I found this on Usenet's alt.2600 newsgroup. Some very interesting stuff here, including a list of who voted for it, and Alabama Sen. Heflin's new status as a co-sponsor of the bill. Vermont Sen. Leahy says a lot of intelligent things and a few silly things. The prayer by the Senate chaplain is rather illuminating, as well.
If anyone isn't sure by now...I am very much against this bill and any others that seek to criminalize public speech. Sen. Leahy's alternative is more study, which is better than a bad law but still leaves that possibility.
Newsgroups: alt.2600 Subject: Re: **COMPUTER DECENCY BILL! HOLY SHIT!!** From: emmanuel@2600.com (Emmanuel Goldstein) Date: 17 Jun 1995 04:06:01 GMT ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For more questions, send mail to vtw@vtw.org. Here is the Senate debate on the Exon bill obtained from the Congressional Record from June 14, 1995. -Shabbir Mr. EXON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I wish to thank my fine colleague from Indiana for all the help he has been and for a lot of work we have put in on this. I would be glad to yield to him for whatever time he wants to begin debate or, if he wishes me to proceed, I will do so at this time. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, I would like to start out this debate by reading a prayer that was offered by the Chaplain of the Senate on Monday, June 12, that I hope will guide us once again. It was so much on point to what this Senator and the Senator from Indiana and others are attempting to do that I think it is worthy of repetition: Almighty God, Lord of all life, we praise You for the advancements in computerized communications that we enjoy in our time. Sadly, however, there are those who are littering this information superhighway with obscene, indecent, and destructive pornography. Virtual but virtueless reality is projected in the most twisted, sick misuse of sexuality. Violent people with sexual pathology are able to stalk and harass the innocent. Cyber solicitation of teenagers reveals the dark side of online victimization. Lord, we are profoundly concerned about the impact of this on our children. We have learned from careful study how children can become addicted to pornography at an early age. Their understanding and appreciation of Your gift of sexuality can be denigrated and eventually debilitated. Pornography disallowed in print and the mail is now readily available to young children who learn how to use the computer. Oh God, help us care for our children. Give us wisdom to create regulations that will protect the innocent. In times past, You have used the Senate to deal with problems of air and water pollution, and the misuse of our natural resources. Lord, give us courage to balance our reverence for freedom of speech with responsibility for what is said and depicted. Now, guide the Senators when they consider ways of controlling the pollution of computer communications and how to preserve one of our greatest resources: The minds of our children and the future and moral strength of our Nation. Amen. Mr. President, that is the end of the quote of the Chaplain of the Senate that I referenced earlier. If in any American neighborhood an individual were distributing pornographic photos, cartoons, videos, and stories to children, or if someone were posting lewd photographs on lampposts and telephone poles for all to see, or if children were welcome to enter and browse adult book stores and triple X rated video arcades, there would be a public outrage. I suspect and I hope that most people, under those circumstances, would immediately call the police to arrest and charge any person responsible for such offenses. I regret to report that these very offenses are occurring everyday in America's electronic neighborhood. It is not right to permit this type of activity in your neighborhoods and it is not right to ignore such activities via a child's computer. Section 402 of the Communications Decency Act, that I have just offered on behalf of myself and my colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, a version of that, which has been slightly amended, was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee and added to S. 652, the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act that stands for a simple proposition; that is, the laws which already apply to obscene, indecent, and harassing telephone use and the use of the mails should also apply to computer communications. That is the heart and soul of our amendment. Not only are children being exposed to the most perverted pornography and inappropriate communications, but adults are also being electronically stalked and harassed. I have had the opportunity to share with several Members of the Senate, on [[Page S8330]] both sides of the aisle, what I refer to as the ``blue book.'' When I have shown this to Members on both sides of the aisle, there has been shock registered, obviously, on the faces of my colleagues, shock because few understand what is going on today with regard to the pollution of the Internet. I cannot and would not show these pictures to the Senate. I would not want our cameras to pick them up. But I think they probably are best described by some other material that has come to my attention by people who are strongly supporting our proposition. It says: Warning. Do not open until further instructions. Offensive material enclosed. Keep out of reach of children. I hope that all of my colleagues, if they are interested, will come by my desk and take a look at this disgusting material, pictures of which were copied off the free Internet only last week, to give you an idea of the depravity on our children, possibly our society, that is being practiced on the Internet today. This is what the Coats-Exon amendment is trying to correct. Mr. President, it is no exaggeration to say that the most disgusting, repulsive pornography is only a few clicks away from any child with a computer. I am not talking just about Playboy and Penthouse magazines. By comparison, those magazines pale in offensiveness with the other things that are readily available. I am talking about the most hardcore, perverse types of pornography, photos, and stories featuring torture, child abuse, and bestiality. These images and stories and conversations are all available in public spaces free of charge. If nothing is done now, the pornographers may become the primary beneficiary of the information revolution. I am the first to admit that solutions to this problem are not easy ones. It requires careful balance which protects legitimate use of this exciting new technology, respects the Constitution and, most importantly, provides the maximum protection possible for America's families and America's children. After months of discussion, negotiations, and research, I am pleased to offer the Exon-Coats refinement of the Communications Decency Act provisions included in the committee-reported bill. This modification represents a carefully balanced response to growing concerns about inappropriate use of telecommunications technologies. In committee, the decency provisions were refined to clarify and to focus on wrongdoers and to avoid imposing vicarious liability on innocent information service and Internet access providers who simply act as the mailmen, if you will, for computer messages. The modification now before the Senate further clarifies that the proposed legislation does not breach constitutionally protected speech between consenting adults nor interfere with legitimate privacy rights. The revision also provides strong protection for children. Mr. President, these revisions also make it certain that provisions of the Communications Decency Act in no way adversely affect the well- litigated dial-a-porn statutes generally referred to as 47 U.S.C. 223 (b) and (c). The Communications Decency Act is not a panacea. What the legislation will do is give law enforcement new tools to prosecute those who would use the computer to make the equivalent of obscene telephone calls, to prosecute electronic stalkers who terrorize their victims, to clamp down on the electronic distributors of obscene materials, and to enhance the chances of prosecution of those who would provide pornography to children via the computer. Parents, teachers and law enforcement should not be lulled into a false sense of security. Their vigilance will still be required even after this much-needed legislation is enacted into law. New voice, video, data and imaging options will soon enter every home or be available to America's children and neighborhood schools and libraries. This information revolution will give Americans unprecedented opportunities to enrich their lives, gain knowledge, and enhance their productivity. This legislation attempts to make the information superhighway a little bit safer for families and children to travel. The time to act is now. Delay only serves those who would endanger the Nation's children and those who use the new technology to distribute obscene materials or use the secrecy of the computer medium to harass others. I urge my colleagues to stand up for families and children and vote for the Communications Decency Act. Let us put politics aside and work together to protect the children. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I may consume. Nobody in here would disagree with the fact that we want to keep hardcore pornography away from our children. I am the proud parent of three children, and the proud father-in-law of three others. I cherish the time when those children were growing up. I had the advantage of growing up in a family where we learned to read at an early age. My parents had published a weekly newspaper when I was a child and owned a printing business throughout the time I was growing up until my adult life when they retired. They read to us as children and encouraged our reading. By the time I was 4 years old, I was reading books actively. By the time I finished third grade, I had read all of Dickens and most of Robert Louis Stevenson. I say that not to brag but because it happened with the encouragement of my parents. They guided me; they encouraged me to read and to read a good deal. They knew that, periodically, I might read something that they probably wished I would not, but they got me to read and read and read. It helped me through college, it helped me through law school, it helped me through my days as a district attorney, and it certainly helped me become a U.S. Senator. I also use Internet. I do town meetings on the Internet. I correspond with people around the world with the Internet. I call up information I need and plan trips to other countries. I call up information and maps, and so on. I find it is a most marvelous tool. Somebody raised the question about something in Australia the other day, and I could click into the Internet and pull up something from a country thousands of miles away, instantaneously. Now, I have not seen the things on the Internet--I do not doubt that they are there--that the Senator from Nebraska speaks of. I am six- foot-four, and I looked over the shoulders of a huddle of Senators going through the blue book of the Senator from Nebraska. I saw one page of it, but I do not care to see that kind of filth. I also know that I use the Internet probably more than most, and I have not been able to find some of these things. But I do not question that they are there. I do worry about the universal revulsion for that kind of pornography--I assume it is universal in this body--and that we not unnecessarily destroy in reaction what has been one of the most remarkable technological advances, certainly in my lifetime--the Internet. It has grown as well as it has, as remarkably as it has, primarily because it has not had a whole lot of people restricting it, regulating it, and touching it and saying, do not do that or do this or the other thing. Can you imagine if it had been set up as a Government entity and we all voted on these regulations for it? We would probably be able to correspond electrically with our next-door neighbor, if we ran a wire back and forth, and that would be it. Had we had the Government involved every step of the way and had us engaged in micromanaging it every step of the way, we would not have the Internet that we have today. I think there is a better way to reach the goal that the Senator from Nebraska and I share. The goal is--and I yield to nobody in this body-- to keep really filthy material out of the hands of children. Maybe we can do it the same way my parents did. They guided me when we read. We have software that can allow parents to know what their children see on the Internet. Maybe some day we will accept the fact that there is some responsibility on the part of parents, not on the part of the U.S. Congress to tell children exactly what they should do and read and see and talk about as they are growing up. Maybe mothers and fathers ought to do what mine did and what my wife and I did with our children. [[Page S8331]] In that regard, Mr. President, I also suggest that if we are going to get involved, maybe we should allow the elected Members of this body to do it. I was concerned when I heard the new Chaplain. I have not had a chance to meet him. Some day I will. After listening to his prayer, it seems like he was part of the debate. It reminds me of his predecessor who gave a long, long prayer here shortly after the arrest of O.J. Simpson saying that he worried about poor O.J. Simpson's state of being, and that we should pray for him and hopefully he would feel OK. Some of us suggested that maybe there ought to have also been prayers for the two people that were murdered. I do not mean in any way to suggest who committed the crime. But I recall suggesting that maybe if we are going to have the chaplains interject themselves into public debate, they may want to be evenhanded enough, at least, to pray for those who have died and not just for somebody who may be a wealthy ex- football star. By the same token, I suggest to the Chaplain--who may be a very fine man, for all I know--that perhaps he should allow us to debate these issues and determine how they come out and maybe pray for our guidance, but allow us to debate them. He may find that he has enough other duties, such as composing a prayer each morning for us, to keep him busy. The concern I had in my amendment--my amendment speaks to the need to have a real study of just how we do this. I suggest one way, of course, is to have the kind of software that is now available, where parents can find out exactly who their children have been corresponding with or what they have been looking at on the Internet. Parents can make it very clear that if you want to use the computer, there are certain areas you do not go into. It is the same way we do it today. A parent can say, hey, you are going to bring books home and there are certain things that are going to be off limits--at least at your age. It is not that much different just because they might be able to call up the books, or whatever, at home. That is no different than calling up the books from the corner bookstore. I suspect that a number of these things are available there. My bill would require the Attorney General, in consultation with the National Telecommunications Information Administration of the Department of Commerce, to transmit to the Judiciary Committees in the Senate and in the House of Representatives a report of evaluating current laws and resources for prosecuting online obscenity and child pornography. If pornographers are out there, prosecute them. I have voted, as most of us have, to go after them. As a former prosecutor and as a parent, I find them the most disgusting people. What they do to our children is terrible, allowing authorities to go directly after them. Let us find out how we do that without destroying the Internet. For example, the first part of the amendment from the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Indiana would make it a felony not only to send obscene messages to another person, but apply the same penalty to sending an e-mail message with indecent or filthy words that you hope will annoy another person. For example, if someone sends you an annoying e-mail message and you respond with a filthy four-letter word, you may land in jail for 2 years with $100,000 fine. If you picked up the phone and did the exact same thing, you are perfectly OK. But if you type it out and send it to the person electronically, no matter how annoyed you might be, tough. I do not think under this amendment a computer user would be able to send a private or public e-mail message with the so-called seven dirty words. Who knows when a recipient would feel annoyed by seeing a four- letter word on-line? The second part of the amendment makes it a felony to send or receive over computer networks any obscene material. There is no requirement that the person soliciting and receiving the material knew it was obscene. In other words, you click on your Internet--and you can go through thousands and thousands of words--and find out that something you called up expecting it to be innocent is not, you could be prosecuted for receiving it under this statute. I think that goes too far. I think that could be far better worded. I think that if we had the Justice Department study the area and make recommendations that we then act upon within a very short period of time, which is also in my amendment, I think it would be far better. What I worry about is not to protect pornographers. Child pornographers, in my mind, ought to be in prison. The longer the better. I am trying to protect the Internet, and make sure that when we finally have something that really works in this country, that we do not step in and screw it up, as sometimes happens with Government regulation. When it came out that I was looking for an alternative approach, one that would allow the Justice Department to find a way to go after pornographers but to protect the free use of the Internet, I received these petitions almost immediately. Every page of this stack of documents that I am holding has dozens and dozens of names from across the Internet. These are people saying yes, that is the way to do it. Find out how to go after the pornographers, but keep our Internet working. There were 35,000 petitions, in a matter of days. In that regard, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article in the New York Times magazine this Sunday by James Gleick, titled, ``This Is Sex?'' be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the New York Times Magazine, June 11, 1995] This Is Sex? (By James Gleick) At first glance, there's a lot of sex on the Internet. Or, not at first glance--nobody can find anything on the Internet at first glance. But if you have time on your hands, if you're comfortable with computing, and if you have an unflagging curiosity about sex--in other words, if you're a teen-ager--you may think you've suddenly landed in pornography heaven. Nude pictures! Foul language! Weird bathroom humor! No wonder the Christian Coalition thinks the Internet is turning into a red-light district. There's even a ``Red Light District'' World Wide Web page. So we explore. Some sites make you promise to be a grown- up. (O.K.: you promise.) You try ``Girls,'' a link leading to a computer at the University of Bordeaux, France. The message flashes back: Document Contains No Data. ``Girls'' at Funet, Finland, seems to offer lots of pictures (Dolly Parton! Ivana Trump!)--Connect Timed Out. ``Girls,'' courtesy of Liberac University of Technology, Czech Republic, does finally, with painful slowness, deliver itself of a 112,696-byte image of Madchen Amick. You could watch it spread across your screen, pixel by tantalizing pixel, but instead you go have lunch during the download, and when you return, there she is--in black-and-white and wearing clothes. These pictures, by the way, are obviously scanned from magazines. And magazines are the ideal medium for them. Clearly the battle cry of the on-line voyeur is ``Host Contacted--Waiting for Reply.'' With old Internet technology, retrieving and viewing any graphic image on a PC at home could be laborious. New Internet technology, like browsers for the Web, makes all this easier, though it still takes minutes for the typical picture to squeeze its way through your modem. Meanwhile, though, ease of use has killed off the typical purveyor of dirty pictures, capable of serving hundreds of users a day but uninterested in handling hundreds of thousands. The Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers has turned off its ``Femmes femmes femmes je vous aime'' Web page. The good news for erotica fans is that users are redirected to a new site where ``You can find naked women, including topless and total nudity''; the bad news is that this new site is the Louvre. The Internet does offer access to hundreds of sex ``newsgroups,'' forums for discussion encompassing an amazing spectrum of interests. They're easy to find--in the newsgroup hierarchy ``alt.sex'' (``alt'' for alternative) comes right after ``alt.sewing.'' And yes, alt.sex is busier than alt.sewing. But quite a few of them turn out to be sham and self-parody. Look at alt.sex.fish--practically nothing. Alt.sex.bestiality--aha! just what Jesse Helms fears most-- gives way to alt.sex.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape, and fascinating as this sounds, when you call it up you find it's empty, presumably the vestige of a short-lived joke. Alt.sex.bondage.particle-physics is followed by alt.sex.sheep.baaa.baaa.baaa.moo--help! Still, if you look hard enough, there is grotesque stuff available. If pornography doesn't bother you, your stomach may be curdled by the vulgar commentary and clinical how-to's in the militia and gun newsgroups. Your local newsstand is a far more user-friendly source of obscenity than the on-line world, [[Page S8332]] but it's also true that, if you work at it, you can find plenty on line that will disgust you, and possibly even disgust your children. This is the justification for an effort in Congress to give the Federal Government tools to control the content available on the Internet. The Communications Decency Act, making its way through Congress, aims to transform the obscene-phone- call laws into a vehicle for prosecuting any Internet user, bulletin-board operator, or on-line service that knowingly makes obscene material available. As originally written, the bill would not only have made it a crime to write lewd E-mail to your lover; it would also have made it a crime for your Internet provider to transmit it. After a round of lobbying from the large on-line services, the bill's authors have added ``defenses'' that could exempt mere unwitting carriers of data, and they say it is children, not consenting adults, they aim to protect. Nevertheless, the legislation is a historically far-reaching attempt at censorship on a national scale. The Senate authors of this language do not use E-mail themselves, or browse the Web, or chat in newsgroups, and their legislation reflects a mental picture of how the on- line world works that does not match the reality. The existing models for Federal regulation of otherwise protected speech--for example, censorship of broadcast television and prohibition of harassing telephone calls--come from a world that is already vanishing over the horizon. There aren't three big television networks now, serving a unified mass market; there are thousands of television broadcasters serving, ever-narrower special interests. And on the Internet, the number of broadcasters is rapidly approaching the number of users: uncountable. With Internet use spreading globally, most live sources of erotic images already seem to be overseas. The sad reality for Federal authorities is that they cannot cut those off without forcing the middlemen--on-line services in the United States--to do the work of censorship, and that work is a practical impossibility. Any teen-ager with an account on Prodigy can use its new Web browser to search for the word ``pornography'' and click his way to ``Femmes femmes femmes'' (oh, well, better luck next time). Policing discussion groups presents the would- be censor with an even more hopeless set of choices. A typical Internet provider carries more than 10,000 groups. As many as 100 million new words flow through them every day. The actual technology of these discussion groups is hard to fathom at first. They are utterly decentralized. Every new message begins on one person's computer and propagates outward in waves, like a chain letter that could eventually reach every mailbox in the world. Legislators would like to cut off a group like alt.sex.bondage.particle-physics at the source, or at its home--but it has no source and no home, or rather, it has as many homes as there are computers carrying newsgroups. This is the town-square speech the First Amendment was for: often rancorous, sometimes harsh and occasionally obscene. Voices do carry farther now. The world has never been this global and this intimate at once. Even seasoned Internet users sometimes forget that, lurking just behind the dozen visible participants in an out-of-the-way newsgroup, tens of millions of potential readers can examine every word they post. If a handful of people wish to share their private experiences with like-minded people in alt.sex.fetish.hair, they can do so, efficiently--the most fervent wishes of Congress notwithstanding--and for better or worse, they'll have to learn that children can listen in. Meanwhile, if gun- wielding extremists wish to discuss the vulnerable points in the anatomy of F.B.I. agents, they too can do so. At least the rest of us can listen in on them, too. Perhaps there is a grain of consolation there--instead of censorship, exposure to the light. Anyway, the only real alternative now would be to unwire the Information Superhighway altogether. Mr. LEAHY. I would note a couple things from the article. It points out that it is a sad reality for Federal authorities that they cannot cut off pornographers without forcing the middleman--the on-line services of the United States--to do the work of censorship. That work is a practical impossibility. A typical Internet provider carries more than 10,000 groups. As many as 100 million new words go through them every day. Are we going to have a whole new group in the Justice Department checking these 100 million new words to find out if they are wrong? Some of the words might appear, just looking at their listings, to be something wild. There may, in fact, be nothing there. The article notes a listing for ``Femmes, Femmes, Femmes'', a French word for women. If you call up the listing, it is a catalog to the Louvre in Paris. Somebody has a sense of humor. But it gives everyone an idea. Is this person suddenly going to be under investigation because of his or her sense of humor? I am about to yield the floor, Mr. President, and reserve the balance of my time. Before I do that, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of groups ranging from the Association of American Publishers to the American Library Association, the Newspaper Association of America, to the Times Mirror, all of whom support my idea of a study in finding a better way of doing this. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Supporters of Leahy Study Association of American Publishers (AAP). Association of American University Presses (AAUP). The Faculty of the City University of New York. Interactive Working Group. Online Operators Policy Committee of the Interactive. Services Association. American Advertising Federation. American Association of Advertising Agencies. American Library Association. American Society of Newspaper Editors. Association of National Advertisers, Inc. Association of Research Libraries. Business Software Alliance. Center for Democracy and Technology. Computer and Communications Industry Association. Direct Marketing Association. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Feminists For Free Expression. Magazine Publishers of America. Media Access Project. National Public Telecomputing Network. Newspaper Association of America. People for the American Way Action Fund. Recreational Software Advisory Counsel Software Publishers Association. Times Mirror. Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague from Nebraska for his interest in this subject and for his willingness to work with me and our staff in putting together what I think is an important piece of legislation, and a very effective piece of legislation. Obviously, it is a difficult task, balancing first amendment rights with protections that go toward placing restrictions, in reasonable ways, so that particularly children are not recipients of obscene or indecent material. Mr. President, sometimes our technology races beyond our ability to stop and reflect. We are left with a very dangerous gap, a period of time when society is unprepared to deal with the results of such rapid change. That is the situation we face with the Internet. The Internet is a tool of great potential. Senator Leahy has said it opens a new world of opportunity. It has become, without, I believe, anybody specifically planning it or anticipating it, it has become one of the largest distributors of pornography in the world. One study found more than 450,000 pornographic images and text files are available to anyone with a modem. This vast library of obscenity and indecency was accessed 6.4 million times in just the last year. Now, we need to make sure what we are talking about here. We are not talking about what most people now have images in their mind as to what is available off the Internet. I looked at the Senator's blue book, and I would urge every Senator to look at that before they make a final decision on what we are doing here. It is important to understand the kind of material that is available. Everything imaginable. We are talking about images and text that deal with the sexual abuse of children. We are talking about images and words and sexual abuse of infants. By one estimate about a quarter of the images available involve the torture of women. We are dealing in many, many cases with perversion and brutality beyond normal imagination and beyond the boundaries of a civil society. These facts are clear, because it is available now in the Internet, and we have pictures of it if anybody wants to see it, or copies of the text that is available on the Internet. There is one more fact that ought to move the Senate from great and deep concern to immediate action here today. That is the fact that the Internet is the one area of communication technology that has no protection at all for children. Now, we face a somewhat unique, disturbing and urgent circumstance, because it is children who are the computer experts in our Nation's families. [[Page S8333]] My generation--I have not figured out how to use the VCR yet. I have a blinking 12 I do not know how to get rid of. It is the children today who are trained from almost kindergarten on, on how to access the computer. They have technology available at their fingertips that most adults do not have. Sometimes in the interest of helping with their homework or for the development of our children, we place the computer either in a special room or even in their bedrooms. Of the 6.8 million homes with on-line accounts currently available, 35 percent have children under the age of 18. The only barriers between those children and the material--the obscene and indecent material on the Internet--are perfunctory onscreen warnings which inform minors they are on their honor not to look at this. The Internet is like taking a porn shop and putting it in the bedroom of your children and then saying ``Do not look.'' I think anybody who is a parent understands that is a pretty difficult situation to enforce. That really is a miscarriage of the responsibility that I think adults hold to our society, to our children in our society. We have all read the worst abuses of this new technology. Children, not realizing the danger, give out their names, their addresses, their phone numbers to people they meet over the Internet. They become easy targets for sexual abuse. Recently, one man, in an attempt to find out just how difficult a problem this was, posed--typed in on the computer--posed himself as a 13-year-old. In the course of one evening on-line he was approached by more than 20 pedophiles. I suggest that, as difficult and as horrendous as these stories are, the effect of this kind of material, this kind of practice is far broader. It does not turn all who see it into rapists and killers, but it does kill something about our spirit, particularly the spirit of our children. I think we have always felt a special responsibility and obligation to defend childhood through parents, through society; to make it, to the best extent we can, a safe harbor of innocence. It is a privileged time to develop values in an environment that is not hostile to our children. But the Internet has invaded that protected place and destroys that innocence. It takes the worst excesses of sexual depravity and places it directly into the child's bedroom, on the computer that their parents purchased in the thought it would help them do their homework or develop their intellect. When sexual violence and gross indecency are available to anyone at the touch of a button, both an individual or a culture become desensitized. It is not always that people emulate this material, but often you can become immune to it. The images and messages act like a novocaine on our national conscience. They numb our capacity for outrage. What used to outrage us now becomes almost commonplace. They have invaded our homes. They have invaded the minds of our children. I think they have numbed us to the shock that used to be present when this kind of material was exposed. This is an issue beyond partisanship. It is sponsored by a Democrat and Republican. I hope our concern will unite people across the ideological spectrum. A vote for the Exon-Coats amendment is a way to side with women endangered by rape and violence, to side with children threatened by abuse, to side with families concerned about the innocence of their children and the decency of our culture. The question, in my mind, is not if we should act but what we should we do. I believe the Exon-Coats amendment is a serious, thoughtful answer to that question. It is carefully crafted to be constitutional, to address the constitutional questions. But it is also designed to leave pornographers on the Internet, who would provide their material to children, with no place to hide. The approach we are taking has been legally upheld in the dial-a-porn statutes. It extends that approach, which has already proven its worth, to this new technology. What we are doing here is not new. What we are doing here is not something that has not been debated before this body. We are taking the standards adopted by the Senate, by the Congress, signed into law, that apply to the use of these kinds of communications over the phone wires and applied it, now, over the computer wires. It is just simply a different means of bringing a communication into a home--through the computer rather than through the phone. We are taking the same standards. This Senate, on November 16, 1989, voted 96 to 4 to adopt these standards; 96 Members of the Senate have already voted to adopt these standards and apply it to the telephone communication of obscenity and indecency. All Senator Exon and I are trying to do is apply those same standards now to this new means of reaching into our homes. The bottom line is simple. We are removing indecency from areas of cyberspace that are easily accessible to children. If individuals want to provide that material, they have to do so with barriers to minors. If adults want access to the material, they have to make an affirmative, positive effort to get it. Let me repeat that. That is the critical part of this bill. We are simply saying here if you are in the business of providing this material, you have a responsibility, and it is punishable by penalty of law if you violate that responsibility--I ask the Senator for 5 additional minutes. Mr. EXON. I wish to yield whatever additional time the Senator from Indiana requires. Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for the additional time. Mr. President, all we are saying is, if you are in the business of providing this material, you have to provide barriers so it does not get in the hands of children. If you are an adult who wants to receive this material, you have to call up and get it. You have to subscribe to it. You have to prove you are an adult before you receive it. What would our amendment do? It would clean up the Internet. We ban obscenity. And we require that indecency be walled off so children cannot have access. We also require commercial on-line services to adopt this standard. If they wish to provide indecent material, they have to make what we call an effective, good-faith effort to segregate it from access to children and, as the Senator from Nebraska has said, we protect women and children from sexual predators who use this technology to harass and to stalk. Critics of the amendment are going to say it will cripple or close the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our legislation includes reasonable protections for businesses and service providers who act in good faith to shield children from indecency. We provide defenses for those who do nothing more than merely provide access to the Internet. This means that small businessmen and others who simply have a computer in their office are not going to be subjected to the penalties when that computer is misused. It is important to note that both the chamber of commerce, representing business, and a number of national family groups concerned about pornography, have both endorsed this legislation. They have understood we have defined an approach that is strong but reasonable and realistic. Critics may also charge the standards we have set are too high and this will force businesses to deny children access to the Internet entirely, but that is not true. That is a scare tactic, not an argument. Our legislation simply provides the same protections for children that currently exist in every other sector of our society. Pornographic magazines today cannot be sold to minors. Telephones today cannot be used to provide indecent messages to minors. But magazine stores and telephone companies are alive and well. They still succeed because the reasonable efforts that we ask in the interests of children are not crippling demands. Mr. President, one of the most urgent questions in any modern society is how we humanize our technology, how we make it serve us instead of corrupt us. America is on the frontier of human knowledge but it is incomplete without applying human values. One of our most important values is the protection of our children, not only the protection of their bodies from violence but the protection of their minds and souls from abuse. We cannot and we should not resist change. But our brave new world must [[Page S8334]] not be hostile to the innocence of our children. The Exon-Coats amendment is a reasonable amendment. I hope that Members will support it. I am pleased to join the Senator from Nebraska in offering it to the Senate for its consideration. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, unless the distinguished Senator from Nebraska is seeking recognition, I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment because I think that is the right approach. I oppose the second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska. But I first want to applaud the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, for his concern about the need to protect children from obscene and indecent material. No one has done more than he to raise the awareness of parents, educators, and legislators about the need to address the problem of materials on computer networks that may not be appropriate for children. One needs only to ``surf the net'' bulletin boards, read newspapers, periodicals, and listen to broadcast media to know that the question of obscenity and indecency on computer networks is one of the hottest topics around. The Senator for Nebraska is responsible for the debate on this important issue and I applaud his very genuine concern, his good intentions, and hard work to protect children. I have children of my own, and there are materials available through the Internet that would not be appropriate for them. Some of those materials skirt the boundaries of indecency or obscenity and other materials, while not indecent, are of an adult nature that my children may not have the maturity to understand at their age. So I, too, want to find methods to allow parents to protect their children from material on computer networks which they view as inappropriate without trampling on first amendment rights of the users of interactive telecommunications systems. I regret to say that I do not believe the Senator from Nebraska has revised the language as reflected in this second-degree amendment, which achieves that end. The Senator from Nebraska has gone a long way to revise the language of the Communications Decency Act to allay the concerns of antipornography groups, civil liberties organizations, and law enforcement officials who raised objections to the bill. His efforts to accommodate his colleagues only underscore his commitment to the welfare of our children. The language, as modified, now makes it a criminal offense, punishable by up to 2 years in prison and/or a $100,000 fine, to knowingly make, create, or solicit and initiate the transmission of, or purposefully make available any indecent--I emphasize the word ``indecent''--communication, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication to a person under 18 years of age. That would appear, on its face, to be within the scope of the Government's authority to regulate indecent speech directed at minors. The Supreme Court in the Pacifica Foundation case and other decisions has made it clear that the State may well have an interest in prohibiting indecency to minors. However, I, along with my colleague from Vermont, continue to have concerns about this provision. We share the goal of this provision, but disagree on the means to achieve that end. The crux of the problem, however, is that due to the unique nature of interactive telecommunications systems, attempts to prohibit indecent speech to minors on these networks raises questions of constitutionality. The Supreme Court, in the Sable decision, made it clear that any attempts to regulate indecent communications directed at minors must take into account the medium being used and the least restrictive means to achieve the goal of prohibiting indecency to minors. Thus, under Pacifica, offensive works could be banned from radio broadcasts during certain hours because there was, in effect, no other less restrictive means of preventing minors from being exposed to such materials. In contrast, Sable struck down broad Federal legislation seeking to ban certain communication via the telephone because there were alternative, less restrictive means available. The Federal statute in the Sable case was finally upheld when it was modified to require providers of sexually explicit telephone services, the so-called Dial- A-Porn services, to adopt mechanisms such as credit card authorization or other means of verifying age to prevent minors from accessing such services. In other words, where alternative means are available to block access by minors to these services, those methods must be implemented rather than denying adults their constitutionally protected right to such material. The proposed amendment not only adopts an approach that is not the least restrictive, it has the potential to retard significantly the development of this new type of interactive telecommunications. chilling effect on cyberspace speech I am concerned that this legislation will have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech on interactive communication networks, potentially slowing the rapid technological advances that are being made in this new technology. Because of the unique nature of interactive telecommunications networks, prohibiting indecency to minors without impacting constitutionally protected communications between adults must be carefully tailored. One of the most popular services accessed via the Internet is USENET, a series of interactive bulletin boards, news groups, and other participatory forums which are dedicated to different topics. They are literally thousands of these groups available on computer networks and they are used widely for discussion of everything from current events such as the legislation we are discussing today to completely obscure subjects. They are used for recreation, entertainment, business, research, and many other purposes. Users participating in those newsgroups may simply read the messages or they may post their own. There is no way to know who will be reading your message. Since it is possible that any minor whose home computer can access the Internet would also have access to the public bulletin board, one could make the case that the adult posting the so-called indecent message did so knowing that a minor might see the message. Thus, if this legislation became law, an adult participant on a bulletin board who posted a profane message using some of the ``seven dirty words'' on any subject could be subject to criminal penalties of up to 2 years in prison or a $100,000 fine, if a minor might read the message posted on that bulletin board. This threat of criminal sanctions could have a dramatic chilling effect on free speech on interactive telecommunications systems, and in particular, these newsgroups and bulletin boards accessed through the Internet. Quite simply, adults will have to watch what they say on these forums. Let me provide an example of how that might occur. According to an article in the Phoenix Gazette earlier this year, a large computer bulletin board was raided by the Arizona State Department of Public Safety and the local police for providing obscene material on their service. While months later the operators of that service had not yet been charged, it was reported that ``The crackdown had a chilling effect on providers of on-line services. Within days, operators of similar boards removed obscene files or eliminated public access to them.'' Now, Mr. President, there is no issue raised when the legitimate law enforcement efforts to enforce anti-obscenity laws and ordinances have a chilling effect on the distribution of obscene materials. Under a constitutional interpretation in our country, obscenity does not have the same constitutionally protected status as nonobscene speech. However, Senator Exon's bill would likely have a chilling effect on protected speech--or speech which may be perceived to be indecent, but not obscene. Communication between adults through the Internet would likely be [[Page S8335]] reduced to the lowest common denominator--that which is appropriate for children. Mr. President, that is not free speech. indecency defined by community standards Second, Mr. President, the threat of criminal sanctions despite a user's lack of control over, or knowledge of, who views his/her message, is of additional concern given that indecency is defined based on community standards. The definition of indecency for computer networks hasn't been fully explored. For broadcast media, FCC has defined indecency as ``language or material that, in context, depicts or describes in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs''--including the so- called seven dirty words. The nature of interactive telecommunications makes even the ``community standard'' and entirely different matter. As a bulletin board user you may not even be aware of who will be reading your communication, let alone where they are located for purposes of figuring out what a community standard might be. It is unclear what would constitute a community standard for indecency? Whose community? That of the initiator or that of the recipient? Will all free speech on the Internet be diminished to what might be considered decent in the most conservative community in the United States? An article in the San Diego Union-Tribune in February of this year documented a case in which a Tennessee court convicted a California couple of violating obscenity laws with their sexually explicit bulletin board based and operated in California. The jury applied the community standards of Memphis because the materials from the bulletin board were downloaded there. Again, in the case of obscenity, the community standard is of less concern because obscene speech is not protected. But in S. 652, we are prohibiting protected speech, so-called indecent speech. The uncharted community standards for indecency pose a risk that few users will be willing to bear. indecency provisions could make illegal socially valuable forums Based on the definition which has been applied to broadcast media, we could declare the content of many bulletin boards indecent--including those containing medical and academic discussions, on-line support groups where users discuss the trauma of sexual and physical abuse, or bulletin boards which contain information on sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS and how one might prevent them. Arguably, while the content is of a mature nature, these types of forums have tremendous social value. However, if minors gained access to these services, those making the indecent comment could be subject to 2 years in prison. Many of these bulletin boards for adults would simply cease to exist. Would the threat of criminal sanctions and the unclear nature of an indecency standard have a chilling effect on free speech via computer networks? I say it will. You bet it will. Adults will be forced to self-censor their words, even if they did not intend those words for children and even if they are protected by the first amendment. Mr. President, the use of computer networks holds tremendous potential for the expansion of public dialog and discourse advancing the value of the first amendment. It is an industry that is growing by leaps and bounds. The business, educational, and social welfare potential of the information superhighway is almost without limit. It would be devastating to limit the potential of this medium by taking steps that could have the effect of silencing its users. different standards for the same materials An additional concern, Mr. President, is that this legislation will establish different standards for material which appears in print and on the computer screen. The legislation would make certain individuals subject to criminal penalties if they made their materials and publications available on computer networks to which minors had access. However, that same material, the same message would be perfectly legal, and fully protected under the Constitution, in a bookstore, or a library. If a minor stumbled across, or purposefully sought, indecent materials in a bookstore and simply looked at that material, the author of that material would not be subject to criminal penalties nor would the bookstore or library that stocked the material. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind that many published works are available over the World Wide Web through the Internet. There is even a ``Virtual Library'' on the World Wide Web. Therefore it is entirely conceivable that we would have two separate standards for legality of the same works published in the print media and on electronic communications systems. Civil liberties advocates point out that under this bill it is possible that an individual who makes available electronically the novels such as ``Lady Chatterley's Lover,'' ``Catcher in the Rye'' by J.D. Salinger, or the many novels of Kurt Vonnegut such that they are potentially accessible to minors, could be subject to criminal penalties while could be found in any library and bookstore. Why the different standard? interactive media's unique technological characteristics must be considered The fundamental flaw in the language proposed by Senator Exon is that it attempts to regulate computer networks as we regulate broadcasting and telephones when it has little in common with either of them. Although the materials transmitted through interactive telecommunications systems often bear a greater resemblance to the print media, the fact remains that these interactive telecommunications systems have some entirely unique characteristics which need to be considered. It is a unique form of media posing differing challenges and opportunities. Unlike broadcast or print media, an individual on the Internet can be both a communications recipient and originator simultaneously. Congress needs to understand these differences before we can determine how best to protect children and the constitutional rights of Americans. Supreme Court Addresses Constitutionality of Content Regulation Based on Characteristics of the Medium The way in which the Supreme Court has dealt with obscenity and indecency questions as they relate to the first amendment has a lot to do with the structural characteristics of the medium in question. The Supreme Court has taken into consideration the scarcity of the medium as a public resource as well as the ability of the user to control the material he or she might view over the medium. The print media has been afforded a greater degree of first amendment protection because of the decentralized and nonintrusive nature of the medium. Newspapers are inexpensive to produce and to purchase, virtually unlimited in number, and are noninvasive--that is, it is easy for a consumer to avoid the media if they wish. Broadcasting, which uses the scarce public spectrum and which is more difficult to control from an end-user standpoint, has not enjoyed the same protection as print media. It is easier to come across indecent or offensive material while flipping through the channels on your television. Broadcast spectrum is also limited so courts have upheld content regulation to ensure that public resources furthered the public interest. Interactive communications are different, Mr. President. There is a greater ability on computer networks to avoid materials end users do not wish to receive than exists for either broadcast media or telephony, but arguably less than exists in print media. Users of the Internet and other on-line functions typically do not stumble across information, but go out surfing for materials on a particular subject. As such, they use search words, message headings, and the so-called gopher as their guide. Most newsgroups or bulletin boards that have sexually explicit materials are named such that there can be little doubt what types of materials one might encounter if you try to get into that area. Restriction of Protected Speech Justified To Serve Compelling Government Interest Only For Least Restrictive Means In addition to characteristics of scarcity and user control, the Supreme Court has allowed the abridgement of [[Page S8336]] protected speech based on certain criteria. Over the years, the Court has carefully examined two factors when determining the extent to which content shall be subject to government controls without violating the first amendment: Whether there is a compelling government interest to abridge protected speech; Whether abridgement is accomplished in the least restrictive means. Mr. President, while the Supreme Court has recognized that there may be a compelling government interest in shielding minors from indecent communications, I do not believe that the provision in the Exon bill will serve that interest in the least restrictive means. The provision, while appearing to apply only to minors, will in fact restrict the free speech of adults. The interactive electronic communications market is growing and the technology is evolving rapidly. Contrary to what others might contend, it is not clear that there are not adequate technical means available to parents and service providers to screen out objectionable material for children. There is currently software available which allows parents and employers to screen out objectionable services or newsgroups on the Internet. On-line service providers also have the ability to provide parents with a choice of what types of information their children should access. Schools and universities that provide the service of connection to the Internet can also decide which types of news groups on USENET they will make available. Carnegie-Mellon University recently made offensive-news groups less accessible to students by taking their names off their master list. I want to clarify one other technical matter. The Senator from Nebraska presented a chart which indicated that one's home computer is connected directly to the Internet. That is not always accurate, Mr. President. In many cases, users need to access first a remote computer or connect with an access provider. In some cases, that service provider is an online service, like Prodigy or America On-Line. Other services merely provide the connection services, much like a common carrier to the home users. Why is this a crucial distinction? Because it makes clear there are ways to control what one receives on a computer. Because the access provider acts as an intermediary between the user and the Internet, they can also eliminate access to certain services. Many of those Internet access providers are already recognizing the market potential of providing parents and schools with the opportunity to control the access of children to some services on the network. And I am not just talking about the big ones like Prodigy and CompuServe. I am talking about Siecom, Inc., which is an Internet service provider in Grand Rapids, MI, which supplies 20 elementary and secondary schools with restricted one-way access to USENET discussion groups through the Internet. The company does not make available the news groups on USENET which may be inappropriate for children. That company is realizing that the simple service of not providing access to all the USENET services has been a marketing advantage for them. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has now used 20 minutes. Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask that I be yielded 5 minutes. Mr. LEAHY. I yield the Senator 5 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 additional minutes. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. Krol states in his book, when explaining the technical needs of Internet users: No matter what level you're at, Internet access always comes via an access provider; an organization whose job it is to sell Internet access. He further indicates that Internet service providers are participating in a competitive market. That means the opportunity exists to solve at least part of the problem through the marketplace today, not through governmental prohibitions. None of the technical safeguards available, such as blocking software and provider screening, are perfect, but the nice thing is they do not violate the first amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print an article in the Record from the Wall Street Journal describing some of these technologies. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Wall Street Journal, May 15, 1995] New Software Filters Sexual, Racist Fare Circulated on Internet SurfWatch Program Addresses Renewed Cyberspace Fears Following Oklahoma Blast (By Jared Sandberg) Think of it as a parental hand shielding children's eyes from the evils of cyberspace. That's the gist of a software program developed by SurfWatch Software Inc., a Los Altos, Calif., start-up. The program, expected to be released today, will allow Internet users to block sexually oriented data transmitted via the global computer network. ``The goal is to allow people to have a choice over what they see on the Internet by allowing them to filter or block sexually explicit material,'' said Jay Friedland, SurfWatch's vice president of marketing. Mr. Friedland said the software will also allow users to filter out files such as bomb-making manuals and neo-Nazi screeds, which have been circulated by hate groups on the Internet. A growing number of firms are racing to provide tools to filter out pornographic and racist fare stored on the Internet before the government takes action itself. The proposed telecommunications-reform bill before the Senate makes it illegal for individuals and corporations to put sexually explicit material on the Internet. Last week, the Senate held hearings in the wake of the Oklahoma bombing regarding the use of computer networks to disseminate hate literature that could incite violence. The government moves concern free-speech advocates, who prefer a technological fix. ``We don't have to rely on the government to attempt to censor everything on the Internet,'' said Daniel Weitzner, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil-liberties group that testified at last week's hearings. Users have no control of broadcast media, other than to change channels or turn it off. But in cyberspace, ``SurfWatch is a great example of the flexibility and user control that is inherent in interactive media,'' Mr. Weitzner said. On-line services such as Prodigy Services Co. only grant Internet access to children with parental permission. Jostens Inc. recently released software for schools that allows teachers to block electronic bulletin boards that contain pornographic pictures. SurfWatch's Mr. Friedland said the software contains the Internet addresses of computers storing sexually explicit material, blocking a user's attempt to access those computers. But such porno-troves often are a moving target: once users find out about them, those computers tend to get overwhelmed by traffic, shut down and move elsewhere on the network and take a new address. To counter that problem, SurfWatch will charge users a subscription fee for software updates that include new offending Internet addresses. The company is using a database to search the Internet for words such as ``pornography'' and ``pedophilia'' and make a list of Internet sites, which won't be visible to users. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, clearly there are ways parents can exact control over what their children can access on their home computers. It is clearly preferable to leave this responsibility in the hands of parents, rather than have the Government step in and assert control over telecommunications. Whenever there is a choice between Government intervention and empowering people to make their own decisions, we ought to try first to use the situation of the approach that involves less Government control of our lives. It is also not clear that existing criminal statutes are incapable of enforcing laws to protect children on interactive telecommunications. There have been many reports of prosecution of illegal activity related to the transmission of obscenity using interactive telecommunications. So, Mr. President, I do not even think it is clear we do not have the authority today to prosecute online obscenity. The truth is we just do not know at this point. We need more information. However, it is entirely clear to me that Congress certainly should not abridge constitutionally protected speech if there are less restrictive means of serving the compelling Government interest. To conclude, that is why I strongly support, as an alternative, the efforts of the Senator from Vermont. This amendment requires an expeditious evaluation by the Department of Justice of the technology available now to allow parents to protect their children [[Page S8337]] from objectionable materials while upholding the values of the first amendment. The Attorney General must also evaluate whether existing laws are adequate to enforce criminal laws governing obscenity. This study, which has to be completed within 5 months, will provide Congress with the information we need before we consider legislation. Given the first amendment issues at stake here, I believe the Judiciary Committee of the Senate should also be given an opportunity to review this matter. I do not, in theory, object to some legislation. I simply want to work with my colleagues to determine how best to protect children, while at the same time protecting the rights of Americans to free speech. I will close with these remarks from an article in the Federal Communications Law Journal by Prof. Fred Cate. In the article, he discussed how electronic communications have changed the way we communicate and have even greater potential to revolutionize communications. He stated: If 60 years of the Communications Act of 1934 has taught us nothing else, it must caution against excluding communications media from the full protection of the first amendment. To do so with today's electronic information technologies would create an exception that would make the rule of freedom of expression meaningless. Mr. President, I believe the Exon amendment, unfortunately, does create such an exception, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this language and support, as an alternative, the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. I urge my colleagues to vote accordingly when we vote. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. I have been listening with keen interest to my friends and colleagues, the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Wisconsin. I hope that they will listen very carefully to some of the things this Senator has to say, because everything that they have brought up are things that I considered very long and very hard when I started working on this difficult situation a year ago. Nothing they said is new. I just think they are, without malice aforethought, putting some spin on the Exon-Coats amendment that simply is not there. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd and Senator Heflin both be added as original cosponsors to the Exon-Coats amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. EXON. I appreciate very much Senator Byrd and Senator Heflin, two very distinguished lawyers, the latter, Senator Heflin, being the former chief justice of the supreme court of Alabama. I think both of them would not be a cosponsor of this Exon-Coats amendment unless they felt it had adequate constitutional safeguards. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters in support of the Exon-Coats amendment be printed in the Record. The first is from the Christian Coalition headed: ``Senators Exon and Coats Have Joined the Efforts. Support the Exon-Coats Antipornography Amendment.'' And we have the support of that organization. Next, a letter from the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families that has essentially the same message in different words. Next, Mr. President, a reference that Senator Coats made earlier in his excellent presentation. I pause for just a moment to thank him for all of his help and cooperation and for the excellent, forthright, factual statement he made in explaining what we are attempting to do and how seriously we consider this to be. That is why we are acting. Senator Coats mentioned the chamber of commerce supports this legislation. I have a letter from the chamber of commerce that I likewise will include in the unanimous-consent request. Next is the Family Research Council, along the same general line. Next is a news release from the National Law Center for Children and Families, of Fairfax, VA, that follows the same general category. Last but not least, a news release from Women of America Say ``Enough Is Enough.'' I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Senators Exon and Coats Have Joined Their Efforts. Support the Exon- Coats Anti-Pornography Amendment Christian Coalition, Washington, DC, June 13, 1995. Dear Senator: You may have received an earlier letter from the Christian Coalition urging your support for the Coats amendment to S. 652, the Telecommunications Reform Act. We are pleased to see that the competing versions of anti- pornography legislation proposed by Senators James Exon and Dan Coats have subsequently been reconciled into a joint amendment. I write you now to urge your support for this bipartisan computer pornography amendment. Pornography on the computer superhighway has become so prevalent and accessible to children that it necessitates congressional action. The comprehensive telecommunications legislation which the Senate is currently debating is an appropriate vehicle to address this critical problem, and we urge the Senate not to let this opportunity go by. Although Senator Patrick Leahy and others may urge that the matter be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for its review and analysis, we oppose such a course of action. The increasing existence of computer pornography today requires action, not more study. On behalf of the 1.6 million members and supporters of the Christian Coalition, we urge you to support the Exon-Coats amendment when it comes to the Senate floor. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Sincerely, Brian C. Lopina, Director, Governmental Affairs Office. ____ National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, Cincinnati, OH, June 13, 1995. Hon. James Exon, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Exon: I am writing you on behalf of the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families to offer our strong support for your willingness to introduce an amendment, along with Senator Coats, to the Telecom legislation dealing with the problem of children's access to pornography on computer networks. We believe that such legislation is vital to the well being of our nation's most important resource, its children. Unless the problem of computer pornography is addressed now, millions of children will have access to the worst and most violent forms of pornography via computer networks and the Internet. Currently, almost any child with access to the Internet can quickly download and view bestiality, torture, rape, mutilation, bondage, necrophilia and other unspeakable acts. The pornography industry has opened up a free store on the Internet and invited our children to get whatever they want. Pornographers have no right to hijack Cyberspace, which offers a host of promising technologies which should be available to children and families without fear of encountering violent, degrading pornography. Our society now faces a fundamental choice of whether we really believe that the Internet is a public network where children will be welcome, or rather, one which belongs just to pornographers and their consumers. We have had the opportunity to review the language of the ``Exon-Coats'' amendment in detail. We believe your careful approach to amending the telecommunications legislation is constitutional, wisely tailored to help protect children from this heinous material, and effective in navigating complex court precedents in this area. Thank you for your willingness to address these critical issues. Your leadership on this issue is a great service to the world's children. Sincerely, Deen Kaplan, Vice President, Public Policy. ____ Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, DC, June 13, 1995. Members of the United States Senate: On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Federation of 215,000 business members, 3,000 state and local chambers of commerce, 1,200 trade and professional associations, and 72 American Chambers of Commerce abroad, we strongly urge your support for the amendment to be offered by Senators Exon (D- NE) and Coats (R-IN) to S. 652, the ``Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995,'' regarding revisions to the Communications Decency Act. The Exon-Coats amendment firmly protects children against obscene, indecent, and other types of objectionable communications. It also preserves the interests of business users of information systems. The language is rightfully targeted to reach and prosecute the ``bad actors'' who exploit the capabilities of information technologies to reach children and unconsenting adults, [[Page S8338]] which we support fully. Yet adequate defenses and safe harbors are provided to ensure that American businesses can utilize these telecommunications-based products and services to enhance their competitiveness, address major business problems such as employee training and customer service, and reach new domestic and global market shares and suppliers--without fearing unintended or uncertain liabilities flowing from the actions of others. Unlike some previous proposals, this legislation provides the certainty that businesses need to ensure that they can employ online information technologies. The absence of this certainty would create a broad and potent disincentive, especially for small businesses, to the use of online systems and the interconnection of private business systems with the NII. The Chamber membership is calling on Congress to enact telecommunications reform legislation to enhance our children's lives and our business' productivity. This amendment does both. Please vote ``Yes'' for the Exon-Coats amendment to S. 652. Sincerely, R. Bruce Josten, Senior Vice President. ____ Family Research Council, Washington, DC, June 13, 1995. Dear Senator: I wrote to you last week with my concern about the pending anti-pornography amendments to the Telecommunications Bill and urging your support of the proposed Coats Amendment. Last night, Senator Exon agreed to join Senator Coats in his legislative approach against the obscenity and indecency polluting cyberspace. The Family Research Council commends these Senators for their willingness to take a stand on this unpopular issue. Today or tomorrow, the Exon-Coats Amendment will be offered which will criminalize commercial and non-commercial distribution of hard-core pornography through computers, as well as keep all forms of pornography out of the hands of the most vulnerable ``Net surfers''--our children. I urge you to support the Exon-Coats Amendment to eliminate ``cyberspace'' as a safe haven for pornographers. The Exon-Coats Amendment breaks new legal ground in the fight against porn by criminalizing ``free'' obscenity traded on the Internet, and by making it illegal to make indecent material available to children. Importantly, the Exon-Coats Amendment still addresses the problem of porn on basic cable packages. It will prohibit cable programmers from forcing upon families channels which feature indecent programs when they sign up for cable. The indecent channels will be provided only upon specific request. Computer pornography is the next great threat to our children's hearts and minds. I commend Senator Coats and Senator Exon for fighting an evil which transcends party lines. Sincerely, Gary L. Bauer, President. ____ Support Exon-Coats Computer Porn Amendment Says National Law Center for Children and Families The National Law Center for Children and Families (``NLC'') is a non-profit legal advice organization which supports law enforcement and governmental agencies in the prosecution and improvement of federal and state laws dealing with obscenity and the protection of children. NLC's Chief Counsel, Bruce Taylor, feels that today's version of the ``Exon-Coats'' amendment is both effective and constitutional. It would criminalize the distribution of obscenity on the burgeoning computer service networks, such as the ``Internet'', ``Use Net'', and ``World Wide Web''. The amendment also criminalizes the knowing distribution of ``indecent'' material to minor children. Both provisions cover noncommercial, as well as commercial, transmissions. This is important, since present law does not cover indecency to minors except for commercial dial-porn messages over the phone lines. Also, the Exon-Coats amendment would clearly cover all distributions of hard-core obscenity over the computer networks, whereas existing law has been enforced only against commercial sales of obscenity by common carrier and computer. The vast amount of hard-core pornography on today's computer bulletin boards is placed there indiscriminately by ``porn pirates'' who post freely available pictures of violence, rape, bestiality, torture, excretory functions, group sex, and other forms of hard and soft core pornography which are as available to teenager computer users as to men who are addicted to pornography. A tough federal law is needed to deter such unprotected and viciously harmful activity and the Exon-Coats bill does just that, making such activity a felony punishable by up to two years in prison and $100,000 in fines. Many of the previous provisions of the Exon bill were criticized by pro-family groups as too lenient and providing too many defenses for pornographers, as well as for the on- line computer service access providers, such as Prodigy, CompuServe, NETCOM, and America On Line. The present version of the Exon-Coats amendment would exempt the phone company carriers and computer access providers only to the extent that they provide mere access for users to connect to the services and boards of other companies and individuals beyond their control. To the extent any phone or computer access company would offer obscenity on their own boards, they would be as liable as anyone else. Likewise for making indecent material available to minors under age 18, if they do it-- they are liable, but if they don't do it--they aren't liable if someone else does it. This puts the primary criminal liability on those who distribute obscenity to anyone and on those who make indecency available to minors without taking reasonable steps to limit it to adults. Although some people and groups may feel that the phone and computer access providers should bear responsibility for the traffic in obscenity and indecency that is available to minors, there are Constitutional limitations that apply by law to any act of Congress in these regards. One, regulations to protect minors from indecent speech must be the ``least restrictive means'' to protect minors while allowing adults access to non-obscene speech. Second, the law cannot impose strict liability for obscenity. The Exon-Coats amendment is designed to satisfy both constitutional requirements, while still providing a serious criminal deterrent to those who would put obscenity onto the computer nets or who would publicly post indecent materials within easy reach of children. The amendment, therefore, contains ``good faith'' defenses that would allow any company, carrier, internet connector, or private individual to create reasonable and effective ways to screen children out of adult conversations and allow adults to use indecent, nonobscene, speech among adults. This should encourage the access providers to take steps to enforce corporate responsibility and family friendly policies and monitor their systems against abuse. When they do take such steps, the good faith defense would protect them from becoming liable for unfound or unknown abuses by others, and that is all we think the law can ask of them at this point. There is only so much that can be done in a way that is ``technically feasible'' at any point in time, and the Exon- Coats bill would not require anyone to take steps that are not technically feasible and does not, and should not, expect anyone to take all steps that may be technically possible. This bill would also allow the States to enforce their own obscenity and ``harmful to minors'' laws against the pornographers and porn pirates. If the chose to regulate the carriers and connectors, they would be bound by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and the First Amendment to using consistent measures. This is not inconsistent with existing requirements for the States to meet under any criminal law. The joint role of federal and state prosecution of those who distribute the obscenity, and indecency to minors, is thus preserved. The good faith defense also allows responsible users and providers to utilize the existing regulations from the F.C.C. for dial-porn systems until such time as the F.C.C. makes new regulations specifically for the computer networks. This means that a company or individual who takes a credit card, pin number, or access code would be protected under present F.C.C. rules if a minor stole his parent's Visa card or dad's porn pin number. In other words, some responsibility still resides with parents to watch what their kids are watching on the computer. This is serious business and there is a lot of very harmful pornography on the ``Internet'', so parents better take an interest in what their children have access to, but cannot expect every one else to solve the entire problem for them. Federal law can make it a crime to post hard-core obscenity on the computer boards, but many people are willing to break that law. The porn pirates are posting the kind of porn that hasn't been sold by the pornography syndicate in their ``adult'' bookstores in nearly 20 years. This law should deter them from doing that any longer and it would allow federal prosecutors to charge them for it now. The defenses to indecency are available to every one, so that every one has a chance to act responsibly as adults in protecting children from indecency. This is what the Supreme Court will require for the indecency provisions to be upheld as ``least restrictive'' under the First Amendment. Conversely, no one has a defense to obscenity when they distribute or make obscenity available. The only exception to this is for the carriers and connectors in their role as mere access connectors, only then would they be exempt from the obscenity traffic of others. However, if the on-line service providers go beyond solely providing access, and attempt to pander or conspire with pornographers, for instance, then they would lose their obscenity exemption and be liable along with every one else. This is a limited remedy to prevent the bill from causing a ``prior restraint'' on First Amendment rights. This bill would be nothing at all if it were struck down or enjoined before it could be used against those who are posting, selling, and disseminating all the pornography on the computer networks. There has been some criticism that this bill in adopting good faith defenses, would make it ineffectual and that this would weaken the bill in the same way that the existing dial- porn law is not completely effective. We disagree. The defenses in the dial-porn law were necessary to having that law upheld by the courts. Without them, it was struck down by the Supreme Court. Only after the F.C.C. provided its technical screening defenses was the law upheld by the federal appeals courts. This law adopts those [[Page S8339]] constitutionally required measures for indecency and for obscenity only for the mere access providers. The dial-porn law has removed the pre-recorded message services from the phone lines. The pornographers have gone to live credit card calls. To the extent they are still obscene, they can and should be prosecuted by the Department of Justice, with the help of the F.B.I. That is what it will take to remove the rest of the illegal dial-porn services. The most ineffective part of the dial-porn law is not the F.C.C. defenses, they are fine. What is broken is the phone company defense in the statute, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223(c)(2)(B), that allows the bell companies to rely on ``the lack of any representation by a provider'' of dial-porn that the provider is offering illegal messages. This means that if the dial- porn company does not tell the phone company that the messages are obscene or going to children as indecency, then the phone company doesn't have to block all the dial-porn lines until an adult subscribes in writing. This is not workable and should be fixed by Congress. The dial-porn law should also be amended to give good faith reliance only on a false representation by a dial-porn provider. If the phone company doesn't know about a dial-porn service, then they should not be responsible. However, the phone company should block all the dial-porn lines and only unblock them on adult request. This is the provision that is causing the phone companies not to act, not the F.C.C. defenses. There is no such provision in the Exon-Coats amendment that would allow the carriers or connectors to wait for the pornographers to confess guilt before they must act. If they know, they must act in good faith. No more, no less. This computer porn law is, therefore, better than the existing dial-porn law in that respect. This amendment would allow federal prosecutions against the pornographers and porn pirates immediately, thus removing much of the hard-core material from the networks that the carriers would be providing access to anyway. This can't wait several months or years. If Congress has to exempt the connectors as long as they merely carry the signal and otherwise act in good faith, then so be it. It they abuse it, then Congress can take that break away when it is shown that they don't deserve it. In the meantime, this law will give federal law enforcement agencies a tool to get at those who are responsible for distributing the obscenity that we all complain of right now. It is a good and constitutional law and arguments that it is not enough are not true, not realistic, and could cause Congress to bypass this opportunity to enact an effective remedy to protect the public and our children from this insidious problem. Senators Exon and Coats have done an admirable and honorable job in forcing this issue to a resolution. They have agreed to a tough and fair law, with reasonable exemptions and defenses for legitimate and good faith interests. The effective role of alternative measures, like that of Senators Grassley and Dole, cannot be overlooked as part of the pressure that brought this matter to a successful point. The efforts to kill all effective action, such as the pornography protection and delay the bill of Senator Leahy of Vermont would offer to forego a criminal bill in favor of more ``study'', must be rejected as unreasonable and Congress should act immediately to criminalize obscenity on the computer networks and forbid indecent material being sent or made available to minors. ____ ``Enough Is Enough!'' Campaign, Washington, DC, June 14, 1995. Women of America Say ``Enough Is Enough!'' in Support of Exon-Coats Computer Porn Amendment The ``Enough is Enough!'' campaign is a non-partisan non- profit organization which educates citizens about the harms of pornography and its link to sexual violence. ``Enough is Enough!'' is dedicated to eliminating child pornography and removing illegal pornography from the marketplace. According to Dee Jepsen, President of ``Enough is Enough!'', ``We represent thousands of women and concerned men across America standing together in support of sound legislative measures that will enhance law enforcement and prosecution of the distribution of illegal pornography to children.'' ``Furthermore'', states Donna Rice Hughes, Communications Director for the campaign, ``the current version of the Exon- Coats amendment will provide greater protection for children from computer pornography's invasion into America's homes and schools and still meet constitutional scrutiny.'' This measure is an essential step in protecting children from heinous forms of pornography available online. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me now, if I might, go into some matters that I think are tremendously important. First, I notice that my friend and colleague from Vermont indicated he has some 25,000 signatures that he has piled up on the desk down there from people who support his efforts, and his efforts are supported, of course, by my friend and colleague from Wisconsin. What they propose to do with the underlying amendment is to punt, to recognize there is a problem that they both have, but what they are suggesting we do is just delay a punt. We come from the football State of Nebraska. That is what the Nebraska football team does, Mr. President. Fourth down and 32 yards to go on their own 3-yard line, they always punt, except when they are down near the end of the game and they recognize the serious situation that they might be in and they might not get the ball back. Then they do not punt. They move aggressively forward, which is what we are trying to do in the thoughtful manner embodied in the Exon-Coats proposal. Those people that my friend and colleague from Vermont is supporting in carrying the ball would be interested in knowing, I am sure, what generated many of those letters that have been offered in debate by the Senator from Vermont. I happen to have a copy of a letter in this regard, which generated many of those letters, provided to me by my grandson. My grandson is 25 years old, and he is old enough to take care of himself. But he thought that I would be interested in this. This is a letter that has been widely distributed on the e-mail system. It says: ``The obscenity of decency. With the introduction of Senator J.J. Exon's Communications Decency Act, the barbarians are really at the gate.'' I have been called many things in my life, but never before have I been called a barbarian. I would hope that the Senator from Vermont would advise the people that he is using here as support for his position that his mutual friend, Jim Exon, is not a barbarian under any normally accepted definition of the term. Let me go into some of the things that I have been hearing and listening to and attempt, as best I can, to maybe straighten out some of the concerns that I think are very real and sincere, as stated by my colleague from Vermont and my colleague from the State of Wisconsin. First, let me say that the Exon-Coats amendment does not destroy, does not retard, does not chill accepted information, pictures, or speech. To the contrary. We are trying to make the Internet system, which is displayed here on this chart before me, safer, better, and to make it more frequently used. I do not know the authenticity of the statement that I am about to make. But I have read that it has been estimated that up to 75 percent, Mr. President, of present computer owners have refused to join the Internet system with their home computer, precisely because they know and they fear--and evidently they have seen or been advised as to what I have here in the blue book. Once again, before anyone votes against the Exon-Coats amendment, if they are interested, I am willing to share this information with them. It has pictures in it that were taken directly off the Internet system last week. So I simply say we are not trying to destroy, we are not trying to retard and we are certainly not trying to chill the great system that is the Internet. Anyone who believes that is very badly misinformed. I have also heard a great deal today about the parents' responsibilities, which, I guess, means that the parents that have such responsibilities must follow their children around all of the time. This is not simply something that the children have available to them at home. More likely, they are going to be introduced to it not at home, but in the schools. We have just made a concession in the telecommunications bill before us to give the schools and libraries a break, if you will, because we want them involved in this. The schools will be sources of the information that Senator Coats and I have been describing. The library is a place where they can pick it up. We also talk about some of the software and the off-limits proposition that some of the software may or may not provide. I simply say, Mr. President, that those who know what is going on with the Internet today--those who have seen it firsthand, those who are concerned about making the Internet the greatest thing that has ever happened as far as communications exchange is concerned--are the ones that are supporting the Exon-Coats amendment. We want to make it even bigger, and [[Page S8340]] we want to make it even better, but not for raunchy pornography that would turn most people off. And to the 25,000 people who want to call this Senator a barbarian, I simply say that, evidently, they are so selfish--at least their actions are so selfish, that they simply say: We do not want to give up anything. We want to be able to see what we want to see, where we want to see it, any time we want to see it. I simply say that what we are trying to do is constructively make some changes that are necessary. Let me review for just a moment, if I can, and make sure that everyone understands what the Internet is all about. The Internet, basically, is in the center of this chart or graph. From listening to many of my colleagues today, those who do not support the Exon-Coats amendment, I think that they view this as the way the Internet is. First, you have a child at home or an adult at home entering the Internet, and they have to buy that service from one of the many people who make money charging the entry into the Internet, where they have special provisions, special facilities which that particular provider might apply. In addition to that, they apply for entry into the massive Internet itself. From the Internet, the child or the adult can go worldwide. We can go into all kinds of sources of information--the Library of Congress, any of the great universities, and all of the other massive sources of information. I think too many people believe that because the pornography bulletin board is sitting out here to the side, that you have to work to get to the pornography bulletin board. Mr. President, that is simply not the case. The pornographers have invaded the Internet down here, so that it is freely available, without cost-- all of the outlandish, disgusting, pornographic pictures of the worst type, that some of my colleagues think we can handle by punting. This is not a time to punt; this is the time to act. I want to bring reference to the fact that this is the system that the Coats-Exon amendment is trying to create--one that is envisioned as the way the Internet system works. Actually, the way the Internet system is working today--especially with regard to totally rampant pornography--is that when the child or adult at home goes into the Internet system, all too often he is looking for something other than basic information. He would have to pay if he wants to subscribe to the pornography bulletin board. But, Mr. President, it goes both ways. These people--the moneymakers on pornography up here--are feeding information because it can be fed free of charge into the Internet system. The pictures I have here in the blue book--there are a whole series of them--were taken freely off of the Internet system free of charge and readily available to anyone who has a computer and has the basic knowledge. What these pornographers do is place free-of-charge material on the Internet that is designed to lure people over to their bulletin board so they can maybe hook them into a monthly charge of some type, to have available whenever they want from their pornography which is a library full of everything you can imagine. What they are doing is taking previews of what they have in here. They are putting them, open and at large, on the Internet system for all people to see, not unlike, Mr. President, the previews of coming attractions that we see when we go to the movies. This is what we will see next. Obviously, many of the pictures, as evidenced by the blue book, are things that are readily available. They, of course, have a way of referencing back. If you like this picture, come into our porno shop over here. For a small fee, we will show you the real thing. The real thing is right here when it comes to pornography. Mr. President, I simply say, once again, that while I am sure my friend from Vermont and my friend from Wisconsin are sincere, I appreciate very much the very kind things that both have said about the efforts of this Senator and Senator Coats because we have brought attention to this. It is the intention of the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Indiana, though, now that we have called attention to it, we are going to do something about it. We do something about it in a fully constitutional way. We are not going to trample on the constitutional rights of anyone. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President? Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could the Senator yield for a question, so we can get a sense where we might be with time. Mr. LEAHY. I yield. Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am not aware of any specific requests for time from anyone on our side. We might be able to yield some time back. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would be happy to. I wanted to respond, as I am sure the Senator from Indiana realized I would, to a couple of points. Mr. COATS. We could get the word to Members. Mr. LEAHY. I hope we can vote by 5 o'clock. Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. Mr. LEAHY. I have spoken before on the floor of my concerns with the Exon-Coats amendment. Last Friday, my good friend from Nebraska, Senator Exon, filed a revised version of the Decency Act as amendment No. 1268. The revisions made by Senator Exon reflect a diligent and considered effort by him and his staff to correct serious problems that the Department of Justice, I and others have pointed out with this section of the bill. I commend Senator Exon for proposing in his amendment the striking of the provision in the bill that would impose a blanket prohibition on wiretapping digital communications. This section would have totally undermined the legal authority for law enforcement to use court- authorized wiretaps, one of the most significant tools in law enforcement's arsenal for fighting crime. If that particular section were passed as introduced, the FBI would not have been able to use court-ordered wiretaps to listen in on digital calls made by kidnappers, terrorists, mobsters, or other criminals. This is an excellent change that I heartily endorse. problems with senator exon's amendment But, even with this fix, serious constitutional and practical problems remain in Senator Exon's proposed legislation. The first part of the amendment would make it a felony not only to send obscene electronic messages to harass another person, but would apply the same penalty to sending an e-mail message with an indecent or filthy word that you hope will annoy another person. For example, if someone sends you an annoying e-mail message and you respond with a filthy, four-letter word, you may land in jail for 2 years or with a $100,000 fine. Under this amendment, no computer user will be able to send a private or public e-mail message with the seven dirty words in it. Who knows when any recipient will decide to feel annoyed by seeing a four-letter word online? The second part of the amendment would make it a felony to send out or receive over computer networks any obscene material. There is no requirement that the person soliciting and receiving the material knew it was obscene. This means that a computer user could be guilty of committing this crime at the moment of clicking to receive material, and before the user has looked at the material, let alone knows the material to be, obscene. This means that an adult sitting at his computer in the privacy of his own home, who wants to get a copy--consistent with our copyright laws--of a magazine article on stock car racing, could be subject to 2 years in jail and a $100,000 fine for downloading the magazine, which unbeknownst to the user also contains obscene material. This also means that if you are part of an online discussion group on rape victims, your computer is programmed to automatically download messages sent into the discussion group. If a participant sends into the group a graphic story about a rape, which could be deemed obscene, this story will automatically be downloaded onto your computer, and you would be criminally liable under this amendment, even before you read the story. This may mark the end of online discussion groups on the Internet, since many users do not want to risk 2 years in jail because of what they might receive from online discussion groups. This amendment would chill free speech and the free flow of information [[Page S8341]] over the Internet and computer networks. The amendment does give one out to users who meet some government, FCC determined standards to take steps to protect themselves from receiving material the government has determined to be obscene or indecent. This may mean that any user with a connection to the Internet or an electronic communications service may be required to go out and buy special FCC endorsed and expensive software programs to stop obscene materials from reaching their computers. That way they could show that they have at least tried to avoid the receipt of obscene materials. Otherwise, they may risk criminal liability. Take another example. What if a user wants to join a campaign to stop obscenity on computer networks, and sends out the message to others on the campaign to send him examples of the obscene materials they are fighting to stop. Under this amendment, any receipt of these materials would be a crime. If this amendment had been the law, when my good friend from Nebraska collected the materials in his blue notebook, he would have committed a felony. How will anti-obscenity or pornography groups that now monitor online obscenity be able to do so without criminal liability? The third part of Senator Exon's amendment would make it a felony to purposefully make available, either privately or publicly, any indecent message to a minor. We all share my good friend's concern over the kind of material that may be available and harmful to minors on the Internet and other online computer networks. But this provision is not the way to address the problem. Under this provision, no indecent speech could be used on electronic bulletin boards dedicated to political debates, since kids under 18 may access these boards. This will certainly insure that civility is reintroduced into our political discourse when we are online. But this also means that works of fiction, ranging from ``Lady Chatterly's Lover'' to Newt Gingrich's science fiction novel ``1945,'' which contains some steamy scenes, could not be put out on the Internet because of the risk that a minor might download it. Rap music with bad words could not be distributed online. This provision would censor the Internet in a way that threatens to chill our first amendment rights on electronic communications systems. Under the amendment offered by my good friend from Nebraska, those of us who are users of computer e-mail and other network systems would have to speak as if we were in Sunday School every time we went on- line. I, too, support raising our level of civility in communications in this country, but not with a government sanction and possible prison sentence when someone uses an expletive. All users of Internet and other information services would have to clean up their language when they go on-line, whether or not they are communicating with children. There is no question that we are now living through a revolution in telecommunications with cheaper, easier to use and faster ways to communicate electronically with people within our own homes and communities, and around the globe. A byproduct of this technical revolution is that supervising our children takes on a new dimension of responsibility. Very young children are so adept with computers that they can sit at a keypad in front of a computer screen at home or at school and connect to the outside world through the Internet or some other on-line service. Many of us are justifiably concerned about the accessibility of obscene and indecent materials on-line and the ability of parents to monitor and control the materials to which their children are exposed. But government regulation of the content of all computer communications, even private communications, under the rubric of protecting kids and in violation of the first amendment is not the answer. existing laws One could get the incorrect idea that we in Congress have ignored the problem of protecting kids from harms that could befall them from materials they get online. This could not be further from the truth. We have a number of laws on the books that the Justice Department has successfully used to prosecute child pornography and obscenity transmitted over computer networks. Our criminal laws already prohibit the sale or distribution over computer networks of obscene or filthy material--18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1465, 1466, 2252 and 2423(a). We already impose criminal liability for transmitting any threatening message over computer networks--18 U.S.C. Sec. 875(c). Our existing criminal laws also criminalize the solicitation of minors over computers for any sexual activity--18 U.S.C. Sec. 2452--and illegal luring of minors into sexual activity through computer conversations--18 U.S.C. Sec. 2423(b). Just this weekend, there were reports of two instances in which the FBI successfully tracked down teenagers who were solicited online. Congress took action 2 months ago to pass the Sexual Crimes Against Children Prevention Act of 1995 to increase the penalties and make these various laws even tougher. Congress has not been ignoring this problem. This does not mean we cannot or should not do better. But, the problem of policing the Internet is complex and involves many important constitutional issues. leahy amendment requiring a study The amendment I am offering with Senators Kerrey, Feingold, and Moseley-Braun would require a study by the Department of Justice, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Commerce, on how we can empower parents and users of interactive telecommunications systems. We should examine the recommendations of these experts before we start imposing liability in ways that could severely damage electronic communications systems, sweep away important constitutional rights, and possibly undercut law enforcement at the same time. We should avoid quick fixes today that would interrupt and limit the rapid evolution of electronic information systems--for the public benefit far exceeds the problems it invariably creates by the force of its momentum. A number of groups support the approach of the Leahy study, including civil liberties groups, librarians, online providers, newspaper editors, and others. I ask that a list of the supporters of the Leahy study be placed in the Record. An electronic petition has been circulated on the Internet for the past few weeks. Over 35,000 people have signed on in support of the Leahy study, as an alternative to the proposed Communications Decency Act. A number of organizations have signed onto the electronic petition to support the Leahy study as an alternative to Government content regulation of electronic communications. These organizations, including the American Council for the Arts, Center for Democracy and Technology, Voters Telecommunications Watch, and others are helping to circulate the petition. Anyone is allowed to sign it or circulate it--this is a free country. Since May 19, when the petition was launched, over 35,000 people have signed on. The Leahy study approach is supported by civil liberties groups, librarians, online service providers and newspaper groups, including: Association of American Publishers [AAP]; Association of American University Presses [AAUP]; The faculty of the City University of New York; Interactive Working Group; Online Operators Policy Committee of the Interactive Services Association; American Advertising Federation; American Association of Advertising Agencies; and American Library Association. Also American Society of Newspaper Editors; Association of National Advertisers, Inc.; Association of Research Libraries; Business Software Alliance; Center for Democracy and Technology; Computer and Communications Industry Association; Direct Marketing Association; Electronic Frontier Foundation; Feminists For Free Expression; Magazine Publishers of America; Media Access Project; National Public Telecomputing Network; Newspaper Association of America; People For the American Way Action Fund; Recreational Software Advisory Counsel; Software Publishers Association; and Times Mirror. I have also asked a coalition of industry and civil liberties groups, called [[Page S8342]] the Interactive Working Group, to address the legal and technical issues for policing electronic interactive services. There is no question that we need to educate parents about the types of materials available on the Internet which they may want to stop their children from accessing. By focusing attention on this issue, Senator Exon's efforts to legislate in this area have already made strides in alerting parents to the material available online that may be harmful to kids, such as the Internet, to control the material transmitted to them over those systems. We must find ways to do this that do not invite invasions of privacy, lead to censorship of private online communications, and undercut important constitutional protections. Before legislating to impose Government regulation on the content of communications in this enormously complex area, I feel we need more information from law enforcement and telecommunications experts. My bill calls for just such a fast-track study of this issue. Mr. President, I tell my good friend from Nebraska, I hope he realizes I would never call him a barbarian. We know each other too well and we are too good of friends for that. I have to admit, when he talks about football, he has the good grace to live in a State where the team has had some modicum of success. He has rightly achieved bragging rights on that. But when he talks about punting on this, with all due respect, Mr. President, I believe the Exon-Coats amendment punts, because it punts to the FCC the task of finding ways to restrict minors' access to indecent communications so users can implement them and have a defense to criminal prosecution. What we have to understand is that nobody in this place wants to give pornography to children. I do not. The distinguished Senator from Nebraska, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, all who have spoken on this issue this afternoon, none wants to give pornography to children. Many Members also do not want to destroy the Internet as we try to find how to do protect children from harmful material on the Internet. We can accomplish the goal of keeping pornography from children without putting on a huge Government layer of censorship and without destroying the Internet. Now, my friend from Nebraska says his amendment takes the same approach as the dial-a-porn statute. Not really. On dial-a-porn, it took 10 years of litigation for the FCC to find a way to implement the dial-a-porn statute in a constitutional way. That is why I say his amendment punts to the FCC the task of finding ways to restrict. Why not instead follow the Leahy amendment, which will require a study, a group of experts, an accelerated legislative path, so that we will pass responsible legislation that will not be attacked constitutionally for years thereafter. I note that the House Commerce Committee adopted basically the Leahy study in its markup of the House telecommunications legislation. This was Republicans and Democrats, across the political spectrum, trying to find the best way to handle this. They did what I have recommended here. In fact, some provisions in my friend's amendment could hurt prosecution of those who are not law-abiding users of the Internet but use it to distribute obscenity and child pornography. As a former prosecutor, I want prosecutors to have the best tools to go after criminals. I received a letter today from the Justice Department that makes several points. They say a study of the issue is needed. They also confirm that the Exon proposal would regulate indecent speech between consenting adults. And, third, the defenses in this proposal would undermine the ability of the Justice Department to prosecute online service providers even though they knowingly profit from the distribution of obscenity and child pornography. The Department says, ``We still have concerns. We continue to believe that comprehensive review should be undertaken to guide the response to the problems the Communications Decency Act seeks to address.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record at this point. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, May 3, 1995. Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: I write to respond to your letter of March 1, 1995 concerning our prosecution of violations of federal child pornography and obscenity laws and your April 21, 1995 request for the views of the United States Department of Justice on the ``Communications Decency Act,'' which has been incorporated as title IV of the proposed ``Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995,'' S. 652. In accordance with your request, the analysis of the Communications Decency Act focuses on sections 402 and 405 of the bill. The Department's Criminal Division has, indeed, successfully prosecuted violations of federal child pornography and obscenity laws which were perpetrated with computer technology. In addition we have applied current law to this emerging problem while also discovering areas where the new technology may present challenges to successful prosecution. While we agree with the goal of various legislative proposals designed to keep obscenity and child pornography off of the information superhighway, we are currently developing a legislative proposal that will best meet these challenges and provide additional prosecutorial tools. This legislative package is being developed while taking into consideration the need to protect fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. With respect to the Communications Decency Act, while we understand that section 402 is intended to provide users of online services the same protection against obscene and harassing communications afforded to telephone subscribers, this provision would not accomplish that goal. Instead, it would significantly thwart enforcement of existing laws regarding obscenity and child pornography, create several ways for distributors and packagers of obscenity and child pornography to avoid criminal liability, and threaten important First Amendment and privacy rights. Similarly, while we understand that section 405 of this bill is intended to expand privacy protections to ``digital'' communications, such communications are already protected under existing law. Moreover, this provision would have the unintended consequences of jeopardizing law enforcement's authority to conduct lawful, court-ordered wiretaps and would prevent system administrators from protecting their systems when they are under attack by computer hackers. Despite the flaws in these provisions, the Administration applauds the primary goal of this legislation: prevent obscenity from being widely transmitted over telecommunications networks to which minors have access. However, the legislation raises complex policy issues that merit close examination prior to Congressional action. We recommend that a comprehensive review be undertaken of current laws and law enforcement resources for prosecuting online obscenity and child pornography, and the technical means available to enable parents and users to control the commercial and noncommercial communications they receive over interactive telecommunications systems. The following are the Department's primary objections to sections 402 and 405 of the pending telecommunications bill: First, section 402 of the bill would impose criminal sanctions on the transmission of constitutionally protected speech. Specifically, subsections 402(a)(1) and (b)(2) of the bill would criminalize the transmission of indecent communications, which are protected by the First Amendment. In Sable Communications of Cal. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that any restrictions on the content of protected speech in media other than broadcast media must advance a compelling state interest and be accomplished by the ``least restrictive means.'' By relying on technology relevant only to 900 number services, section 402 fails to take into account less restrictive alternatives utilizing existing and emerging technologies which enable parents and other adult users to control access to content. Nearly ten years of litigation, along with modifications of the regulations, were necessary before the current statute as applied to audiotext services, or ``dial-a-porn'' calling numbers, was upheld as constitutional. See Dial Information Services v. Thornburg, 938 F. 2d 1535 (2d Cir. 1991). The proposed amendment in section 402 of the bill would jeopardize the enforcement of the existing dial-a-porn statute by inviting additional constitutional challenges, with the concomitant diversion of law enforcement resources. Second, the definition of ``knowingly'' in section 402 of the bill would cripple obscenity prosecutions. Under subsection 402(e), only those persons with ``actual knowledge'' of the ``specific content of the communication'' could be held criminally liable. This definition would make it difficult, if not impossible, to prove guilt, and the standard is higher than the prevailing knowledge requirements under existing obscenity and child sexual exploitation statutes. Under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 629 (1973), the [[Page S8343]] government must only prove that a person being prosecuted under an obscenity statute had knowledge of the general nature of the material being distributed. Large- scale distributors of child pornography and other obscene materials--among the most egregious violators--do not read or view each obscene item they distribute. The proposed definition in subsection 402(e) would make it nearly impossible for the government to establish the necessary knowledge requirement and would thereby severely handicap enforcement of existing statutes. Third, section 402 would add new terms and defenses that would thwart ongoing enforcement of the dial-a-porn statute. Currently, the government is vigorously enforcing the existing dial-a-porn statute. It took more than ten years for the government to be able to do so, due to constitutional challenges. The proposed amendment to this statute fundamentally changes its provisions and subjects it to renewed constitutional attack which would hinder current enforcement efforts. Fourth, section 402 would do significant harm by inserting new and sweeping defenses that may be applied to nullify existing federal criminal statutes. The government currently enforces federal criminal laws preventing the distribution over computer networks of obscene and other pornographic material that is harmful to minors (under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1465, 2252 & 2423(a)), the illegal solicitation of a minor by way of a computer network (under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252), and illegal ``luring'' of a minor into sexual activity through computer conversations (under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2423(b)). These statutes apply to all methods of ``distribution'' including over computer networks. The new defenses proposed in subsection 402(d) would thwart ongoing government obscenity and child sexual exploitation prosecutions in several important ways: The first defense under subsection 402(d)(1) would immunize from prosecution ``any action'' by a defendant who operates a computer bulletin board service as an outlet for the distribution of pornography and obscenity so long as he does not create or alter the material. In fact, this defense would establish a system under which distributors of pornographic material by way of computer would be subject to fewer criminal sanctions than distributors of obscene videos, books or magazines. The second defense provided in subsection 402(d)(2) would exculpate defendants who ``lacked editorial control over the communications.'' Such a defense may significantly harm the goal of ensuring that obscene or pornographic material is not available on the Internet or other computer networks by creating a disincentive for operators of public bulletin board services to control the postings on their boards. Moreover, persons who provide critical links in the pornography and obscenity distribution chains by serving as ``package fulfillment centers'' filling orders for obscene materials, could assert the defense that they lack the requisite ``editorial control.'' This proposed defense would complicate prosecutions of entire obscenity distribution chains. The third defense provided in subsection 402(d)(3), containing five subparts, would be available to pornographic bulletin boards operators who take such innocuous steps as (A) directing users to their ``on/off'' switches on their computers as a ``means to restrict access'' to certain communications; (B) warning, or advertising to, users that they could receive obscene material; and (C) responding to complaints about such minimum, this proposed defense would lead to litigation over whether such actions constitute ``good faith'' steps to avoid prosecution for violating the section 402, and could thwart existing child pornography and obscenity prosecutions. The fourth defense provided in subsection 402(d)(4) would exculpate defendants whose pornography business does not have the ``predominate purpose'' of engaging in unlawful activity. This defense would severely undercut law enforcement's efforts to prosecute makers and distributors of noncommercial pornography and obscenity. The fifth defense provided in subsection 402(d)(5) would preclude any cause of action from being brought against any person who has taken good faith steps to, inter alia, ``restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to,'' a communication deemed unlawful under section 402. This defense would encourage intrusion by on-line service providers into the private electronic mail communications of individual users. The defense actually promotes intrusions into private electronic mail by making it ``safer'' to monitor private communications than to risk liability. At the same time, this defense would defeat efforts by the government to enforce federal privacy protections against illegal eavesdropping. Finally, but no less significantly, section 405 amends the federal wiretap statute in several respects, each of which creates considerable problems. First, it amends the wiretap statute to add the term ``digital'' to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511,\1\ without considering the effect of this amendment on other statutory provisions. For example, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2516(1) provides that certain government officials may authorize an application for a wiretap order for wire or oral communications while 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2516(3) provides that other government officials may authorize an application for a wiretap order for electronic communications. Since section 405 does not amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2516 to include the term ``digital,'' it would appear that no government official has the authority to authorize an application for a wiretap order for digital communications. This is particularly problematic, since this investigative tool is reserved for the most serious cases, including those involving terrorists, organized crime, and narcotics. \1\It should be noted that ``digital'' communications are already covered by the wiretap statute. Under current law, a ``digital'' communication is either a wire communication under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510(1) (if it contains voice) or an ``electronic communication'' under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510(12) (if it does not contain voice). Since such communications are already covered, the reason for enacting section 405 is unclear, and it is difficult to predict how the courts will interpret the amendment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Equally disconcerting, the amendment serves to protect computer hackers at the expense of all users of the National Information Infrastructure (NII), including businesses, government agencies and individuals. Prior to 1994, the wiretap statute allowed electronic communication service providers to monitor voice communications to protect their systems from abuse. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(a)(i) (1986 version). Thus, when hackers attacked computer systems and system administrators monitored these communications, they had no clear statutory authority to do so. In October 1994, Congress finally remedied this defect by amending 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(a)(i) to permit the monitoring of electronic (i.e., digital, non-voice) communications. If section 405 is enacted and these hacker communications are deemed digital, system administrators will once again be denied the statutory authority to monitor hacker communications. It would be most unfortunate if, at the same time Congress is encouraging the widespread use of the NII, it passed a law giving system administrator's a Hobson's choice: either allow hackers to attack systems unobserved or violate federal law. There are three other concerns as well. First, by adding the term ``digital'' without amending the suppression provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2515, voice communications--if they are deemed ``digital''--will no longer be protected by the statute's exclusionary rule. This would serve to reduce the privacy protections for phone calls. Second, section 405 would replace the words ``oral communication'' with ``communication'' in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(1)(B). This would have undesirable consequences for law enforcement because it would criminalize the interception of communications as to which there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.\2\ \2\The definition of ``oral communication'' in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510(2) contains a requirement that the communication to be protected must have been made under circumstances justifying an expectation of privacy. From the law enforcement perspective, there is simply no sound reason for eliminating this highly desirable feature of present law. Additionally, the amendment might also impact upon the news gathering process. For example, if the conversation of two individuals shouting in a hotel room were recorded by a news reporter standing outside the room, the reporter would, under section 405, be violating the wiretap statute. Under current law, of course, the individuals could not complain about the recording because, by shouting loud enough to be heard outside the room, they lack any reasonable expectation of privacy. Last, the provision in section 402(d)(5) provides that ``no cause of action may be brought in any court * * * against any person on account of any action which the person has taken in good faith to implement a defense authorized under this section. * * *'' This would seem to suggest that any person can freely engage in electronic surveillance otherwise prohibited by Title III so long as they claim to be implementing a section 402 defense. As such, section 402(d)(5) severely weakens the privacy protections currently offered by the wiretap statute. In sum, sections 402 and 405 of the bill would hamper the government's ongoing work in stopping the dissemination of obscenity and child pornography and threaten law enforcement's continued ability to use court-authorized wiretaps. We believe that a comprehensive review be undertaken to guide response to the problems that the Communications Decency Act seeks to address. I assure you that the Department is aware of the growing use of computers to transmit and traffic obscenity and child pornography. The Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section is aggressively investigating and prosecuting the distribution of child pornography and obscenity through computer networks, and the use of computers to locate minors of the purpose of sexual exploitation. As we have discussed with your staff in a meeting focussed on these issues, we remain committed to an aggressive effort to halt the use of computers to sexually exploit children and distribute obscenity. Sincerely, Kent Markus, Acting Assistant Attorney General. ____ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: This is in response to your June 14, 1995 letter to me posing [[Page S8344]] questions about my June 13 letter to Senator Exon concerning his proposed Communications Decency Act. My letter to Senator Exon commented on the version of his proposal circulated in his ``dear colleague'' letter of June 7, 1995 (the ``Exon proposal''). Senator Exon had requested that we comment on the extent to which that revised proposal satisfied the concerns I detailed to you in my May 3 letter. The letter does not address the Exon-Coats proposal, which we had not seen nor were aware of until today. We have just begun to review this new proposal. As stated in my letter to Senator Exon, his proposal still raises a number of complex legal and policy issues that call for in-depth analysis prior to congressional action. Because we still have concerns, we continue to believe that a comprehensive review should be undertaken to guide response to the problems the Communications Decency Act seeks to address. Among these concerns are constitutional questions raised primarily by the lack of scienter required for the age element of subsection (e) of the Exon proposal. In our view, this subsection would consequently have the effect of regulating indecent speech between consenting adults.\1\ Subsection (a) does not have the same constitutional infirmity because of the specific intent requirement that the communication be done ``with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass * * *'', which we believe is inconsistent with the concept of ``consenting adults.'' \1\Subsection (e) of the Exon-Coats measure exacerbates the constitutional concerns because it is even more expansive than the similar subsection (e) in the Exon proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As described in my June 13 letter, we continue to have a concern with the ``knowledge'' requirements that were re- inserted in the Exon proposal as defenses for certain parties. The defenses included in the Exon proposal would undermine the ability of the Department of Justice to prosecute an on- line service provider even though it knowingly profits from the distribution of obscenity or child pornography.\2\ Although the existence of the defenses in the Exon proposal would make prosecutions under the proposal's offenses difficult, if not impossible, they would not threaten obscenity prosecutions under existing statutes. \2\The defense in subsection (f)(1) of the Exon-Coats measure is particularly problematic as it focusses on whether the service provider has control over the bulletin board service. If the provider does not have control, regardless of whether it has guilty knowledge or intent, it is immune from prosecution. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Kent Markus, Acting Assistant Attorney General. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me conclude with this: No Member disagrees that we want to keep smut out of the hands of our children. I would remind everybody that the Internet has become the tremendous success it is because it did not have Big Brother, the Federal Government, trying to micromanage what it does and trying to tell users what it could do. If the Government had been in charge of figuring out how to expand the Internet or make it more available and so on, I guarantee it would not be one-tenth the success it is today. In our appropriate zeal to go after child pornographers, let the Senate not kill the Internet or smother it for the 99.9 percent of the people who use it legitimately, the scholars who use it legitimately, the people who use it for legitimate on-line discussion groups, the people who gather information from it, the constituents who use it to contact my office and other offices, and those who find a way to access information that they have never had before in their lives. That is why, Mr. President, earlier I printed in the Record a list of everybody from librarians to publishers to newspaper editors to civil liberties groups who support my alternative approach in my amendment. I am perfectly willing, if the managers are here and they want to move forward, to yield back the remaining time. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time, I think about 20 minutes. All I need to do is insert some additional material in the Record. If I could have 1 more minute, I would be prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. I thank my friend from Vermont for mentioning the Nebraska football again. I had a letter from Tom Osborne, the head football coach at the University of Nebraska, who wrote, ``Dear Jim: Thank you for what you are doing. I hope you are successful in passing the legislation.'' I ask unanimous consent that the Osborne letter be printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``No Time to Study.'' There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Nebraska Football, Lincoln, NE, February 10, 1995. Senator Exon, Washington, DC. Dear Jim: Thanks so much for what you are doing in your effort to stop pornography. I realize this is always a somewhat unpopular issue to tackle, however, my experience has been that pornography is tremendously damaging to young people and women in particular. I hope you are successful in passing the legislation. Best wishes, Tom Osborne, Head Football Coach. ____ No Time To Study Further study does not solve the problem. The larger telecommunications reform bill before the Senate will help link up schools to new telecommunications services and Internet services. As one of the Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon- Kerrey amendment authors, I am very proud of that fact. In addition, at least two Bell Companies plan to offer Internet access as one of their common carrier services; basic computer software manufacturers now offer ``easy Internet access'' with their programs and thousands of homes every day subscribe to new information service providers which homes Internet access. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is a very good thing. This is a national policy objective. But let us not turn a blind eye to a very serious problem of obscenity, indecency, electronic stalking and pornography in the digital world. Every day the Congress delays in dealing with this problem the pornographers, pedophiles and predators secure a much stronger foothold in what will be a universal service network. That network was initially created by the U.S. government and still, in part, is supported by American tax dollars. Technology will help. But there is no technological magic bullet. That is why industry is so concerned about vicarious liability. Even the largest computer companies can not figure out a ``fool proof'' way to prevent access. It is odd to expect American tax dollars to pay for the development and expansion of this marvelous system, only to turn it over to pornographers. The Congress should not turn its eyes from what is on the Internet and issue a mere request to parents that they buy expensive products to keep this smut from their homes and keep pedophiles away from their children. The American people need not pay twice in order to keep pornography and filth from tarnishing the sanctity of their homes, the pornographers and the pornography addicts must find their own, secure adults-only stomping grounds and let our kids and families enjoy this universal, public service for education, enlightenment and entertainment. I introduced a version of this legislation nearly a year ago. The time for study is over. The Congress must step up to the plate. The law will facilitate free speech by creating an environment through constitutional means where families and children can enjoy the benefits of the Internet. This is a fundamental question of burdens. The ``hands off crowd'' say that the burden lies entirely on the parent. The parent must spend hundreds of dollars on ``blocking'' software and must be with the children 24 hours a day to assure that they do not access improper material. The Exon- Coats approach says that parents have responsibilities, but so do on-line service providers, and publishers and so does law enforcement. If you operate an on-line adult pornographic book store, movie house or swap meet, you have the burden to assure that children do not enter, and that you are not trading in illegal obscenity. Those engaging in pornography and indecency should install electronic ``bouncers'' at their electronic doorways. The Supreme Court in the Sable case indicated that such a burden was not a constitutional impediment. For all the talk about ``technological fixes'' it is ironic that one group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who opposes this measure in favor of more of the so-called ``parental control'' posts on the Internet instructions on ``How-to Access Blocked Groups.'' The fact of the matter is that kids, not their parents know ``how-to'' access everything. The Supreme Court noted that daytime radio is ``uniquely accessible to children.'' I submit that computers are not only ``uniquely accessible to children,'' but also ``uniquely inaccessible to their parents.'' I expect that any child or grandchild with basic computer skills can outperform any member of this body when it comes to operating a computer. As the Supreme Court has noted in a number of cases, the Congress has a compelling state interest in protecting the physical and psychological health of America's children. We should not throw our hands up and allow every child's computer to become a branch office of Pornography Incorporated. Mr. HATCH. As chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would like to ask the Senator from Nebraska for clarification on one point. Title IV of this legislation, the Communications Decency Act, includes provisions [[Page S8345]] amending section 223 of the Communications Act to address, among other issues, the circumstances under which providers of network services may be held criminally liable for the transmission or distribution of obscene, indecent, or harassing materials. Copyright matters are, of course, within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and it is my understanding that those provisions in title IV of the bill, as reported by the Commerce Committee, were not intended to--and in fact do not--serve as a precedent for addressing copyright infringement carried out over online services or other telecommunications or digital networks. Am I correct in that understanding? Mr. EXON. The Senator is correct. The liability standards contained in my proposal have no applicability to liability for copyright infringement. Nor are they intended to set any precedent in the copyright field. Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for this clarification. Mr. COATS. I wanted to clarify that it is the intent of this legislation that persons who are providing access to or connection with Internet or other electronic services not under their control are exempted under this legislation. Mr. EXON. Defense (f)(1) explicitly exempts a person who merely provides access to or connection with a network like the Internet for the act of providing such access. Understanding that providing access or connection to online services is an action which can include other incidental acts, this legislation is intended to exempt from prosecution the provision of access including transmission, downloading, storage, and certain navigational functions which are incidental to providing access or connection to a network like the Internet. An online service that is providing its customers with a gateway to networks like the Internet or the worldwide web over which it has no control is generally not aware of the contents of the communications which are being made on these networks, and therefore it should not be responsible for those communications. To the extent that service providers are doing more than merely providing access to a facility or network over which they have no control, the exemption would no longer apply. For instance, if an access provider were to create a menu to assist its customers in finding the pornographic areas of the network, then that access provider would be doing more than solely providing access to the network. Further, this exemption clearly does not apply where the service provider is owned or controlled by or is in conspiracy with a pornographer who is making communications in violation of this legislation. Mr. COATS. I understand that in a recent N.Y. State decision, Stratton Oakmont versus Prodigy, the court held that an online provider who screened for obscenities was exerting editorial content control. This led the court to treat the online provider as a publisher, not simply a distributor, and to therefore hold the provider responsible for defamatory statements made by others on the system. I want to be sure that the intend of the amendment is not to hold a company who tries to prevent obscene or indecent material under this section from being held liable as a publisher for defamatory statements for which they would not otherwise have been liable. Mr. EXON. Yes; that is the intent of the amendment. Mr. COATS. And am I further correct that the subsection (f)(4) defense is intended to protect companies from being put in such a catch-22 position? If they try to comply with this section by preventing or removing objectionable material, we don't intend that a court could hold that this is assertion of editorial content control, such that the company must be treated under the high standard of a publisher for the purposes of offenses such as libel. Mr. EXON. Yes; that is the intent of section (f)(4). Mr. COATS. Similarly, if a system operator discontinued service to a customer who was generating objectionable material, it is the intent in offering this amendment, and specifically the intent of subsection (f)(4), that no breach of contract action would lie against the system operator? Mr. EXON. Yes; that is our intent. Mr. COATS. I wanted to clarify that it is the intent of this legislation that persons who are providing access to or connection with the Internet or other electronic service not under their control are exempted under this legislation. Mr. EXON. Yes, defense (f)(1) explicitly exempts a person who provides access to or connection with a network like Internet that is not under that person's control. Providing access or connection is meant to include transmission, downloading, storage, navigational tools, and related capabilities which are incidental to the transmission of communications. An online service that is providing such services is not aware of the contents of the communications and should not be responsible for its contents. Of course this exemption does not apply where the service provider is owned or controlled by or is in conspiracy with a maker of communications that is determined to be in violation of this statute. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I would inquire of the Senator from Indiana if my understanding is correct that, under subsection (f)(1) of your amendment, a person is protected solely for providing access. Is that correct? Mr. COATS. The Senator is correct, this is a narrow defense. The defense is for solely providing access or connection and not a defense for any person or entity that provides anything more than solely providing access. This does not create a defense for someone who has some level of control over the material or the provision of material. To the extent that enhanced access would be an offense, this defense does not apply to someone who, among other things, manages the prohibited or restricted material, charges a fee for such material, provides instructions on how to access such material or provides an index of the material. This is merely an illustrative list and not an exhaustive list of the types of activities that would not qualify as solely providing access or connection under subsection (f)(1). Mr. EXON. I agree with the Senator from Indiana. Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I oppose the Exon-Coats second-degree amendment, I oppose it not because I disagree with its mission--which is to keep children out of the redlight districts of the Internet. With that, I wholeheartedly agree. As has become all too clear, the new information superhighway has its gritty roadside attractions: as the Senator from Nebraska has documented, some of the information traveling over the Internet is tasteless, offensive, and downright spine- tingling. I stand with him and the Senator from Indiana in condemning and deploring this stuff--and I agree that we should do something here and now to help keep it out of the hands of our kids. But I respectfully disagree with them about how we should go about doing that. I believe there is a better, faster, and more effective way to make the information superhighway safe traveling for our children. If the Exon-Coats provision passes, we will have mountains of litigation over its constitutionality, dragging on for years and years--and all the while, our kids will be doing what they do best: finding new and better ways to satisfy their curiosity. The Exon-Coats amendment would make it a crime to send an indecent communications over the Internet to anyone under 18. Although that certainly sounds good, the problem is this: in the world of the Internet--where communications are sent out to hundreds and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people all at once--a ban on material that might reach a child is tantamount to a complete outright ban. That's where the constitutional problem comes in. In the case of Sable Communications versus FCC, the Supreme Court held that indecent speech--unlike obscenity--is protected first amendment expression. The Court also ruled that although indecent speech cannot be outlawed, it nevertheless can be restricted to protect children--provided, however, that the restrictions are drawn as narrowly as possible so as not to unduly limit adult access. This is known by lawyers as the least restrictive means requirement. Or put another way by Justice Frankfurter, you can't ``burn the house to roast the pig''--which is exactly what I believe the Exon-Coats provision would do. [[Page S8346]] So I believe there will be a heated and protracted constitutional challenge to this provision. In fact, with history as our guide, such a challenge is virtually guaranteed: when Congress banned Dial-a-Porn services to minors, it took 10 years--and many different attempts by the FCC to write narrowly tailored regulations, all of which were challenged and fully litigated--for the statute to be upheld as constitutional. Ten years. Multiple rulemaking proceedings. Four different trips up to the court of appeals. I, for one, just can't wait that long. But more importantly, our children shouldn't have to wait that long. I want to get to work right now--and come up with the best and fastest way to get at this problem. That is why I support the underlying Leahy amendment. The Leahy amendment will get us going right now. It directs the Departments of Justice and Commerce to quickly come up with technological solutions-- ways by which parents can screen out of their computer systems violent, sexually explicit, harassing, offensive, or otherwise unwanted material. The Leahy measure also directs the Departments to evaluate whether current criminal laws are fully enforceable in interactive media, and to assess law enforcement resources currently available to enforce these laws. The Leahy amendment doesn't stop there: it requires that the Departments also submit a legislative proposal with their study-- outlining how best, technologically, to empower parents to protect their kids; how to amend, if necessary, our laws to better crack down on pornographers; how law enforcement resources should be allocated more effectively. What's more, the Leahy amendment puts that legislation on a fast- track schedule. That means that it would only be a matter of months-- not 1 year, 5 years, or 10 years--for us to have taken smart and effective action to get at this problem. Government censorship, in this instance, is not just a bad idea in the eyes of first amendment scholars and activists. It's also a bad idea when it comes to the eyes and minds of our children. While we might be able to shut down some of the filthy talk on the net, we simply can't do the job right this way--we can't prevent access to sexually explicit information from Finland, Sweden, Japan or other countries, all of which are part of the Internet community. I also want to say that I--and I'm sure I'm joined by many parents across the country--am also very concerned about violent material on the net. As the Judiciary Committee has learned in some detail, you can learn all about bomb-building and other ways of war and destruction online. The Exon-Coats provision doesn't address violence. The Leahy amendment, with its headlights aimed at technology to screen out violent as well as offensive and sexually explicit material, does. I believe that a technology-based solution, as advanced in Senator Leahy's amendment, is a better answer--constitutionally and practically. The market, as we speak, is already developing software and hardware to enable parents to block children's access to filth, violence, and other objectionable material. I believe it makes more sense, and will be more effective, to empower users to protect themselves and their children than to attempt a topdown model of governmental regulation. levin on exon amendment to s. 652, the telecommunications bill Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support keeping obscene material off the internet and other electronic media. This amendment goes significantly beyond that. The language of the amendment before us is so broad and vague that it would subject an American citizen to criminal liability and possible imprisonment for two years, a $100,000 fine or both for making what is termed a ``filthy comment'' on the internet which, in the words of the amendment, is intended to annoy. Annoying filthy comments that are put on the internet are reprehensible. But, I am afraid the attempt to make such language criminal will backfire and make it more difficult for us to effectively prohibit abusive and threatening activities and pornographic material aimed at children and adults. Our best chance to meet this objective is through means which are Constitutional. That is why I support the underlying Leahy amendment to protect the internet and other electronic media from obscene material. The Leahy Amendment would require the Attorney General of the United States within 150 days to produce Constitutional legislation to address the problem. The Leahy Amendment also provides for expedited procedures which would permit the Congress to consider such legislation quickly. I believe this is the more effective course to protect the internet and other telecommunications media. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter printed from the Department of Justice at this point in the Congressional Record. The letter states, in part, ``Defenses included in the Exon proposal would undermine the ability of the Department of Justice to prosecute an on-line service provider even though it knowingly profits from the distribution of obscenity or child pornography.'' The Department of Justice letter also states that for many other reasons a comprehensive review should be made before Congress acts. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: U.S. Department of justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, United States Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: This is in response to your June 14, 1995 letter to me posing questions about my June 13 letter to Senator Exon concerning his proposed Communications Decency Act. My letter to Senator Exon commented on the version of his proposal circulated in his ``dear colleague'' letter of June 7, 1995 (the ``Exon proposal''). Senator Exon had requested that we comment on the extent to which that revised proposal satisfied the concerns I detailed to you in my May 3 letter. The letter does not address the Exon-Coats proposal, which we had not seen nor were aware of until today. We have just begun to review this new proposal. As stated in my letter to Senator Exon, his proposal still raises a number of complex legal and policy issues that call for in-depth analysis prior to congressional action. Because we still have concerns, we continue to believe that a comprehensive review should be undertaken to guide response to the problems the Communications Decency Act seeks to address. Among these concerns are constitutional questions raised primarily by the lack of scienter required for the age element of subsection (e) of the Exon proposal. In our view, this subsection would consequently have the effect of regulating indecent speech between consenting adults.\1\ Subsection (a) does not have the same constitutional infirmity because of the specific intent requirement that the communication be done ``with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass . . .'', which we believe is inconsistent with the concept of ``consenting adults.'' \1\Footnotes at end of letter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As described in my June 13 letter, we continue to have a concern with the ``knowledge'' requirements that were re- inserted in the Exon proposal as defenses for certain parties. The defenses included in the Exon proposal would undermine the ability of the Department of Justice to prosecute an on- line service provider even though it knowingly profits from the distribution of obscenity or child pornography.\2\ Although the existence of the defenses in the Exon proposal would make prosecutions under the proposal's offenses difficult, if not impossible, they would not threaten obscenity prosecutions under existing statutes. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Kent Markus, Acting Assistant Attorney General. footnotes \1\Subsection (e) of the Exon-Coats measure exacerbates the constitutional concerns because it is even more expansive than the similar subsection (e) in the Exon proposal. \2\The defense is subsection (f)(1) of the Exon-Coats measure is particularly problematic as it focuses on whether the service provider has control over the bulletin board service. If the provider does not have control, regardless of whether it has guilty knowledge or intent, it is immune from prosecution. Mr. EXON. With that, if the Senator from Vermont is ready to yield back, I am ready to yield back our time. Mr. LEAHY. I yield back my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment numbered 1362. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. [[Page S8347]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote? The result was announced, yeas 84, nays 16, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.] YEAS--84 Abraham Akaka Ashcroft Baucus Bennett Bond Boxer Bradley Breaux Brown Bryan Bumpers Burns Byrd Campbell Coats Cochran Cohen Conrad Coverdell Craig D'Amato Daschle DeWine Dodd Dole Domenici Dorgan Exon Faircloth Feinstein Ford Frist Gorton Graham Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Harkin Hatch Hatfield Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Johnston Kassebaum Kempthorne Kerrey Kerry Kohl Kyl Lautenberg Lott Lugar Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Nickles Nunn Packwood Pell Pressler Pryor Reid Rockefeller Roth Santorum Sarbanes Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--16 Biden Bingaman Chafee Feingold Glenn Jeffords Kennedy Leahy Levin Lieberman Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Robb Simon Wellstone So, the amendment (No. 1362) was agreed to. Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The majority leader is recognized.