Re: Telecommunications Law
Norman J. MacLeod (gaelwolf@SSNET.COM)
Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:52:10 -0500
You wrote -
> Already one message has been posted here to encourage acts of protest
> against the signing. It seems to me that those who protest must be FOR
> transmitting indecent material to minors. A Scouting forum doesn't appear to
> be the proper place for such advocacy.
As I understand the argument, it's not so much about the idea of
transmitting such materials, but rather the issue is over the very
vague wording of the section in question. Wording so vauge that it
can be taken to say just about anything anybody would want it to.
Wording that could be extended to other subject areas and lead to
very real censorship in other subject areas...
It also makes service providers responsible for what their customers
transmit, which is a concept that we can easily see leading to the
destruction of the small service providers who cannot afford to hire
people to watch over the customers. Not to mention that such overshight
would be so expensive that your service providers and mine would have
to significantly raise their rates.
I have no problem with the individual customer being responsible for
what he or she transmits, but I do have a problem with the service
provider being held equally responsible and liable for the criminal
actions of others.
A lot of folks see this section as being unconstitutional, and, on the
surface, it seems to me that it may be so.
With the laws already in place and the availability of software to
control access to internet services from your home or business system,
perhaps this section of the Telecommunications Law ought not be there.
Parental reponsibility and control should come into this instead of
a governmental blanket, in my own personal opinion...
But then, I don't know all that much about constitutional law...
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City