______________________________________________________________________________
"It is the intention of this bill to get everybody into everyone else's business." So said Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., author of the sweeping telecommunications bill that recently pased the Senate. Pressler was referring to the tearing down of walls that keep local telephone companies, long distance carriers and cable providers from entering each other's markets.
But the new age of communication may be stopped in its tracks by an amendment to the bill that federal censors into everyone's business. The amendment by Sen. James Exon, D-Neb., would make it a federal crime to "knowingly make, or make available" obscene or indecent materials to minors over computer networks.
In the world of the Internet, "make available" means everything and nothing. Virtually everything is available to anybody with the proper skills, software, and online access. The word "knowingly was added after the initial draft raised concerns that providers of Internet services, from America OnLine to state universities, would be held liable for anything any one of their individual users placed on the Internet. Many worry taht the new qualifiers are not enough. The possibility that providers could be held liable is still real.
Prodigy, one of the leading online commercial services, is fighting a libel suit provoked by one of its customers. Global Connect of Williamsburg, Va.,has pulled customer access to adult groups because of a state law similar to Exon's. Providers such as universities and so-called freenets that can't affordto screen every message may deny access altogether.
For years, the outdated 1934 telecommunications lawhas been an impediment to to a fundamental change in the way Americans and the whole world transfer information. With the new Congress comes a new kind of regulation, one that could ultimately be as crushing as the knee-jerk anti-business policies of the past.
Republicans who profess a belief in the marketplace carry their faith only so far. The new Congress apparently believes that, although the free market has the power to lower prices and bring more choice, it works against the values most Americans hold dear. That thinking is evident elsewhere in the bill, in a mandate that all new televisions have circuitry, the ill-named "V-chip," that enables the user to block out violent programming.
Such thinking is unfounded. The private sector, without government help, has already developed solutions to both of those problems. At least three software companies have developed filters to keep explicit sexual material out of the hands of children or the faint of heart. Large commercial computer networks such as AOL and Compuserve offer similar screening devices. A remote control that enables parents to block out violent programs has also recently hit the market.
The bill must be changed before it goes to the president's desk. The Justice Department believes the Exon measure would be virtually unenforcable. And it is sure to be challenged in the courts by free speech activists.
There is hope that cooler heads may prevail in the House of Representatives. Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., has been a strong proponenet of online communications. One of his first acts as speaker was to release text of House legislation on the Internet. As someone who is familiar with cyberspace, Gingrich sees the dangers inherent in the bill. His opposition has angered many of his allies on the religious right, but it should make them think twice when the lower chamber debates an alternative plan by Sen. Patrck Leahy, D-Vt. Leahy's plan, which failed in the Senate, would have the Justice Department study the issue before Congress acts.
Many groups arguing for the restrictions claim they are needed since technologically adept children can override the restrictions their parents program. That is no excuse at all. Washington's role as Mommy and Daddy is as wrong as its role as Big Brother. If children can learn the new technology, so can their parents. The transfer of parental responsibilities to the government has widely been denounced as one of the leading causes of family disintegration, poverty, and rising crime by many of the same people who voted for the Exon amendment.
Both the V-chip requirement and the Exon rule place an unfair burden on consumers, who have no need or desire for help in choosing their entertainment. The increase in time, money, and frustration cannot be justified by parents who are too lazy or indifferent to take an active part in their children's lives. The federal government's assumption of a new power in exchange for its old ones is no real progress at all. If the Exon amendment becomes law, the promise of deregulation will be worthless.
______________________________________________________________________________
JAMES C. PLUMMER, JR. is a research assisstant at the Cato Institute.
Back to the Stuff Jamie's written page.