Re: Telecommunications Law
Ted Burton (tedbrtn@CYBERHIGHWAY.NET)
Sun, 11 Feb 1996 07:50:11 -0700
At 23:48 2.10.1996, RW Skelton wrote:
> VERY OBVIOUSLY, it seems that people still just don't get it!
>What the problem is principle-they tacked it on to the big bill for tv
>over phones, cable companies providing telephone and vice versa-congress
>and Bill sneaked that one (or tried to) behind our backs.
Rhett, whoa. What follows is a quote from Apple NetUsers:
"President's don't decide Constitutionality. See R. Nixon.
" [this one was ]The
Congress, with Clinton having a reasonable alibi for no veto in the fact
that putting off deregulation in a floundering economy and a
technologically relentlessly advancing world is just plain dumb.
Failure to fulfill his Constitutional requirement to implement acts of
The Congress is actionable in the courts and is nominally an impeachable
offense. I say this realizing that any offense is in fact impeachable,
real or imagine, if you have the votes. But this one just might have
legs, at least legs enough for hearings. Enough legs for public support.
To the average guy, this is an argument over perverts picking up kids
and their dirty pictures. Know what I mean Verne? The President can also
be sued to enforce the law as can all the agencies under him, by anyone,
not just the Congress. Ever hear of equal protection? Malfeasance?
Dereliction? Due diligence? They would be challenged, almost
immediately is my guess.
The question of law that matters here is whether "obscene" is vague in
the context of this legislation and/or applicable to ISP's, whose legal
status as publisher vs. conduit would have to be defined. Either finding
would make the law unconstitutional. The wise course, something Clinton
rarely takes he did take here. Let The ACLU sue on these narrow
obscenity/applicability issues and let the Supreme Court decide. They'll
get an expedited hearing and the whole thing will be settled in a few
months, maybe weeks. Meanwhile the communications competitive battle
will move ahead.
After the ruling, if it goes the wrong way, you go after YOUR
congressional reps this fall.
Clinton's issue of a non-enforcement Executive Order would more than
likely wind up with a stay of ALL the provisions of The Bill while a
plethora of legal issues were settled. He cannot selectively enforce
provisions of the law without opening a huge can of litigation. All the
companies in the game would freeze in place waiting for clarification of
the whole law. They might even pile on with challenges to provisions
they individually don't care for. The courts would almost certainly stay
the entire law while they decide what provisions are constitutional.
I'd like to see some competition in in-state phone service, internet
access, cable and long distance sometime before I start pushing up
Frankly I think the obscenity will be tossed out even with the bent of
this court on the grounds of applicability. In any case the shortest
route to a division in the government was taken. A straight line on the
specific disagreement right to the courts.
It's the best you get in the US."
Rhett, when the Independence types got done with your right of free speech,
Heaven help you.
who is netAddressed as: email@example.com
"Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to describe the history of the
computer industry for the past decade as a massive effort to keep up with
-Byte, December 1994
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City