Sections

Controversy flares over new federal Internet regulation

With President Clinton poised to sign the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law today, reactions to its implementation are mixed. Voters and elected officials say they are concerned with government regulation of the Internet and constituents across the nation say they will fight the provisions of the bill in court.

The bill will deregulate the cable television and telephone industries, allowing companies to enter the markets of competing corporations.

It also includes terms that would mandate inclusion of the "V-chip" on televisions and criminalize distribution of indecent materials over computer networks.

U.S. Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Flint), who voted for the bill, said the anti-obscenity clause would "protect minors from exposure to things minors are not equipped to handle."

Restrictions on free speech should not be ignored, Kildee said. "Government censorship is something we need to be concerned about," he said.

Kildee added that the new bill utilizes the best control on transmission of obscenity and violence -- parents. The V-chip, he said, is not government censorship, as it allows parental choice over television programming.

Others disagree, saying that partial censoring can lead to free speech violations.

Jonah Seiger, a policy analyst for the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, said he was concerned that the government could censor materials protected by the First Amendment.

"The government wants to prohibit access to materials ... that are not necessarily pornographic," Seiger said. He said books like James Joyce's "Ulysses," J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye," and some rap lyrics have been classified as "indecent material," which he called a vague term.

"The broad content regulations will severely restrict the rights of all Internet users," Seiger said. "It creates a second-class standard for (all users)."

The CDT and other Internet activists start their 48-hour protest today. People with home-pages on the World Wide Web have been encouraged to change their background screens to black as a symbol of the darkness America will face when the bill is passed.

Seiger said the CDT, the ACLU and several other groups plan to fight the issue of censorship through the courts.

"If we can get a restraining injunction, the bill won't be enforced until the courts review it," he said.

In a written statement yesterday, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) detailed his opposition. "Literary material found in public libraries -- books which contain profanity -- would be subject to criminal sanctions if transmitted across the Internet ... these provisions will do nothing to provide real protection for children using the Internet."

The bill's passage last week by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate shows the wide efforts being made to stop "cybersmut." Seiger said the harsh bill is a result of Congress knowing little about technology.

"It's partly because members of Congress simply don't understand," he said. "Technology can (quickly) go from glamorous to (the object of) everyone's fears."

A 1993 graduate of the University, Seiger said the University's technological advances made the issue especially relevant to the students.

Virginia Rezmierski, assistant to the vice provost for information Technology, said the University is taking careful notice of the legislation.

Rezmierski said the bill challenges and threatens the First Amendment protections afforded to all citizens.

The University, she said, "will aggressively (fight against) censorship as an institution of higher education (and) will protect people's right to choose the material they want to view."

"Any individual who's a member of this community is an adult," Rezmierski said.

She mentioned the question of whether a university community with some individuals under 18 has the obligation to protect its members beyond the rights of the oldest. Carnegie Mellon University tried and failed to restrict Internet access to what was appropriate for their youngest students last year, she added.

"This (legislation) is very new and (the University) needs to study the language and try to understand the implications," Rezmierski added.

An official from U.S. Rep. Chris Cox's office said the issue is a political one for many and that some congressional leaders supported the bill so they would not appear soft on porn. Cox (R-Calif.) had proposed an alternative measure to government regulations, which was removed from the new telecommunications bill after compromise between both houses of Congress.

"I'm very pleased to see the development of the Internet community as a political force," Seiger added.