term and a US$100,000 fine. Online activists have been fighting to have
>these provisions removed from the bill from Day 1. Our latest thrust
>has been to stall the passage of the bill, hoping to gather enough
>support to have these provisions removed.
>
>As you also probably already know, Congress broke for the year without
>voting on the Telecommunications Deregulation bill. Although net
>activists should not take too much credit for this nonevent, our loud
>objections to the language being tossed around in the Conference
>committee certainly helped slow things down a bit.
>
>We have bought ourselves some time, and now we must meet with our
>legislators and explain to them why the Telecommunications Deregulation
>bill will cripple the Internet as a medium for commerce, education, and
>democracy.
>
>We've done well so far in establishing ourselves and our concerns in
>Washington DC. We need to transform ourselves, evolve into the next
>step in the political process and begin the face to face work that will
>convince candidates that we vote, and our votes turn on the First
>Amendment.
>
>Make a New Year's resolution: vow to have a face to face meeting with
>the staff of your local legislator. Follow the directions below and
>help become a part of the growing Internet Voter block.
>
>1. Setup a meeting at the local office of your Congress-person.
>
> Sample phone call (a bit long for a call, but use it as a guide)
>
> Hi, I'm a constituent.
>
> The pending Telecommunications Reform bill contains a provision
> which, under the guise of protecting children from
> objectionable material on the Internet, will destroy the
> Internet as a viable medium for commerce, education, and
> democracy. I believe that there are other, less restrictive
> ways to address this issue.
>
> I am very concerned about this issue, and I would like to come
> in and meet with someone in your office to talk about why this
> bill must not be passed in its current form. How soon can I
> schedule a meeting?
>
> If you don't know who your local legislator is, try these methods:
>
> League of Women Voters: In many cities you can call them and they will
> look up your legislator for you.
> Elections Board: Many cities allow you to look up your legislator by
> calling the local Elections board.
> The Zipper: Stardot Consulting has setup a Congressional lookup service
> called the Zipper, which lets you look up your legislator by entering
> your zipcode. URL:http://www.stardot.com/zipper/
>
> You can call the capitol switchboard at: 202 224-3121
> A list of phone numbers for Congress is available also at:
> URL:http://www.vtw.org/congress/
>
>2. Tell us about your meeting, preferably before and after by sending us
> mail to [log in to unmask] We will be keeping track of feedback to help
> coordinate lobbying efforts in DC if and when Congress votes on this issue.
>
> $ Mail [log in to unmask]
> Subject: meeting setup with Rep. Snodgrass
>
> I've got a meeting scheduled with Rep. Snodgrass' staff on Tues.
> I'm taking the Internet Parental Control FAQ and will educate them
> about why these laws are not only unnecessary, but will not help
> control kids' access to the net!
>
>
> $ Mail [log in to unmask]
> Subject: my meeting with Rep. Snodgrass
>
> I just got back from my meeting with Snodgrass' staff. It went well!
> They didn't know anything about the Internet, but I helped explain
> to them about parental control tools and the fact that current laws
> are *already* being enforced there, and they seemed to understand!
>
>3. Relax! You have really done a lot to help the cause.
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>HOW TO SETUP A REALLY GOOD MEETING WITH CONGRESSIONAL STAFF
>
>REMEMBER THE POINT OF THE MEETING
>You must have a clear theme in the meeting. Even if you say it and you
>think it sounds corny, you don't want to leave a staffer guessing at what
>you want.
>
>The theme should be:
>
> The Telecom bill should not pass with the net censorship
> provisions in its current form. House Speaker Gingrich and
> Senate Leader Dole have both expressed concern over these
> provisions. Please work with them to protect free speech and
> the Internet.
>
>It will help if you bring a personal Internet success story, such as
>important medical information found on the net, children gets material
>for school reports, car-owners talking to one another, camping tips,
>consumer product information from companies, local library card
>catalog, government information from CDC, Census, USDA, NASA, etc.
>
>SCHEDULING THE MEETING
>When you setup your meeting, do not overload the meeting. It is better
>to have a local office have three meetings with three people, rather
>than one meeting with nine people.
>
>A perfect meeting would include an Internet user, an Internet business
>(like an Internet provider or another company that uses the net), and a
>librarian. Pick someone to be the MC so things progress smoothly.
>
>If you're the only one going to the meeting, that is good too. It's
>better to go to the meeting alone, rather than have no meeting at all.
>
>PREPARING FOR THE MEETING
>Make sure you're familiar with the issues before going into the
>meeting. Take some time to read the Communications Decency Act FAQ
>available from URL:http://www.vtw.org/pubs/cdafaq to get a sense of the
>myths you may have to dispel during the meeting. Also, become familiar
>with, and take a copy of the VTW Internet Parental Control FAQ to back
>up claims that there are many parental control devices out there that
>allow parents to control what their children see on the Internet. It
>is available from URL:http://www.vtw.org/pubs/ipcfaq.
>
>Are you ready? Ask yourself if you know why no new laws are necessary
>to control information on the Internet.
>
>If the answer is that current laws about child porn and obscene
>material extend there already, which, combined with parental control
>tools, make such unconstitutional laws unnecessary, then you're ready.
>
>RUNNING THE MEETING
>Remember that most staffers know nothing about the Internet. You'll have to
>bring them up to speed on the net, as well as why the net needs no new laws.
>It's crucial you be polite. This is the first time they've met Internet
>Voters, and first impressions count.
>
>Dress appropriately, a jacket and tie are not out of the question. Be very
>polite and patient. Never raise your voice or utter the following phrases
>during a meeting with a staffer:
>
> "I pay my taxes" or "You work for me, I'm a taxpayer"
> (We all pay taxes, this is moot)
>
> "I'll make sure you're not re-elected"
> (They haven't met that many Internet Voters yet to convince them
> this might be true)
>
>Make sure everyone has a chance to speak, answer any questions they might
>have, and then thank the staffer for their time. Leave your name and number
>so they can call you and ask you any questions they might think of later.
>
>AFTER THE MEETING
>Send a thank you letter (faxing it is appropriate). Remember to let VTW
>know that you had the meeting by sending email to [log in to unmask]
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>THE LATEST NEWS
>
>Congress has broken for the year without a vote on the Telecomm bill.
>We have been given the breathing room we sorely needed. We must now
>convince legislators to vote against the censorship legislation.
>
>Just to refresh your memory, the House and Senate passed different pieces
>of legislation which addressed regulation of the Internet. Some of the
>legislation promoted a "parental control" approach, where parents, not
>the government, were the most appropriate to control children's access
>to speech on the Internet. (This approach was called Cox/Wyden and was
>approved 421-4 by the House)
>
>Other proposals advocated dumbing down the content of the Internet to
>that which is acceptable to children, and holding providers responsible
>for the speech of their users. These approaches were the Communications
>Decency Act (S314 approved 84-16 by the Senate), and the Manager's Amendment
>(slipped into the House Telecomm bill at the last second).
>
>Although we are trying very hard to get an electronic copy of the conference
>report, it's not fast in coming. As soon as we can get a copy into electronic
>form we'll put it up on several WWW pages.
>
>In the meantime, here's a summary of what the bill looks like.
>
>CRIMINALIZATION OF "INDECENT" MATERIAL
>The proposed legislation relies on the unconstitutional "indecency standard".
>Like the Exon Communications Decency Act, it seeks to regulate all indecent
>speech online.
>
>Indecency is a broad category that may include everything from George Carlin's
>"seven dirty words" to such classic novels and "The Catcher in the Rye",
>"Lady Chatterly's Lover", "The Scarlet Letter", "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn",
>"Our Bodies, Our Selves", Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", and "Catch-22".
>
>The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on indecent speech are
>Constitutional only if they rely on the "least restrictive means". Broad
>indecency restrictions on interactive media do not satisfy the "least
>restrictive means" test, because interactive media allows users and
>parents tremendous control over the information they receive.
>
>The net effect of an indecency restriction would be to tone down every
>conversation, web page, newsgroup, and mailing list on the Internet
>to the level of what is not offensive to children.
>
>Even the Department of Justice, who will have to enforce this law once
>it becomes public, says that the indecency standard is "constitutionally
>problematic". (Letter from Andrew Fois of US DOJ to Rep. Howard Berman,
>12/20/95)
>
>CONTENT PROVIDERS, ONLINE SERVICES, AND LIBRARIES CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
> EXPRESSION ONLINE
>Although the proposed legislation tries to hold harmless those who simply
>function as "pipelines" for Internet access, there are many Internet
>businesses who act as more than just access providers. Hosting discussion
>groups, chat rooms, and other additional services, many Internet providers
>function as content providers as well as simple access providers.
>
>On top of this, the rest of us who provide content on the net (which includes
>everyone who sends mail, posts to Usenet, puts up a WWW page, maintains an
>ftp directory, or a gopher page) will fall under the indecency law, and
>be forced to screen our material and "dumb it down" to the level of what is
>not offensive to a child.
>
>This will include anything having to do with sexual abuse, abortion, or any
>strong language.
>
>"GOOD SAMARITAN" PROVISION REMAINS IN BILL
>The original Cox/Wyden/White legislation included a "Good Samaritan"
>provision which said that a provider who takes some actions to police
>their content cannot be penalized for not taking action in other places.
>
>UNPRECEDENTED CONTROL OVER ONLINE SPEECH FOR THE FCC
>The original Cox/Wyden/White bill prohibited FCC jurisdiction over the
>Internet. This provision has been removed from the proposed legislation,
>which now leaves the FCC open to make a case for regulating this new
>medium.
>
>The Internet has developed from a government project to a market-driven
>economic boom for thousands of businesses. Giving the FCC authority over
>this medium would significantly hinder the growth of this new industry.
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>CHRONOLOGY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
>
>Dec 7, '95 The House half of the Telecomm conference committee
> votes the "indecency" standard for online speech into
> the Telecomm Deregulation bill.
>Sep 26, '95 Sen. Russ Feingold urges committee members to drop
> Managers Amendment and the CDA from the Telecommunications
> Deregulation bill
>Aug 4, '95 House passes HR1555 which goes into conference with S652.
>Aug 4, '95 House votes to attach Managers Amendment (which contains
> new criminal penalties for speech online) to
> Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555).
>Aug 4, '95 House votes 421-4 to attach HR1978 to Telecommunications
> Reform bill (HR1555).
>Jun 30, '95 Cox and Wyden introduce the "Internet Freedom and Family
> Empowerment Act" (HR 1978) as an alternative to the CDA.
>Jun 21, '95 Several prominent House members publicly announce their
> opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA),
> Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR).
>Jun 14, '95 The Senate passes the CDA as attached to the Telecomm
> reform bill (S 652) by a vote of 84-16. The Leahy bill
> (S 714) is not passed.
>May 24, '95 The House Telecomm Reform bill (HR 1555) leaves committee
> in the House with the Leahy alternative attached to it,
> thanks to Rep. Ron Klink of (D-PA). The Communications
> Decency Act is not attached to it.
>Apr 7, '95 Sen. Leahy (D-VT) introduces S.714, an alternative to
> the Exon/Gorton bill, which commissions the Dept. of
> Justice to study the problem to see if additional legislation
> (such as the CDA) is necessary.
>Mar 23, '95 S314 amended and attached to the telecommunications reform
> bill by Sen. Gorton (R-WA). Language provides some provider
> protection, but continues to infringe upon email privacy
> and free speech.
>Feb 21, '95 HR1004 referred to the House Commerce and Judiciary committees
>Feb 21, '95 HR1004 introduced by Rep. Johnson (D-SD)
>Feb 1, '95 S314 referred to the Senate Commerce committee
>Feb 1, '95 S314 introduced by Sen. Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA).
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>FOR MORE INFORMATION
>
>Web Sites (roughly in alphabetical order)
> URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
> URL:http://epic.org/
> URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html
> URL:http://www.cpsr.org/
> URL:http://www.vtw.org/
>
>Email:
> [log in to unmask] (put "ipcfaq" in the subject line for the Internet
> Parental Control FAQ or "send cdafaq" for the CDA FAQ)
> [log in to unmask] (General CDA information)
> [log in to unmask] (Current status of the CDA)
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
>
>In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have
>joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the
>Communications Decency Act.
>
>
>American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association *
>American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * biancaTroll
>productions * Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression * Californians
>Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology *
>Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation
>* Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Cloud 9 Internet *Computer
>Communicators Association * Computel Network Services * Computer
>Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection *
>Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dorsai Embassy * Dutch
>Digital Citizens' Movement * ECHO Communications Group, Inc. *
>Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation *
>Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers
>Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New
>Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free
>Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against
>Censorship * FranceCom, Inc. Web Advertising Services * Friendly
>Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands Off! The Net * HotWired
>Magazine * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle Technologies, Inc. *
>Inst. for Global Communications * Internet On-Ramp, Inc. * Internet
>Users Consortium * Joint Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action
>Committee * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project *
>Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * Michigan Electronic Communities of
>Concerned Adults * MindVox * MN Grassroots Party * National Bicycle
>Greenway * National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National
>Coalition Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force *
>National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon
>Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way
>* Republican Liberty Caucus * Rock Out Censorship * Society for
>Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network * The WELL *
>Web Review Magazine * Wired Magazine * Voters Telecommunications Watch
>
>(Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities,
> not EFF chapters or divisions.)
>
>________________________________________________________________________
> End Alert
>========================================================================
>
|
