| Response: |
From
the
CDA - |
NOTE: This section is abridged to show only the portions of the CDA dealing with computers. Sections dealing with telephones and television have been deleted. Abridged sections are marked with an ellipsis (...). Emphasis added.
SEC. 502. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.
...
2(e) In addition to any other defenses available by law:
...
- It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a)(1)(B) or (d), or under subsection (a)(2) with respect to the use of a facility for an activity under subsection (a)(1)(B) that a person--
- has taken, in good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access by minors to a communication specified in such subsections, which may involve any appropriate measures to restrict minors from such communications, including any method which is feasible under available technology; or
- has restricted access to such communication by requiring use of a verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number.
- The Commission may describe measures which are reasonable, effective, and appropriate to restrict access to prohibited communications under subsection (d). Nothing in this section authorizes the Commission to enforce, or is intended to provide the Commission with the authority to approve, sanction, or permit, the use of such measures. The Commission shall have no enforcement authority over the failure to utilize such measures. The Commission shall not endorse specific products relating to such measures. The use of such measures shall be admitted as evidence of good faith efforts for purposes of paragraph (5) in any action arising under subsection (d).
Nothing in this section shall be construed to treat interactive computer services as common carriers or telecommunications carriers.
(f)
- No cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any person on account of any activity that is not in violation of any law punishable by criminal or civil penalty, and that the person has taken in good faith to implement a defense authorized under this section or otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, a communication specified in this section.
- No State or local government may impose any liability for commercial activities or actions by commercial entities, nonprofit libraries, or institutions of higher education in connection with an activity or action described in subsection (a)(2) or (d) that is inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions under this section:
Provided, however, That nothing herein shall preclude any State or local government from enacting and enforcing complementary oversight, liability, and regulatory systems, procedures, and requirements, so long as such systems, procedures, and requirements govern only intrastate services and do not result in the imposition of inconsistent rights, duties or obligations on the provision of interstate services. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any State or
local government from governing conduct not covered by this section.
(g) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), (e), or (f) or in the defenses to prosecution under subsection (a) or (d) shall be construed to affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other Federal law.
|
Personal
Opinion |
First of all, Sen. Jim Exon is NOT a conservative OR a Republican. In fact, successful opposition to Sen Exon's initial bill in the House was strongly supported by Newt Gingrich!
Now, the only speech restricted by the CDA (and note that it is restricted, not prohibited) is speech that has been abused ("obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person"). And the only restriction is that you must take "good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access by minors" using "available technology." Where is the censorship in this? You still get to say it if you take appropriate precautions!
The core problem seems to be not so much "the CDA restricts my freedom of speech" as much as "the CDA restricts my freedom to inflict my speech on you whether you want it or not." There is a difference. Free speech is important, but so is freedom from abuse. Do you truly believe the unencumbered right to use one of the Seven Sacred Words is REALLY worth the cost of even one child's life? (Yes, this is an emotional plea. But childrens' lives have already been sacrificed on the altar of "free speech," so perhaps it can be forgiven) If you have an alternate solution that consists of something other than wishful thinking, let's hear it.
|
