freedom of the netwaves ?
ittvax!swatt
The suggestion of a limericks newsgroup, together with the various
submissions to net.jokes.*, raises some interesting questions about the
use of common carrier phone lines.
There are in place laws against "profane or obscene" language in phone
calls; The FCC also enforces laws against "obscenity" in radio and
television. Is the use of phone lines to transmit "obscene" material
therefore against the law?
Now the laws against "profane or obscene" language in phone
conversations are obviously never going to be enforced unless somebody
complains. Thus if I use such language over the phone with someone who
doesn't mind, nothing will come of it.
However, if I use the phone system to transmit anything containing
"profane or obscene" language over a computer network, and any of the
people who are now exposed to this item object, am I guilty of
anything?
One can argue that the phone regulations are intended primarily to
protect people from harassment, and the prohibitions against
profane language are therefore classed with prohibitions against
threatening phone calls. People who don't want to read profane or
obscene material coming across the computer network generally
don't have to; the stuff is kind of like books on a library shelf.
The FCC regulations are a different matter. Under the principle that
the airwaves are limited, and must be held in trust for "the public",
the FCC can control who has access to them. However computer networks,
news and mail systems are much closer to the "broadsides" of yesteryear.
Are they therefore protected under the free speech ammendment?
Now good old ordinary U.S. Snail is protected under the first
ammendment, with important exceptions for (among others) fraud and
obscenity.
This all seems like an interesting topic; any lawyers out there care
to research it?
- Alan S. Watt (decvax!ittvax!swatt)
watmath!jcwinterton
You also have the problem of international laws on "obscenity" or at least
the law between participating countries.
Also, what about customs inspection of this material. The Canadian government
has or has had a task force to try and make up rules to monitor/tax inter-
national transmission of data etc. over telephone or other electronic media.
I don't know what happened to the study, but I hope it died in a Royal
Commission when the particpants were pensioned off.
cbosgd!mark
we have to be sure we're legal (the obscenity laws might apply, there
are also potential copyright problems with net.db and net.movies) but
we also want to make sure we're moving in the "best interests" (whatever
that means) of the community we serve. As it was pointed out, I think
we'd pretty much all agree that if somebody wanted to start net.kkk or
net.nazi, somebody would have to put their foot down. Other "public
access" media, such as CB radio, Ham, and even telephones, have laws
preventing obscenity. It might be the case that USENET should adopt
similar policies. "If you don't like it, change the channel"? Well,
there are many people out there that feel very strongly that certain
kinds of discussions should not exist on their computer.
I propose that anyone with opinions on this issue discuss it on net.news.
I want to hear from both sides. This is YOUR NETWORK, remember!
Mark Horton
harpo!ber
down on net.kkk or net.nazi or net.jdl or ... Personally I would not subscribe.
But I really don't know if I would refuse to accept or forward such groups.
Is this a "public access" medium? Isn't access restricted in the
sense that items must be forwarded and accepted, and that users are granted
access to the computers or denied access?
What would be the purpose of adopting censorship policies? To protect
innocent eyes? The fundamentalist movement has a key weapon (though
their success is questionable) They buy products from the businesses
that provide TV. Would fundamentalist boycott TPC? The universities?
Goverment agencies? Maybe.
I would guess that the lawmakers and FCCC (fed. comp. com. commsion) are
way behind us. Should we disband the net until it is clearly understood?
Maybe anything we do will be found to be in violation. Could we be undercuttign
the US Postal Service? FCC tarriffs? How many toes are we stepping on now?
brian
