An open letter from Rep. Rick White to the Internet Community
Congressman Rick White
December 4, 1995
To members of the Internet Community and Concerned Citizens:
For the past several months, I have closely followed the online
debate over Congressional attempts to impose content controls on the
Internet. Your phone calls, letters, and email were instrumental in
convincing 420 of my House colleagues to support the Cox/Wyden/White
"Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act."
As you may know, on Wednesday, December 6th, the Telecommunications
Reform Legislation Conference Committee, of which I am a member, will
choose between two competing proposals: one offered by my colleague,
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL), and my own
proposal. I believe that the decision we reach on Wednesday will have a
significant impact on the future of the Internet. While many of us who
use the Internet feel that Congress should steer clear of any new
regulation of the Internet and online information services, the reality
is that proponents of more severe restrictions on online content have
been successful in convincing many in Congress that new regulations are
necessary.
The conference committee is charged with reconciling several
competing approaches to addressing children's access to objectionable
material online. In June, the Senate, by an overwhelming majority passed
the Exon/Coats "Communications Decency Act." In August, the House passed
the Cox/Wyden/White "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act," which
emphasized parental empowerment over government content regulations. At
the same time, the House also approved a new indecency crime sponsored by
Chairman Hyde.
As an avid Internet user and a strong believer in the enormous
potential of cyberspace to educate, expand commercial opportunities, and
create jobs, I have developed an alternative proposal that I expect to
offer to conferees on Wednesday. My proposal will ensure freedom of
speech and encourage the development of technological tools to help
parents prevent their children from accessing inappropriate material
online. It would also prohibit the Federal Communications Commission
from controlling online content and from meddling in the underlying
technologies of the net.
In addition, my proposal will create tough penalties for those few
bad actors who send truly objectionable material directly to minors or
display such material. However, those who make good faith, reasonable
efforts to label content and enable it to be blocked or filtered by
parental control technologies (such as the PICS standards currently being
developed by MIT and the World Wide Web Consortium) would be immune from
prosecution.
Briefly, my proposal:
* Substitutes the narrow, "harmful to minors" standard instead of the
broad, vague, and constitutionally suspect "indecency" standard.
The "harmful to minors" standard refers to material that is sexually
explicit and, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value for minors.
* Prohibits the Federal Government from regulating online content or
from having oversight over the underlying technologies of the net.
* Would prohibit displaying material that is "harmful to minors," but
create immunity for those who make good faith and reasonable efforts
to implement parental empowerment technologies that enable screening
of unwanted content.
* Would not impose liability on online service providers merely for
transmitting the messages of their users.
At this time, the only option for the conference committee is to
choose between the White proposal or the Hyde substitute amendment. As
the only option that minimizes government intrusion on freedom of speech,
relies on parents to make their own choices about what material comes
into their homes, and prevents the FCC from imposing regulations on
online content, I hope you, as well as my colleagues in Congress, will
agree with my approach.
Sincerely,
/s/
Rick White
Member of Congress
*************************************************
http://www.house.gov/white/welcome.html
repw...@hr.house.gov
*************************************************
Jim Hill
<repw...@hr.house.gov> wrote:
>* Substitutes the narrow, "harmful to minors" standard instead of the
> broad, vague, and constitutionally suspect "indecency" standard.
> The "harmful to minors" standard refers to material that is sexually
> explicit and, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
> political or scientific value for minors.
>* Would prohibit displaying material that is "harmful to minors," but
> create immunity for those who make good faith and reasonable efforts
> to implement parental empowerment technologies that enable screening
> of unwanted content.
Awesome. This is what the net is *for*.
Several questions:
(a) Why the "... value to minors" wording? Is there any case law or
other reliable criterion distinguishing e.g. "literary value" from
"literary value to minors"?
(b) Who will have standing to bring charges? Any parent anywhere in the
country? Which community's standards will be used, and which courts will
have original jurisdiction?
(c) Who will be liable for a minor's failure to use available "parental
empowerment technologies"? What constitutes "available"? "implement"? Is
there any minimum or maximum effort required of parents wishing to enforce
this usage?
(d) The phrase "as a whole" is extremely vague in several contexts - an
entire web server? A particular FTP directory? An ongoing discussion on
USENET? In other media, it's quite easy to identify boundaries, but with
the net I think specific language is necessary to avoid a plague of
battles over how much context to consider. Notice, for instance, that
many publications can or must be downloaded chapter by chapter or even
page by page.
(e) Does "good faith and reasonable efforts" include adding a ~possibly
harmful to minors by some standards~ label on request? If not, why not?
(f) Does "good faith and reasonable efforts" include referring concerned
parents to the several low-cost commercial screening/rating services? If
not, why not?
Thank you for posting to USENET. I look forward to more Congressional
discussion of proposed legislation online - I believe there are
appropriate groups for discussing many bills, and that there is no better
forum for public discussion available.
Jim
--
Jim Hill Contents public domain and worth $.02 more than you paid.
jth...@netcom.com PGPrint: 6B 85 76 D1 EF BA 2C 78 12 25 8A 5A BF F3 37 7E
Matthew Rosenblatt
>Congressman Rick White (repw...@hr.house.gov) wrote:
>> At this time, the only option for the conference committee is to
>> choose between the White proposal or the Hyde substitute amendment. As
>> the only option that minimizes government intrusion on freedom of speech,
>> relies on parents to make their own choices about what material comes
>> into their homes, and prevents the FCC from imposing regulations on
>> online content, I hope you, as well as my colleagues in Congress, will
>> agree with my approach. [Rep. Rick White]
>In other words, our elected representatives are now deciding between two
>different kinds of censorship to impose on the rest of us, for our own
>good, and we're supposed to be grateful to White because his brand of
>censorship is less flagrantly unconstitutional than the other kind.
>These people are parasites whose only interest is in pleasing ignorant
>voters who are easily scared and, once scared, turn to government to take
>care of them. [Charles Platt]
Boy, those ignorant voters; what do *they* know? Better to let
the anointed few, who are both mentally and morally far superior
to the stupid, unwashed rabble, make all the decisions.
>Personally, if I have to choose between White and Exon, I
>choose Exon. [Charles Platt]
As a rule, if one has to choose between a Democrat and a Republican,
one ought to choose the Republican, because the Democrat is far more
likely to pursue policies that will take from superior individuals
-- presumably, like Mr. Platt -- and redistribute to the very masses
of "ignorant voters" he seems to despise so much.
>. . . If White
>really had any principles he would make public statements of outrage and
>disgust regarding the neanderthals on the committee, he would refuse to
>deal with them, and he would publicly resign from the committee. In fact,
>if White really had any principles he wouldn't be a politician in the
>first place; he'd be doing something useful with his life. [Charles Platt]
Generalize this, and it means that *no one* with any principles
would become a politician. Then we'd have a choice: We could be
ruled by legislatures and executives made up entirely of unprincipled
scoundrels, or we could be ruled by a perfectly-principled, wise and
just Philosopher-King. Is this what Mr. Platt really advocates?
-- Matt Rosenblatt
(ma...@arl.mil)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"
Charles Platt
> choose between the White proposal or the Hyde substitute amendment. As
> the only option that minimizes government intrusion on freedom of speech,
> relies on parents to make their own choices about what material comes
> into their homes, and prevents the FCC from imposing regulations on
> online content, I hope you, as well as my colleagues in Congress, will
> agree with my approach.
In other words, our elected representatives are now deciding between two
different kinds of censorship to impose on the rest of us, for our own
good, and we're supposed to be grateful to White because his brand of
censorship is less flagrantly unconstitutional than the other kind.
These people are parasites whose only interest is in pleasing ignorant
voters who are easily scared and, once scared, turn to government to take
care of them. Personally, if I have to choose between White and Exon, I
choose Exon. At least he doesn't try to pretend to be anything other than
what he is. Nor does he place messages here attempting to coopt my support
by portraying himself as a friend of the Internet, even while he proposes
"compromise" legislation to control it.
Where free speech is concerned, there is no room for compromise. If White
really had any principles he would make public statements of outrage and
disgust regarding the neanderthals on the committee, he would refuse to
deal with them, and he would publicly resign from the committee. In fact,
if White really had any principles he wouldn't be a politician in the
first place; he'd be doing something useful with his life.
In reality, he is a political animal like the rest; a slightly different
species, but still an animal. Moreover his brand of politics is more
pernicious because it disguises the oppressive powers of government with
a pretense of "being reasonable" and makes legislation seem inevitable.
Once we buy that lie--that "there's going to be some sort of a law, no
matter what we do"--we accept their ground rules and forfeit some of our
independence.
--
############################################################
Charles Platt c...@panix.com
Mark Dallara
>In article <4a26pb$s...@panix.com> c...@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes:
>>Congressman Rick White (repw...@hr.house.gov) wrote:
>>> At this time, the only option for the conference committee is to
>>> choose between the White proposal or the Hyde substitute amendment. As
>>> the only option that minimizes government intrusion on freedom of speech,
>>> relies on parents to make their own choices about what material comes
>>> into their homes, and prevents the FCC from imposing regulations on
>>> online content, I hope you, as well as my colleagues in Congress, will
>>> agree with my approach. [Rep. Rick White]
>>In other words, our elected representatives are now deciding between two
>>different kinds of censorship to impose on the rest of us, for our own
>>good, and we're supposed to be grateful to White because his brand of
>>censorship is less flagrantly unconstitutional than the other kind.
>>These people are parasites whose only interest is in pleasing ignorant
>>voters who are easily scared and, once scared, turn to government to take
>>care of them. [Charles Platt]
>Boy, those ignorant voters; what do *they* know? Better to let
>the anointed few, who are both mentally and morally far superior
>to the stupid, unwashed rabble, make all the decisions.
Fool, we're advocating the rights of the "rabble" to make their OWN
decisions on what to read and view! The "anointed few" would be a more
accurate label if applied sarcastically to Hyde and his Kristian FucKing
Koalition. The ignorant voters are the ones who allow Hyde & Exon (and,
to a lesser degree, White) to legislate their rights away.
--
Mark Dallara | Grad Student | Biomedical Engineer | Florida Gator
Available for hire soon. Real soon. Any day now. No, really.
Resume, C.V., thesis abstract, and Gator stuff at:
http://www.mecca.org/BME/STUDENTS/mdallara.html
Ram Samudrala
>Boy, those ignorant voters; what do *they* know? Better to let
>the anointed few, who are both mentally and morally far superior
>to the stupid, unwashed rabble, make all the decisions.
Your sarcasm aside, Charles Platt is speaking the truth. Regardless
of who you support, if White goes through with his proposal, the
government will decide between three forms of censorship.
It's sad that it has come to this, something that I never thought
would happen a few years ago.
Still, I don't believe it can be enforced, nor do I believe it can
work. Time to switch to providers outside the country folks.
So what next? Machines in our homes to monitor our behaviour?
--Ram
m...@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
\ /
\/ Valine long
\/ and prosper.
Johannes Sayre
Matthew Rosenblatt <ma...@arl.mil> wrote:
>In article <4a26pb$s...@panix.com> c...@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes:
>
>>These people are parasites whose only interest is in pleasing ignorant
>>voters who are easily scared and, once scared, turn to government to take
>>care of them. [Charles Platt]
>
>the anointed few, who are both mentally and morally far superior
>to the stupid, unwashed rabble, make all the decisions.
Yup, the ones who are competent to consider the issues, and who are able
to examine existing conditions in a rational manner in order to synthesize
new structures to improve conditions.
>>Personally, if I have to choose between White and Exon, I
>>choose Exon. [Charles Platt]
>
>As a rule, if one has to choose between a Democrat and a Republican,
>one ought to choose the Republican, because the Democrat is far more
>likely to pursue policies that will take from superior individuals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
talking about the rich ?
material success == superior ?
your standards are showing again, Matt.
>-- presumably, like Mr. Platt -- and redistribute to the very masses
>of "ignorant voters" he seems to despise so much.
most of the time, material success of the kind prized and seen as threatened
by the Republicans has nothing to do with superiority, but with how much meat
you can bring to bear on a situation. So Republican superiority is superiority
in a very crude, social Darwinist sense - it has nothing to do with the
superiority which built the modern reality which we inhabit, with computers
to sit in front of, communities with at least a minimal remove from nonstop
barbarism, and the occasional twinge of art and beauty not yet commodified.
It's been my experience that since the first year of the Bush administration,
genuine superiority on the human scale has been seen as a threat to stability
of human society, and has been subject to suppression by pervasive, subversive
methods. Having to always remember that we're all connected is definitely a
Republican program, Matt.
>>. . . If White
>>really had any principles he would make public statements of outrage and
>>disgust regarding the neanderthals on the committee, he would refuse to
>>deal with them, and he would publicly resign from the committee. In fact,
>>if White really had any principles he wouldn't be a politician in the
>>first place; he'd be doing something useful with his life. [Charles Platt]
Politicians are part of the civilization-structure that put a computer in
front of you and allow you to write for things called newspapers. Nothing
wrong with the institution, rather with shitheads who want everything to
be reducible (note the tie to conservative reductionism) to a few simple
rules, and throw up their hands and flap them when things don't turn out
to be that way - they'd rather indulge their "creativity" than examine a
situation long enough to understand it and be able to affect it. The people
who brought you your civilization did _not_ throw up their hands and flap
them around.
>Generalize this, and it means that *no one* with any principles
>would become a politician. Then we'd have a choice: We could be
>ruled by legislatures and executives made up entirely of unprincipled
>scoundrels, or we could be ruled by a perfectly-principled, wise and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>just Philosopher-King.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like self-indulgent New World Order-approved daydreaming of the
days of old when knights were bold, everything was simple and powerful,
and everything period was shrouded in the mists of a pleasant mythological
fairy landscape. Hmmm... smells like someone broke wind. Let's cut through
the fog...
Matthew Rosenblatt
(Johannes Sayre) writes:
>In article <1995Dec5.2...@arl.mil>,
>Matthew Rosenblatt <ma...@arl.mil> wrote:
>>In article <4a26pb$s...@panix.com> c...@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes:
>>>These people are parasites whose only interest is in pleasing ignorant
>>>voters who are easily scared and, once scared, turn to government to take
>>>care of them. [Charles Platt]
>>Boy, those ignorant voters; what do *they* know? Better to let
>>the anointed few, who are both mentally and morally far superior
>>to the stupid, unwashed rabble, make all the decisions. [M. Rosenblatt]
>Yup, the ones who are competent to consider the issues, and who are able
>to examine existing conditions in a rational manner . . . [J. Sayre]
How many "Charles Platts" are there in the "Yale Alumni Directory"?
Just one, from the Class of 1910, and he's probably not the previous
poster. And how many are there in the "Harvard Alumni Directory"?
Is our Mr. Platt one of those three fellows? If so, I'll concede
that he may be a *little* more "competent to consider the issues"
than the ordinary man in the voting booth. But even then, he
shouldn't be able to substitute his judgment for theirs. This
is America.
>. . . in order to synthesize
>new structures to improve conditions. [Johannes Sayre]
And for whom, somehow, the answer always comes down to the same thing:
More power in the hands of the "anointed few" (i.e., themselves and
people their like-minded friends), and more resources taken from the
working chumps -- resources to finance the "new structures" (always
new *governmental* structures) which will further regulate ordinary
people's lives in an attempt to bring about the "superior ones'" vision
of America.
>>>Personally, if I have to choose between White and Exon, I
>>>choose Exon. [Charles Platt]
>>As a rule, if one has to choose between a Democrat and a Republican,
>>one ought to choose the Republican, because the Democrat is far more
>>likely to pursue policies that will take from superior individuals
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>[Matt Rosenblatt]
>talking about the rich ?
>
>material success == superior ? [Johannes Sayre]
>>-- presumably, like Mr. Platt -- and redistribute to the very masses
>>of "ignorant voters" he seems to despise so much. [Matt Rosenblatt]
Mr. Sayre seems to have missed my sarcasm. I don't believe that
the rich or the "anointed few" *really are* superior, any more than
I believe that the masses of voters *really are* ignorant. I believe
that the voters, on the whole, do a creditable job of looking after
their own interests.
It is a misconception that the Democrats hurt "the rich." After
thirty years of the "Great Society" and over forty years of Democratic
control of the House of Representatives, "the rich" are richer than
ever. The Democrats never drafted the sons of "the rich" to get shot
in Vietnam. Most of the money that finances the "Great Society" comes
from people only a few rungs above the economic bottom, and gets
distributed through the "social-worker/intellectual complex" to the
"very vulnerable" who have come to think of themselves as "entitled"
to it.
The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, recognized
that both sides in the War Between the States prayed for Divine help.
However, he thought it strange that some men would invoke a just G-d
to help them gain their bread by the sweat of other men's brows. The
power of the "social-worker/intellectual complex" -- the "dreamers"
who believe that they are *so superior* -- rests on the sweat of
other men's brows. Lincoln believed it was wrong when the Southern
enslavers lived that way. His successors in the Grand Old Party,
the party of Lincoln, Goldwater, and Miller, are gonna do to the
"social-worker/intellectuals" and their "very vulnerable" mascots
what Abe Lincoln did to the Southern enslavers.
>. . . So Republican superiority is superiority
>in a very crude, social Darwinist sense - it has nothing to do with the
>superiority which built the modern reality which we inhabit, with computers
>to sit in front of, communities with at least a minimal remove from nonstop
>barbarism, and the occasional twinge of art and beauty not yet commodified.
>[Johannes Sayre]
I see. When it's art and beauty that the great, unwashed rabble are
willing to shell out their own hard-earned money to see, like a Walt
Disney movie, it's "commodified." But when it's art that we poor chumps
are *forced* to pay taxes to subsidize, like Serrano's "Piss Christ,"
then it's "the occasional twinge of art and beauty not yet commodified."
I'm rooting for the GOP to change a system where Joe Sixpack, earning
$25,000 a year out at Sparrows Point, has to subsidize Symphony Orchestras
and Grand Operas where the "superior" intellectuals relax after an arduous
day of planning other people's lives. Why can't these intellectuals
become patrons and support their own entertainment the same way Joe
Sixpack's box office money supports Walt Disney?
>>>. . . In fact,
>>>if White really had any principles he wouldn't be a politician in the
>>>first place; he'd be doing something useful with his life. [Charles Platt]
>>Generalize this, and it means that *no one* with any principles
>>would become a politician. Then we'd have a choice: We could be
>>ruled by legislatures and executives made up entirely of unprincipled
>>scoundrels, or we could be ruled by a perfectly-principled, wise and
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>just Philosopher-King. [Matt Rosenblatt]
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Sounds like self-indulgent New World Order-approved daydreaming of the
>days of old when knights were bold, everything was simple and powerful,
>and everything period was shrouded in the mists of a pleasant mythological
>fairy landscape. [Johannes Sayre]
It is not I who wants a "wise and just Philosopher-King." Rather, it is
the "superior" intellectuals who see themselves as candidates for such
a position, because they think they are the only ones "competent to
consider the issues, and . . . able to examine existing conditions
in a rational manner in order to synthesize new structures to improve
conditions." They don't *trust* the ordinary people, mere imperfect
mortals who refuse to change their human nature to conform to the
dreamers' dreams. Republicans recognize that we have to live with
people *as they are*, and make the most of it.
Bill Stewart
>>Personally, if I have to choose between White and Exon, I
>>choose Exon. [Charles Platt]
>As a rule, if one has to choose between a Democrat and a Republican,
>one ought to choose the Republican, because the Democrat is far more
>likely to pursue policies that will take from superior individuals
>-- presumably, like Mr. Platt -- and redistribute to the very masses
>of "ignorant voters" he seems to despise so much.
And a scurvy lot they both are. The system encourages them to
cooperate with each other; Democrat pork goes to bureaucrats who let
some of it trickle down to poor people, while Republican pork goes to
defense contractors who pretend to let defense trickle down to the
public. Republican business-owners were perfectly happy to get along
with Democrats and Republicans in creating telecomm monopolies and
broadcasting oligopolies, as long as it would restrict competition.
I'm not saying Republicans are any more corrupt; they just prefer to
give your money to a small number of their friends rather than spreading
it out the was Democrats do.
Meanwhile, Republican censors like to target people who aren't "nice",
in the sexual-morality sense; Democrats prefer to censor people who
aren't nice in the political-correctness sense.
Republicans are currently leading the rhetoric about deregulation,
just as 15 years ago they led the rhetoric about reduced spending.
They've done a bit of deregulating, while they can't be said to have
done much of anything to reduce spending; the last President to have
offered a balanced budget to Congress was Nixon, though of course it
wasn't balanced by the time Congress finished marking it up and he
signed it.
Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stew...@ix.netcom.com
Bill Stewart
ma...@arl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt ) wrote:
>Mr. Sayre seems to have missed my sarcasm. I don't believe that
>the rich or the "anointed few" *really are* superior, any more than
>I believe that the masses of voters *really are* ignorant. I believe
>that the voters, on the whole, do a creditable job of looking after
>their own interests.
Sigh. That's part of why I don't trust them to run _my_ life...
>The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, recognized
>that both sides in the War Between the States prayed for Divine help.
>However, he thought it strange that some men would invoke a just G-d
>to help them gain their bread by the sweat of other men's brows. The
>power of the "social-worker/intellectual complex" -- the "dreamers"
>who believe that they are *so superior* -- rests on the sweat of
>other men's brows.
If you look at the history of Republicanism, it was originally an
elitist movement; while Lincoln wasn't a Prohibitionist, many of his
fellow party members were, and folks like Frederick Law Olmstead were
pushing things like city parks to civilize the poor, while strongly
supporting the draft as a way of raising troops to help their war on the
States that didn't want to stay in the Union (largely for economic
reasons, of which slavery was one of the strongest.) Lincoln, after
all, didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863, when the
North was having trouble sustaining its military efforts and the
political backing for the war was weakening substantially.
(Not that the South had a superior moral position, of course...)
>I see. When it's art and beauty that the great, unwashed rabble are
>willing to shell out their own hard-earned money to see, like a Walt
>Disney movie, it's "commodified." But when it's art that we poor chumps
>are *forced* to pay taxes to subsidize, like Serrano's "Piss Christ,"
>then it's "the occasional twinge of art and beauty not yet commodified."
Our taxes paid for far more obscenity through the National Endowment for
Democracy than they ever did through the National Endowment for
Humanities, not that there's any excuse for that either. And then
there's forcing us to pay for baseball stadiums to prevent "the city's"
team from leaving; they don't even give us free tickets in return.