Legislative Proposal For New Indecency Language In Telecom Bill :: essays research papers

Legislative Proposal for New Indecency Language in telecom BillI. Summary     Although the October 16, 1995 legislative proposition purports to regulate computer filth, the proposal contains fatal flaws which render theproposal at best harmful and at worst devastating to on-linecommunications. First, it prohibits, further fails to define, indecent public lecture tominors -- a dangerously vague, medium-particular proposition, and, after decades of litigation,still undefined concept, which whitethorn include mere profanity. This whitethorn tie upsuccessful pursuit of the law in courts for years to come, while courtswrestle to divine a constitutional definition of indecent -- and whilecompanies are left with dubious liability.     Second, the October 16 proposal may actually hold systems liable forcommunications everyplace which they have no specific knowledge or control. Theproposal purports to target those who knowingly send prohibite d communications-- itself a comparatively low standard of liability that may not even conveyactual intent or willfulness. Nevertheless, because the proposal i) defines theelements of criminal liability in vague and opposed terms, and ii)eliminates safeharbors in the Senate bill that would define a get standard ofcare, it might hold systems liable for actions that dont reach even a knowingly standard of liability. As a result, access providers, systemmanagers and operators, and employers may potentially be liable for actions ofusers over which they have no specific knowledge, intent, or control.     For any company that communicates by computer, the proposal1) Creates liability for, but never defines, indecent speech, a dangerouslyvague standard that could vanish companies criminally liable for use of mereprofanity2) Establishes vague and contradictory standards of liability that could leaveinnocent companies vicariously liable for communications over which th ey have nocontrol3) Strips workable affirmative defenses from the Senate bill, eliminating a faint standard of care for companies.     Not only does the proposal endanger companies, it fails to entertainchildren. The indecency standard guarantees that enforcement will be tied up inthe courts for years to come. Companies will be particularly reticent toidentify and remove prohibited communications when they are incapable ofdiscerning which communications are indecent and when the companys consequentknowledge of the communications may actually choose them liable. At worst, theproposal will either shut down systems all in all or will shut down any attemptsto constructively observe and screen systems, as providers take a know-nothingstance to avoid prosecution for purported knowledge.II. The Indecency Standard and Uncertain and Conflicting Standards ofCulpability Implicate barren Companies But Fail To Protect Children.A. The undefined indecency standard is per adventure unenforceable and certainlycounterproductive.     Although the October 16 proposal purports to regulate computer