I want to respond point by point to Susan's observations.

On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Susan D. Prince wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, xerxes wrote:
> 
> (edited)
> 
> > There has been a great deal of scare-mongering going on as regards how the
> > new act might be administered.  All kinds of folks have implied, without
> > direct evidence to support them, that all manner of literary or educational
> > sites will be declared in violation.  This is grotesque hyperbole.  No one
> > is going to administer the law in such a way that there would be hundreds
> > of thousands of prosecutions, and that should be obvious.  MOST ONLINE NEWS
> > PARTICIPANTS ARE PROBABLY SAFE.   This is not a reach, or an exaggeration,
> > or an excuse, or a dodge...it is just a statement of probable courses of
> > action.  The future will prove it right or wrong.  The list has 1400 known
> > readers....lets see how many find themselves under indictment.

I should add to this that the amendment's legislative history provided by
Neal Friedman, Esq.  which cover aspects of interpretation, show clearly
that the law will not be used in the absurd manners suggested by its 
opponents.  I urge journalists to READ the legislative histroy for 
themselves before they accept carte blanche the spin provided by 
professional advocates. 

> 	With many years of experience in broadcasting, in addressing
> questions re.  what is & isn't "indecent," I don't share Finer's level of 
> comfort regarding the CDA, for three reasons.


> 	The first reason is the one shared, apparently, by many on this 
> list & elsewhere -- "indecency" is impossible to define

Impossible to define? In the case of broadcasting, it has been defined by 
prior court actions and FCC  guidlines.

> and guarantees 
> selective enforcement likely based on the level of righteous indignation 
> felt and time available to someone charged with enforcement, rather than 
> on the weight of evidence in each case.

And what evidence demonstrates this above allegation?  Indictments and 
convictions not based on evidence, presumably, are subject to winning 
appeals.  How many winning appeals have been registered on the indecency 
rules in broadcasting, as a percentage of actions taken? 
 
> 	Second, in broadcasting, the FCC staff understands (to some
> degree) the nature of the medium they regulate. This provides a measure of
> safety for licensees regarding claims that a station has aired "indecent"
> material. The FCC presumes, unless demonstrated otherwise with substantial
> support, that a licensee has made a good-faith effort to broadcast
> material selected in response to its community standards.

Is this assumption valid, or is it merely evidence that the FCC staff has 
been, to a degree, "captured" by the industry it is supposed to 
regulate.  This has been a criticism of the Commission for decades.

> Given the value
> of a broadcast license, the FCC is right to assume no well-managed station
> would risk that without good reason and careful evaluation.

Here again, another troublesome assumption, in this case, that a station is 
"well-managed" because it is "valuable".  Stations may take the "risk" of 
indecency because the commission's rules make enforcement so 
unlikely....perhaps what "shock-jock" radio executives thought.

> 	I don't believe most of those charged with enforcing the CDA will
> have much knowledge of online media...the contrary, in fact. ...So much
> for the presumption of good faith. 

Any particular reasons for your assumtions here, Susan, or are you 
operating on pure hunch here?  Do you imagine that all the FCC staff is 
ignorant of the Internet, or that no one on Congressional staff has ever 
used the Internet?  If you do assume such, you'll be wrong.

Moreover, as part of their new responsibilities, FCC staff may become 
more familiar with the Internet than they have been in the past. The FCC 
did not ALWAYS understand the TV industry.  The FCC and the industry grew 
together.

> There's also the fact that broadcasters
> buy insurance to cover costs of complaints like this, unlike (I presume)
> most ISPs. 

What is your point?  What is to prevent ISPs from buying this insurance in 
the future? It might be a good business.  

> One can't equate the two media, and presume "indecency"  will be
> handled the same way on both. It won't. 

Equating the two media is not necessary.  Indecency should be handled 
differently in the two cases.  The issue is that "indecency" can be 
handled in media other than broadcast, by similar standards setting 
procedure.

> 	Finally, one of the strongest arguments for the "indecency" 
> standard in broadcasting is the fact that stations serve discrete and
> different communities, which do hold a wide range of views on what does or
> doesn't address community concerns, needs and interests. What's necessary
> and valuable programming in San Francisco is "indecent" in Baton Rouge. As
> others have said repeatedly, this geographic diversity of standards simply
> doesn't apply online. 

The geographic parameter may not apply, but other standards of community 
do not necessarily ruleout formulation of an indecency standard 
appropriate to the medium.  One set of advocates say that the net cannot 
be limited to the standards of the most conservative community with 
access to the net.  But this argument cuts both ways. Who can logically 
argue that the standards of the net should be those of the most liberal 
community with access to the net?  Another set of standards, compromise 
standards, need to be formulated.  It is reasonable to allow the FCC to 
try and formulate this standard, and then let the courts decide the 
inevitable appeals.

> 	For those who enjoy a good fight, this ought to be a pip.

I agree, and am looking forward to seeing and hearing it.

> Without 
> going into detail, I can assure you the "chilling effect" is alive and 
> well, both in over-the-air broadcast and, sadly, now online.

One man's ceiling is another man's floor.  the "chilling effect" you 
decry is the clean-up that millions of your fellow citizens are, in many 
ways, asking the political process to deliver.  My guess is that those 
who despise the CDA will need to fight it at the polls.  But they will 
not find a fertile field for doing so for quite a while.

------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #517
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Wed Feb 14 11:09:13 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23241 ; for ; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:09:10 -0500