Computer underground Digest Thu June 26, 2020 Volume 9 : Issue 50 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #9.50 (Thu, June 26, 2020) File 1--USSC Upholds CDA Overturning (AP first report) File 2--Syllabus of Supreme Court CDA Decision File 3--EFF press release on CDA Decision File 4--Plaintiff welcomes result in CDA case File 5--CDA: It's Not Over Yet File 6--Cato praises Supreme Court CDA Decision File 7--Family Research Council on CDA decision File 8--White House Statement on CDA Decision File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2020 09:33:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Avi Bass Subject: File 1--USSC Upholds CDA Overturning (AP first report) June 26, 2020 Court Nixes Internet Smut Provision Filed at 10:15 a.m. EDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress violated free-speech rights when it tried to curb smut on the Internet, the Supreme Court ruled today. In its first venture into cyberspace law, the court invalidated a key provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Congress' effort to protect children from sexually explicit material goes too far because it also would keep such material from adults who have a right to see it, the justices unanimously said. The law made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. The measure has never taken effect because it was blocked last year by a three-judge court in Philadelphia. ``We agree with the three-judge district court that the statute abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. ``The (Communications Decency Act) is a content-based regulation of speech,'' he wrote. ``The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.'' ``As a matter of constitutional tradition ... we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it,'' Stevens wrote. Sexually explicit words and pictures are protected by the Constitution's First Amendment if they are deemed indecent but not obscene. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2020 15:07:27 -0500 From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest) Subject: File 2--Syllabus of Supreme Court CDA Decision From: the CIEC homepage at: http://www.ciec.org ------------------- Syllabus of Supreme Court Decision SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al. Appeal from the United States District Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 96-511. Argued March 19, 2020 -- Decided June 26, 2020 Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA or Act) seek to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet, an international network of interconnected computers that enables millions of people to communicate with one another in "cyberspace" and to access vast amounts of information from around the world. Title 47 U. S. C. A. '223(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Supp. 1997) criminalizes the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18 years of age. Section 223(d) prohibits the "knowin[g]" sending or displaying to a person under 18 of any message "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." Affirmative defenses are provided for those who take "good faith, . . . effective . . . actions" to restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications, '223(e)(5)(A), and those who restrict such access by requiring certain designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or an adult identification number, '223(e)(5)(B). A number of plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of ''223(a)(1) and 223(d). After making extensive findings of fact, a three judge District Court convened pursuant to the Act entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of both challenged provisions. The court's judgment enjoins the Government from enforcing '223(a)(1)(B)'s prohibitions insofar as they relate to "indecent" communications, but expressly preserves the Government's right to investigate and prosecute the obscenity or child pornography activities prohibited therein. The injunction against enforcement of '223(d) is unqualified because that section contains no separatereference to obscenity or child pornography. The Government appealed to this Court under the Act's special review provisions, arguing that the District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the First Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth Amendment because it is vague. Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive display" provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendment. Pp. 17-40. (a) Although the CDA's vagueness is relevant to the First Amendment overbreadth inquiry, the judgment should be affirmed without reaching the Fifth Amendment issue. P. 17. (b) A close look at the precedents relied on by the Government--Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629; FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726; and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41--raises, rather than relieves, doubts about the CDA's constitutionality. The CDA differs from the various laws and orders upheld in those cases in many ways, including that it does not allow parents to consent to their children's use of restricted materials; is not limited to commercial transactions; fails to provide any definition of "indecent" and omits any requirement that "patently offensive" material lack socially redeeming value; neither limits its broad categorical prohibitions to particular times nor bases them on an evaluation by an agency familiar with the medium's unique characteristics; is punitive; applies to a medium that, unlike radio, receives full First Amendment protection; and cannot be properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation because it is a content based blanket restriction on speech. These precedents, then, do not require the Court to uphold the CDA and are fully consistent with the application of the most stringent review of its provisions. Pp. 17-21. (c) The special factors recognized in some of the Court's cases as justifying regulation of the broadcast media--the history of extensive government regulation of broadcasting, see, e.g., Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 399-400; the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 637-638; and its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128--are not present in cyberspace. Thus, these cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to the Internet. Pp. 22-24. (d) Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its coverage render it problematic for First Amendment purposes. For instance, its use of the undefined terms "indecent" and "patently offensive" will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the twostandards relate to each other and just what they mean. The vagueness of such a content based regulation, see, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, coupled with its increased deterrent effect as a criminal statute, see, e.g., Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, raise special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech. Contrary to the Government's argument, the CDA is not saved from vagueness by the fact that its "patently offensive" standard repeats the second part of the three prong obscenity test set forth in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24. The second Miller prong reduces the inherent vagueness of its own "patently offensive" term by requiring that the proscribed material be "specifically defined by the applicable state law." In addition, the CDA applies only to "sexual conduct," whereas, the CDA prohibition extends also to "excretory activities" and "organs" of both a sexual and excretory nature. Each of Miller's other two prongs also critically limits the uncertain sweep of the obscenity definition. Just because a definition including three limitations is not vague, it does not follow that one of those limitations, standing alone, is not vague. The CDA's vagueness undermines the likelihood that it has been carefully tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors from potentially harmful materials. Pp. 24-28. (e) The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. Although the Government has an interest in protecting children from potentially harmful materials, see, e.g., Ginsberg, 390 U. S., at 639, the CDA pursues that interest by suppressing a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to send and receive, see, e.g., Sable, supra, at 126. Its breadth is wholly unprecedented. The CDA's burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the Act's legitimate purposes. See, e.g., Sable, 492 U. S., at 126. The Government has not proved otherwise. On the other hand, the District Court found that currently available user based software suggests that a reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent their children from accessing material which the parents believe is inappropriate will soon be widely available. Moreover, the arguments in this Court referred to possible alternatives such as requiring that indecent material be "tagged" to facilitate parental control, making exceptions for messages with artistic or educational value, providing some tolerance for parental choice, and regulating some portions of the Internet differently than others. Particularly in the light of the absence of any detailed congressional findings, or even hearings addressing the CDA's special problems, the Court is persuaded that the CDA is not narrowly tailored. Pp. 28-33. (f) The Government's three additional arguments for sustaining the CDA's affirmative prohibitions are rejected. First, the contention that the Act is constitutional because it leaves open ample "alternative channels" of communication is unpersuasive because the CDA regulates speech on the basis of its content, so that a "time, place, and manner" analysis is inapplicable. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U.S. 530, 536. Second, the assertion that the CDA's "knowledge" and "specific person" requirements significantly restrict its permissible application to communications to persons the sender knows to be under 18 is untenable, given that most Internet forums are open to all comers and that even the strongest reading of the "specific person" requirement would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any opponent of indecent speech. Finally, there is no textual support for the submission that material having scientific, educational, or other redeeming social value will necessarily fall outside the CDA's prohibitions. Pp. 33-35. (g) The '223(e)(5) defenses do not constitute the sort of "narrow tailoring" that would save the CDA. The Government's argument that transmitters may take protective "good faith actio[n]" by "tagging" their indecent communications in a way that would indicate their contents, thus permitting recipients to block their reception with appropriate software, is illusory, given the requirement that such action be "effective": The proposed screening software does not currently exist, but, even if it did, there would be no way of knowing whether a potential recipient would actually block the encoded material. The Government also failed to prove that '223(b)(5)'s verification defense would significantly reduce the CDA's heavy burden on adult speech. Although such verification is actually being used by some commercial providers of sexually explicit material, the District Court's findings indicate that it is not economically feasible for most noncommercial speakers. Pp. 35-37. (h) The Government's argument that this Court should preserve the CDA's constitutionality by honoring its severability clause, '608, and by construing nonseverable terms narrowly, is acceptable in only one respect. Because obscene speech may be banned totally, see Miller, supra, at 18, and '223(a)'s restriction of "obscene" material enjoys a textual manifestation separate from that for "indecent" material, the Court can sever the term "or indecent" from the statute, leaving the rest of '223(a) standing. Pp. 37-39. (i) The Government's argument that its "significant" interest in fostering the Internet's growth provides an independent basis for upholding the CDA's constitutionality is singularly unpersuasive. The dramatic expansion of this new forum contradicts the factual basisunderlying this contention: that the unregulated availability of "indecent" and "patently offensive" material is driving people away from the Internet. P. 40. 929 F. Supp. 824, affirmed. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2020 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 3--EFF press release on CDA Decision Press Release Contacts: Mike Godwin, Staff Counsel, +1 415 436 9333 or 1 510 548 3290 Stanton McCandlish, Program Director, +1 415 436 9333 Shari Steele, Staff Counsel, +1 301 375 8856 Washington, DC -- "As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." With this ringing reaffirmation of the American people's fundamental right to freedom of expression, the United States Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Communications Decency Amendment censorship provisions of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 regarding so-called "indecent" content are unconstitutional on their face, and that free speech on the Internet merits the highest standards of Constitutional protection. The decision marks a major victory in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's ongoing efforts to ensure that the long-standing American principles of freedom of expression be preserved and extended to the Internet. The extremely broad reach that the CDA would have had was reflected in the range of plaintiffs who joined together to challenge the law. The EFF was a leading party in a coalition comprising such diverse organizations as Apple, Microsoft, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Barnes & Noble, and journalists such as Brock Meeks, in challenging the Communications Decency Amendment (CDA) which would have banned a broad range of First Amendment-protected speech from the public spaces of the Internet. These groups are united today in celebration of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a law that would have criminalized this constitutionally protected speech on the Internet and other online forums. The Court's ruling in Reno v. ACLU affirmed the unanimous decisions of Philadelphia and New York federal courts, rejecting the controversial "decency" amendment to the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The Court's opinion firmly establishes that the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press apply on the Internet. Members of the technology and publishing industries, as well as civil liberties watchdog groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU, hailed the Court's decision as a victory for everyone who uses computer communications. "Today marks a victory for all Americans, and we think it's appropriate for everyone to celebrate the Court's recognition of the free-speech significance of the Internet," said Lori Fena, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "What this means is that the responsibility for controlling our content lies on us -- the citizens and the parents -- and this is a call for all of us once again to demonstrate how we can trusted to use this medium responsibly," she said. "This means that the parents, rather than the government, are empowered to make the choices about Internet content." Mike Godwin, EFF staff counsel, stated, "The CDA would have abridged one of the freedoms that Americans treasure most, and a freedom that is central to any democratic society. The Supreme Court recognized, as had the District Court, that this law was a wholly inappropriate exercise of governmental power under the Constitution." Esther Dyson, EFF chairman, noted that the decision stands for one of EFF's principal positions regarding free speech online: "We believe in free speech at the source -- and in the empowerment of any audience for that speech to control what they see and hear. "The Court's decision takes the responsibility for controlling and accessing speech on the Net out of the hands of government and puts it back where it belongs: in the hands of parents and other individuals," she said. "Individuals have the technical means to make their own choices about what they and their children read and see," Dyson noted. EFF has long noted that such low-cost technical solutions, together with existing anti-obscenity laws, offer a less intrusive and more efficient answer to questions about protecting children in the online world. "The government kept saying that this was a crisis that required harsher censorship in the online world than in any other communication medium," Godwin said. "In fact, EFF and the other plaintiffs in this case showed that it's possible to promote both freedom of speech and family values -- that the two goals don't oppose each other. By its decision today, the Court expressly acknowledged that reality." The constitutional challenge to the Communications Decency Act was grounded in a series of basic arguments, including that law is unconstitutionally overbroad (criminalizing protected speech), and that it it is unconstitutionally vague (making it difficult for individuals and organizations to comply). The Court also reaffirmed the lower court's findings a) that the character of this new medium means that any attempt at content regulation for the Internet must meet the strictest Constitutional requirements under the First Amendment, and b) that filtering technologies provided a less restrictive means to achieve Congress's stated goal of protecting children. "We applaud today's Supreme Court decision declaring the CDA unconstitutional," said Michael Sears, vice president and general manager of SurfWatch Software, a division of Spyglass Inc. "After our testimony in Philadelphia last year, I believe that we convinced the court that parental control software like SurfWatch is a much more effective and less restrictive solution than excessive government regulation." Referring to the Court's four-decade-old anti-censorship decision in Butler v. Michigan, the Supreme Court stated the speech restriction at issue there amounted to "burn[ing] the house to roast the pig." In his opinion for the Court, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "[t]he CDA, casting a far darker shadow over free speech, threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2020 11:42:43 -0400 From: jw@bway.net Subject: File 4--Plaintiff welcomes result in CDA case Plaintiff Welcomes Supreme Court Decision in ACLU v. Reno FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jonathan Wallace (212)513-7777 day (718)797-9808 evening jw@bway.net NEW YORK, June 26, 2020--Jonathan Wallace, a plaintiff in the ACLU v. Reno case, welcomed the Supreme Court ruling today. "Its a sweeping victory," said Wallace, publisher of The Ethical Spectacle (www.spectacle.org) and co-author with Mark Mangan of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (New York: Henry Holt: 1996) on Internet censorship. "The Court has accorded the Internet the broadest possible protection." In the ruling, the seven justice majority agreed with the District Court that the Internet is not "invasive" like broadcast media and cable. While a child may stumble on an indecent television program, accessing content on the Internet requires too many steps for society to be equally concerned about the Net. Additionally, the Court said, warning screens and the availability of other measures to individual parents make the Communications Decency Act unneccessary and therefore unconstitutional. "This means that the Court is prepared to treat the Internet like print media, which has always been considered sacred in First Amendment law," Wallace said. He congratulated the ACLU attorneys and other lawyers who represented the plaintiffs. "They worked hard and did a tremendous job on this, educating the District Court and the Supreme Court in the meaning of the new medium," Wallace said. The Ethical Spectacle is a monthly Web-based newsletter focusing on the intersection, or collision, of ethics, law and politics in our society. Wallace joined the ACLU case as a plaintiff because of his concern that socially valuable material in the publication, such as a compilation of Holocaust material (http://www.spectacle.org/695/ausch.html) might be considered indecent under the Communications Decency Act. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2020 11:37:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Audrie Krause Subject: File 5--CDA: It's Not Over Yet June 26, 2020 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Audrie Krause Phone: 415-775-8674 E-mail: akrause@igc.org NetAction Applauds CDA Ruling; Cautions More Free Speech Attacks On Horizon SAN FRANCISCO - NetAction applauded today's U.S. Supreme Court decision rejecting the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as unconstitutional, but cautioned free speech advocates not to become complacent. "This is not the end of it," warned Audrie Krause, Executive Director of NetAction. "Local libraries are increasingly coming under attack by the Christian right for providing Internet access to citizens in their communities." While today's Supreme Court victory and similar decisions issued recently by state courts in New York and Georgia may put a halt to direct attempts to censor Internet content, indirect attacks are likely to increase, according to Krause. "Instead of demanding that Internet access be banned outright, would-be censors are now pressuring local public libraries to add filtering software to computers that allow library patrons to go online," Krause said. "These filters are a far more insidious form of censorship," she added, since many citizens have no way of accessing the Internet except through computers in their public libraries. In addition to banning access to pornographic Web sites, most of the filtering software on the market today bans access to sites with information about AIDS and safe sex practices, birth control, and sexuality. Some even ban sites containing political speech, such as the site hosted by the National Organization for Women (NOW). "Many of the proponents of filtering software are intent on denying citizens access to ideas and values that differ from their own," said Krause. "It is unfortunate that the debate over Internet censorship was framed around the issue of access to pornography," she added. "What is really at issue is whether the Christian right can impose its values on all citizens in cyberspace." This will become more apparent, Krause predicted, as the censorship debate moves from legislative arena to the local libraries serving our communities. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2020 14:01:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 6--Cato praises Supreme Court CDA Decision Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Thu, 26 Jun 2020 14:56:35 -0400 (EDT) From--Robin Hulsey To--rhulsey@cato.org June 26, 2020 Cato scholars praise Supreme Court decision protecting Internet liberty "The First Amendment does not discriminate between bits and ink," said Tom W. Bell, director of telecommunications and technology studies at the Cato Institute. Bell praised the Supreme Court's decision today striking down the Communications Decency Act as unconstitutional. "Today the Supreme Court has confirmed that speech on the Internet deserves no less protection than speech on paper." According to Bell, "Today's decision protects not only free speech, but also free markets. The Internet industry thrives because politicians have largely refrained from meddling with entrepreneurs. Consumers have enjoyed constantly improving access, increasingly rich content and continually decreasing costs. The CDA threatened to end all that growth and innovation." Solveig Bernstein, Cato's associate director of telecommunications and technology studies and author of "Beyond the Communications Decency Act: Constitutional Lessons of the Internet" (Cato Policy Analysis no. 262), explained that Congress will not be able to "fix" the CDA. "Because legislators cannot define 'indecent' clearly and coherently, no regulation of computer network indecency, however carefully tailored, can pass constitutional scrutiny." Some lawmakers, Bernstein noted, have proposed a "harmful to minors" standard to regulate Internet content. "Such a vague standard would unconstitutionally chill Internet speech-especially the sort of spontaneous and casual speech that the Internet facilitates between unsophisticated and noncommercial speakers," she explained. Moreover, observed Bernstein, we don't need a political fix to prevent children from accessing adult information on the Internet. "The private sector has already demonstrated that it can solve the perceived problem with such devices as software filters that screen out offensive material and Internet service providers that provide access only to child-safe materials." Bell said that responsibility for Internet monitoring must rest with parents. "Responsible parents would let their kids wander alone through the Internet no sooner than they would let them wander alone through Los Angeles." Bell and Bernstein are both available to the media for comment on today's Supreme Court decision. Contact: Tom W. Bell, director of telecommunications and technology studies, 202-789-5283 Solveig Bernstein, associate director of telecommunications and technology studies, 202-789-5274 Dave Quast, director of public affairs, 202-789-5266 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2020 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 7--Family Research Council on CDA decision Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 2020 CONTACT: Kristin Hansen, (202) 393-2100 COURT REAFFIRMS GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM PORN, BUT STRIKES CDA AS TOO BROAD WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Today's ruling means that pornographers can open their doors to children on the Internet. But pornographers beware: this will not be the last word on protecting children from your corrupting influence," Family Research Council Legal Policy Director Cathy Cleaver said Thursday. "While Reno v. ACLU said that the specific provisions of the CDA are too broad, the Court also said that more narrowly tailored provisions could be upheld." Cleaver made her comments as the Supreme Court issued its ruling striking down the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Cleaver continued, "Parents still have no legal recourse to protect their children from being sent a Penthouse centerfold. This is not good news for the thousands of families who discover every day that their children have accessed offensive and disgusting material on the internet. "At the same time, the Court has opened the door to new legislation protection children. Americans should urge Congress to take another look at the issue and draft a more narrowly defined statute. "But now, the flood gates remain open to purveyors of smut. With no legal liability for those who pursue children with graphic images and language on the internet, we need to act fast and firmly to ensure that our country does not give pornographers special rights." FOR MORE INFORMATION OR INTERVIEWS, CONTACT THE FRC PRESS OFFICE. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2020 16:41:58 -0500 From: jthomas2@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas) Subject: File 8--White House Statement on CDA Decision Source - http://www.whitehouse.gov THE WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM _________________________________________________________________ June 26, 2020 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Message Creation Date was at 26-JUN-1997 13:10:00 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release June 26, 2020 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Today, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the Communications Decency Act addressing indecency are not constitutional. We will study its opinion closely. The administration remains firmly committed to the provisions -- both in the CDA and elsewhere in the criminal code -- that prohibit the transmission of obscenity over the Internet and via other media. Similarly, we remain committed to vigorous enforcement of federal prohibitions against transmission of child pornography over the Internet, and another prohibition that makes criminal the use of the Internet by pedophiles to entice children to engage in sexual activity. The Internet is an incredibly powerful medium for freedom of speech and freedom of expression that should be protected. It is the biggest change in human communications since the printing press, and is being used to educate our children, promote electronic commerce, provide valuable health care information, and allow citizens to keep in touch with their government. But there is material on the Internet that is clearly inappropriate for children. As a parent, I understand the concerns that parents have about their children accessing inappropriate material. If we are to make the Internet a powerful resource for learning, we must give parents and teachers the tools they need to make the Internet safe for children . Therefore, in the coming days, I will convene industry leaders and groups representing teachers, parents and librarians. We can and must develop a solution for the Internet that is as powerful for the computer as the v-chip will be for the television, and that protects children in ways that are consistent with America ,s free speech values. With the right technology and rating systems - we can help ensure that our children don ,t end up in the red light districts of cyberspace. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-2019540 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #9.50 ************************************