The Communications Decency Act and Us

The following is taken verbatim from the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and contains, in our opinion, some of the most remarkable language to be found is this legislation. Emphasis is added by us.

SEC. 230. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.

(a) Findings: The Congress finds the following:

1. The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
2. These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
3. The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
4. The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
5. Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

(b) Policy: It is the policy of the United States--

1. to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
2. to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
3. to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
4. to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
5. to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

(c) Protection for 'Good Samaritan' Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material:

1. Treatment of publisher or speaker: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
2. Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

If our congress, as stated in Section A paragraph 4 above, recognizes that the Internet has flourished without their interference, why are they now attempting to interfere? We can only assume that they wish to put a halt to this success. As we see from section C paragraph 2 A, they clearly recognized that it would require subverting the constitution to accomplish this. Their intentions are remarkably clear here, in what is, in many other sections, a very muddled piece of legislation.

There is, however, one rather vague and troublesome phrase: "otherwise objectionable". Considering that this act gives all of us the power to censor anything we find "otherwise objectionable," whether or not it is constitutionally protected, it might be helpful to assist our enlightened legislators in defining what "otherwise objectionable" means to us. We, for instance, find it "otherwise objectionable" to have our constitutional rights abridged by them. There are many other things, not specifically enumerated, which we find otherwise objectionable, and it occurred to us that those of you reading this might also have similar objections. To aid our representatives, I am providing an Interactive Objection feature. Fill out the form, and your objection will be anonymously added to the top of the objection list below.

We of cyberspace, individually or collectively, find the following " otherwise objectionable":