Web posted February 8, 1996
What do you think of the telecom bill and the Communications Decency Act?
Feedback: Please send us your comments.
You said it - some user comments.
At first I was upset to see CNN's Web page was not blacked out, but after reading Scott Woelfel's explanation, I understand and support CNN's decision.
Name : Mike Beebe
Email : stukafox@best.com
I just read your "Why our page isn't black" statement. Initially, I was quite disappointed to see that you had NOT turned your page black. Now, I guess I can see your point. I would like to state however, that I hope CNN will work to ensure that CNN's freedom to place controversial news items in the CNN-Online Web page will not be permanently abridged.
Name : Steve Cantley
Email : cantley@flash.net
Your editor-in-chief feels the need to operate "without the fear of a perception of bias." Preposterous. You can't possibly report news without the First Amendment, but you abandon your responsibilities to preserve the Constitution and our common freedoms. I suspect, in your short-sighted way, you don't want freedom of speech on the Internet. CNN feels threatened by citizens generating their own opinions and content; how do you intend to report on ABORTION or INDECENCY on this Web page ? And could you tell me, is there any restriction on speech that CNN would object to, eh Comrade? Or would you sycophantically kiss the ring of the ghost of Senator McCarthy ?
Name : christian hartleben
Email : prophit@netaxs.com
I agree with Mr. Scott Woelfel, editor in chief's, explanation as to why CNN Interactive is not participating in the protest against the Communications Decency Act ruling. As a person who provides a weather service homepage on the Internet, my first priority is to give my customers the product that they have come to expect. I can make my opinion known through E-Mail or other media.
Get real! Your choice to not participate in the Web blackout is still a choice and one that reflects lack of commitment to the principles of liberty of expression. CNN became a world source of info by not catering to the regulations imposed by various government agencies of the world. Perhaps it has gotten too much following. I for one will bail out at this point and get my news from another source.
Though I fervently disagree with the "Communications Decency Act" (as if politicians understand decency!!), I was surprised and impressed by CNN's dedication to unbiased journalistic integrity by not participating in Black Thursday. I only hope the 'Act' does not impact your ability to continue reporting in the fashion that has made you one of the most reliable news sources. Laura Brown
Regarding your response to the Internet "blackout" -- I think you'll change your mind when you find that CNN will be facing fines if they continue to post its pictures of war victims, or any breaking news that contain words such as breast, as in breast cancer, or penile, as in penile implants. You can probably forget about the stories on abortion, too. Don't be naive in thinking CNN will still be able to provide an objective viewpoint after this bill is passed. News coverage is more violent and indecent than anything we'll ever see on a T.V. show, and the worst part is -- it's real. Get with it and go "black" CNN.
Name : cyndi mcfarland
Email : smallmac@mindspring.com
I respect your decision not to blacken your web pages so that you may preserve your journalistic integrity. While I would have to agree that blackening your pages will not make the legislation "go away," I sincerely hope that it passage will not also prevent you from continuing to publish material that to some zealous eyes might be considered indecent.
Name : Eric Salituro
Email : eric@rice.edu
I appreciate CNN On-lines' decision not to change their screen to black today. Many people do not agree with all or parts of this bill, but it is good to know I have a source to see every side of the story in an unbiased manner. Keep up the good work!
Name : Richard E. Tate
Email : tates@airmail.net
Your journalistic objectivity will mean little if you're censored.
You guys are total weenies for not turning you Web pages black, and your arguments for not doing so are completely insane. You say: "By taking a stand, even if it appears only to be a stand supporting the First Amendment, we have compromised our objectivity and neutrality on this story." Your organization, since it is a "news" organization, should be taking this stand for the First Amendment. If this were the 1940s, would you say "By taking a stand, even if it appears only to be a stand against war crimes, we have compromised ... blah blah blah blah"? You say you want to be the "Internet's premier news source," but I, for one, will not be visiting your site again. My guess to the *real* reason why your Web pages aren't black is because Ted "make that in colour" Turner is a big fan of the Telecommunications Act, and any offending amendments. How can you say you have journalistic integrity when you're only towing the corporate American line?
Name : Michael O'Neal-Petterson
Email : monealp@calstatela.edu
A shame that CNN won't stand up for the one thing that lets you stay in business -- The First Amendment.
Name : Paul Szabo
Email : szabopk@teleport.com
Mr. Woelfel, Your comments as to why CNN's homepages are not black are quite inadequate. You state explicitly, "We at CNN Interactive must be free to report this very important story to you, our users, without the fear of a perception of bias." Your argument fails because the very existence of the law threatens your ability to comply with your own statements. How can CNN in an unbiased way about abortion is such speech is banned? You state explicitly, "By taking a stand, even if it appears only to be a stand supporting the First Amendment, we have compromised our objectivity and neutrality on this story." You know just as well as I that there is no such thing as a 'neutral' news story. Imagine if CNN was in existence during the Nazi's reign in Germany. How would CNN report a neutral story? Would it report sugar coated stories explaining that the Nazi's are simply strengthening the country and improving education? You state explicitly, "That cannot happen if we are to remain the Internet's premier news source." Well you aren't anymore. I have removed CNN from my bookmarks. You have already stated your bias. You are not keeping your page white because you want to appear unbiased. You are afraid of angering a segment of your audience. You would rather be 'neutral', a meaningless phrase in regards to this story, so that CNN can be on the winning side rather than the correct one, even if the winning side is fascism. In history, there have been men and women who have put their very bodies and blood in the line of fire to protect out ability to speak freely. In history there are men and women who put their printing presses in the line of fire for the very same reason. Such devotions as these are carried out in the press and since you fail at such devotions, you and CNN have failed, Mr. Woelfel.
Andrew Laska
Richardson, Texas
CNN's stance on the Internet blackout is cowardice disguised as "professional ethics." In times such as these, when civil freedoms are increasingly compromised, you should be disgraced at the fact that you're willing to report upon the compromising of the rights of others -- all the while making money from such reporting. Perhaps when your organization has *its* rights infringed will you show more courage; until then, we can expect the usual cant. Shame on you, CNN. Shame on you.
Name : Matthew Tinkcom
Email : stiletto@access.digex.net
I really like the way you present unbiased information. I am against Internet censorship and support the "blackout", but I think it would be inappropriate for you to blackout your pages. Please continue reporting stories as they really are.
Name : Chris Clason
Email : clason@mail.airmail.net
Heaven forbid that you take a stand in favor of something like the First Amendment and freedom of speech! (Somehow, I'm not surprised -- since CNN is just another Turner network.) Will you keep the same stand when freedom of the press goes away?
Name : John Lorentz
Email : john_lorentz@planar.com
First, I'd like to commend Mr. Woelfel on keeping CNN in the "neutral zone" in regards to the Communications Law. The very thing that has made this country what it is today, has just been wiped away with the stroke of a pen. That is the FREEDOM to say, type, read, see, or hear, anything that I want! That's guaranteed in this country's Constitution! Some people, I guess, just don't see it that way.
Name : C.D. Goss
Email : wamphyri@sojourn.com
As a news organization, you should be one of the most furious Internet users. I can't believe CNN won't stand up for our of freedom of speech. CNN should realize how important freedom of speech is, especially considering that they are a news organization. I am going to refuse to watch CNN, or visit there Internet page until they turn their pages black.
Name : Clay Smith
Email : bbraniff@ucinet.con
Your fear of reporting without a perception of bias should only be exceeded by your fear of not reporting at all.
As a Web page publisher who will soon turn his page black, I support your decision to keep your pages the way they are. In fact, I'd be very disappointed in and suspicious of any news agency that sacrificed its objectivity in order to support any protest against a government action. While news agencies have a long and honorable tradition of editorializing on government actions, this has always been confined to editorial and op-ed pages. Keep your pages as they are and keep reporting the news.
Name : Stephen Kilmer
Email : stephenk@crl.com
I'm not sure that I follow the logic in your refusal to turn your background black in protest of the telecom bill. It seems to me that, on this issue, the lack of a statement IS a statement.
Name : Kevin Boggs
Email : Kevin_boggs@dole.k12.hi.us
I think that your "objective" posturing is abhorrent. Changing the color of your background in defense of free speech is not the same as "taking sides". Throughout history the press has often taken a stand against the encroachment of the right to free speech. CNN is not just a free floating transmitter of information, but a functioning element of our national community. In this case ... your silence appears to designate consent or agreement. Perhaps this has more to do with Ted Turner's personal beliefs than being an advocate of the free flow of information within our democracy. If CNN refuses to take a stand, at least on its own corporate behalf, then we must assume that its interests lie more in "not ruffling any feathers" than being a defender of free speech and the Constitution. Gee, this sounds a lot like the old "Pravda" line. Finally, I will no longer patronize CNN as a server of news or current events...CNN does not represent a member of the "free" press (one of the traditional pillars of our society.) but instead worries more about ratings and making sure that no one is offended by any stance which the organization might take. Your editor should reread his editorial...do a little research into the origins of the press in our country...and get some guts. Hey even if Ted fires him...there is always..Ha, Ha..Rupert Murdoch!!
Name : Kevin Mulvihill
Email : kevinm@netcom.com
I commend your Scott Woelfel, Editor in Chief for his comments on not making CNN's homepages with black backgrounds in protest to the restriction clause in the newly passed Telecommunications Bill. Unfortunately, he used one sentence which is the reason people like me take a dim view of our current media: "CNN has established its global reputation by being the one broadcaster to give nothing but the facts the way we see them." That last phrase "..the way we see them" gives the story a biased point of view.
Name : Ernest Tornabell III
Email : tornabel@shadow.net
Your site is not black. Your organization apparently appreciates this sort of treatment by Congress. Your bookmark has been removed, and I've suggested doing this to over 700 employees on our company's mailing list. I've also suggested avoiding your site to 20-30 friends on other lists, who've in turn passed on the word to hundreds of newsgroups and lists of their own. I'll be making a permanent reference to this action of yours on my heavily-trafficked web site (1,700+index loads/day). Goodbye "CNN"
Name : Robert Adams
Email : radams@agames.com
I appreciate the objectivity of CNN. That is what makes this site better than some of the so-called "news" sites that in actuality are quite biased, and tend to be more propaganda than news. Thank you!
Name : john davis
Email : aa100537@midnet.csd.sc.edu
It is truly wonderful and encouraging to be witness to even the most subtle display of principles and ethics today. Despite sincere heartfelt emotional alliances with the "call of the day", to stick with your guiding principles is beyond commendable. In this, CNN too often stands alone.
Name : Christopher Schultz
Email : cschultz@hp.boi.com
Re: the editorial by Scott Woelfel. What a crock. If the FCC censors take an aggressive stance under the new telecom bill, it will be a matter of time before news reporting organizations will be "chilled" into sanitizing their reports. To assert, as CNN has done, that it is "above the fray" and thereby retains its objectivity is an absurdity. History is replete with examples of courageous journalists and news organizations being active participants in efforts to give life to the First Amendment. CNN has expediently chosen to merely stand by and report on its demise. Please, Mr. Woelfel, spare us the sanctimony about objectivity. The truth is CNN simply does not want to step on anyone's toes.
Name : Andrew Vincent Alder
Email : andrew@faresearch.com
I'm amazed that the CNN Internet Homepage is not joining in the protest of the telecommunications bill. Is it not understood that this bill is another attempt by the powers that be to gradually chip away at the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. While this particular bill may not affect CNN directly, the next attempted legislation may. CNN, in direct contradiction to its own existence, seems to be cowering to our Government. Let's just hope that when it's news that is outlawed, others will come to your aid instead of spinelessly standing to the wayside.
Name : Jake Ewing
Email : jakeew@coffey.com
Shame about your stand. I wonder how long the on-line community will support you, once this two-faced approach is pointed out?
Name : Marjorie N. Wisby
Email : wisby@ultra.net.au
I was concerned when I read the comments from CNN's Editor in Chief, Mr. Scott Woelfel, regarding why CNN's Web pages were not set to black to protest the Communications Decency Act. Mr. Woelfel wrote "By taking a stand, even if it appears only to be a stand supporting the First Amendment, we have compromised our objectivity and neutrality on this story." I would remind Mr. Woelfel that if publishers, large and small, do not take a stand opposing censorship and supporting the First Amendment, they may permanently lose their ability to report ANY story with objectivity and neutrality.
Name : David Gunter
Email : gunter@nando.net
In regards to your editor's comments on why CNN isn't participating in the Web page blackout to be laughable. It seems that there is a catch 22, you are owned by one of the most power hungry group of people in the industry, and headed by the consumatel liberal crackpot. It's apparent to me that this provides you with a very thin tightrope to walk. Your explanation is no more than pandering to your liberal cohorts, while hiding in the board rooms, drooling over the potential revenues this bill, make that law, will provide.
Name : Mike Ownby
Email : ownby_m@elmg.com
Your refusal to stand up for the First Amendment by participating in the World-Wide Web protest of the telecommunications bill is contemptible, and your rationale is laughable. A news organization that refuses to fight for the right to say whatever is necessary to tell the truth and the whole truth invites profound skepticism of its commitment to truth and undercuts the entire rationale for its existence. The hubris you evidence in suggesting that you are above such trivial, provincial issues as the subversion of the Constitution of the United States of America by those sworn to uphold it is outrageous. Your evident contempt for the Internet community is odious. Blacked-out Web pages are just the beginning of this, not the end, as I expect you will learn.
Name : Samuel E. Shipman
Email : sshipman@world.std.com
I think CNN is making a BIG mistake by sitting on the fence about this censorship issue. The potential backlash from Internet users may hurt you in the long run. I agree with some parts of the ACT, but overall I have to disagree.
Name : Andre Demers
Email : demersa@ncrsv2.am.doe.ca
While I strongly object to the restrictions and implications of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), I applaud your decision not to turn CNN's pages black in the protest against the CDA. I believe that this act must be protested on every possible front -- and at the same time we must have a source of unbiased and non-judgmental information about the fight. Hopefully, CNN can be the source of that information.
Name : Paul C. Velasco
Email : pcv@umich.edu
I find it quite ironic that a Congress allegedly bent on getting government out of our lives is now trying to chip away at the Bill of Rights by censoring material on the web.
Brian Arner
Email : barner@utkux.utk.edu
This is probably misplaced effort...preaching to the choir, to post these protestations about the CDA measure. I fear that elements of the media have created quite a hysteria amongst a great portion of the American public regarding porn on the net. We the 'choir' need to begin a discussion of the ACTION we are going to take to secure the freedom that characterizes the net as we know it. You see, the net has inherently within it far more freedom than the 'powers that be' would ever want us to have, so much so to prompt some to say it is close to anarchy.
We must not let this slip by. We have got to be the spearhead for mounting a massive cry for freedom !
David Simpson
Email : wsimpson@mailer.fsu.edu
I don't think its the governments business to regulate what I decide to watch or download on the internet. I can take care of myself and my family. Get off my back, government!
John STarets
Email : jstarets@nsi.wonw.net
Look, everyone had the chance to clean up their act and prevent minors from seeing the stuff. They didn't do it, It's gotta stop now.
Stephen Dunhom
Email : stephen.dunhom@unh.edu
I think this bill is unconstitutional, to say the least. Why should the Internet, a text/picture based media, be regulated any differently than the press. To put the net in the same category with broadcasting is silly at best. Users have control over what media is viewed, and supervisory action can be taken in the form of encryption or censor- software, some of the common methods.
I feel that it is a good idea to have censorship regarding smut and porno, and sexually explicit material from the internet.
This "Communications Decency Act" infuriates me....the keyword here is Decency...
I believe in freedom of information....
Sure I don't want my nieces and nephews to see pornography or garbage like that but that is for their parents and myself to judge, NOT the government, and most certainly NOT Jesse Helms and other Republicans.
This is merely another example of the Right forcing their way into our lives in a means to control what we see, hear, read.
Peter Boulay
Email : pjbpro@rit.edu
Censorship in any form is contrary to the support of democracy. I believe the information that CNN provides to the world has been a major force in the improvement of relations between former enemies. The Internet is also such a force. The CDA could turn this wonderful forum into just another home shopping network.
Robert Saunders
Email : rls@tribeca.ios.com
The Communications Decency Act is long overdue. If the deviates and the porno-freaks had their way, we'd soon be back in the jungle. This isn't censorship; it's sanity.
Peter K. Connolly
Email : ptrcon@fidnet.com
I'm in favor of the telecommunications bill. I see the worries about censorship as much ado about nothing. Here in Oregon, we've taken the concept of "free expression" to its logical conclusion and beyond - so that the state Supreme Court has effectively struck down ALL our child pornography laws. This state has reaped the bitter fruits of uncontrolled, anarchical forces under the guise of liberty. I'm all in favor of "control" of Internet "speech". The analogy which most closely parallels this situation is that of pornography's availability to the general public. People who want to keep all responsibility for Internet control on parents fail to see how accessible it is to surfers of all ages. The argument that "you can't legislate morality" is fallacious at its core. ALL law is moral in a sense! We all believe it is moral to stop murderers and rapists. We generally concur about most laws of our land. The question is not whether we CAN "legislate morality" with bills such as this, but to WHAT DEGREE we should. The philosophy is what's in question. I am convinced that some controls are APPROPRIATE!
Michael Wing
Email : mkwing@rosenet.net
For Internet users, the Communications Decency Act simply makes it illegal to KNOWINGLY transmit material judged obscene to minors. The key word being "knowingly". What the morons in Washington don't realize is that the Internet is a GLOBAL telecommunications network. The laws that are enacted in this country have no effect on the rest of the world. How does Washington intend on stopping a kid from downloading objectionable material from a server in Europe? The only way to accomplish that is to ban the Internet entirely in this country. One user in the U.K., angry about reading the ongoing posts regarding this bill, posted a reply stating that the rest of the English-speaking world could care less about the Communications Decency Act and requested that users in the U.S. stop wasting bandwidth on the subject. WAKE UP WASHINGTON! You're just wasting your time and the taxpayer's money.
Derwin Cupp
Email : dwc@hub.ofthe.net
In regards to that TeleCom bill signed that is going to regulate the Internet.... I don't think that it is possible to do. I think the Internet is too big and will go it's own way according to it's users. I personally haven't ever come across smut on the Internet.... probably cuz I haven't any interest in it, and therefore don't look for it. It is a choice.
I definitely oppose the censorship sections of the Telecom Bill. The Internet has been a wonderful forum for the transfer of any communication, opinion, philosophy, or idea, from one willing adult anywhere in the world to another.
The Internet has no replacement in this role. I want the world to be "safe" for kids too, but you don't do it by burning books. The creation of "sanitized" safe sites with pre-approved links, new browser technology, and possibly some limited HTML content tags, can more reasonably "raise the magazine shelves" without limiting the discourse.
Tom Affinito
Email : taff@apsu.org
It's all good and well to say that there are sites on the Internet which are going to corrupt children. To a certain extent that is true. However, to "innocently" stumble onto a site with sexually explicit pictures is virtually impossible.
Children who find these sites do so because they are looking for them. I am not trying to defend the publishers of hard-core pornography on the Internet. However, the new Telecom Bill is an infringement of the right to free speech, and of privacy.
Stuart Soden
Email : stuart@pta.softconn.co.za
Ref. the Telecom bill.......... Big Government Strikes Again! Who ARE these guys who have to decide what I can and cannot read or see. I'm an adult in a supposedly free country. I thought it was free anyway. Where does the Constitution allow this sort of intrusion?
You know, as a Canadian I'm not really affected by this law. I would also like to point out that this law is only enforceable on US Internet Providers.. Given how easy it is to go around the world, these sites that are here today will disappear and reappear elsewhere. What must be enforced is teaching and nurturing our children on what is right and what is wrong. Parents do not spend enough time with their kids. A law like this will only move the guilty elsewhere. In Canada, for example, it is illegal to promote hatred (Hate Law). As such, certain racist organizations have gone elsewhere to create their pages of hate and holocaust denial. They still publish what they believe but they do it outside the realm of Canadian law.. It will be no different with the Telecom Bill. I applaud it but I urge the President that if this is what they want on the Internet and the Web then they should approach the UN or some other world body that could enforce it worldwide (which is not likely to happen).
MsMittens
Email : mittens@io.org
With all of the good that the telecommunications bill will do, it is unfortunate that something as terrible, and wrong as CDA had to be a part of it. There are many problems with CDA, one of them being the loss of freedom of speech. Other problems are:
1.) We already have laws that protect children from being given pornographic materials. Let's use those if someone sends porn to a child (BTW, you don't just get porn in your e-mail box, you have to ask for it in the first place).
2.) We already have laws against possessing and distributing child porn. Let's use those.
3.) It is the PARENT's role to decide what the children can and cannot see, get access to, do, etc., NOT the governments. Let's put responsibility for our children back where it belongs: THE PARENT'S.
4.) You actually have to go and search out these materials. I have never just sort of accidentally came across some porn on the WWW, or accidentally downloaded some UnEncoded porn from usenet, or accidentally FTPed porn from an FTP site. You have to search this stuff out if you want it.
5.) There are tools available (some for as little as $50), that will block these sights so that your children cannot get to them. If a parent can afford a computer, and the internet access, and they are concerned about what their children are getting, they sure as heck can afford a lousy $50 for a blocking program.
Ken Sodemann
Email : stuffle@pcii.net
In reference to the Telecom Bill/Decency Act:
I haven't grasped the full economic implications of the Telecom Bill so I won't comment on it.
As to the Decency act -- I strongly agree with the spirit of protection for our youth that generated this act, but I do not think this is the way to go about providing this protection. The general problem with censorship is that it is an exercise in definitions. I am positive that the authors of this legislation are trying to protect people. I am concerned because ( I'm quoting someone who's name I have forgotten) "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." What if the signs on the highway said "Don't go too fast"? I just think we should be very careful when we consider limiting what is legal to say.
Keith Fosberg
Email : Keith_B._Fosberg@hud.gov
I think the telecom bill stinks. I am opposed to censorship of any kind. I am opposed to both the Internet censorship and the V-chip. I also am not in favor of many of the other provisions of the bill, mainly the ones that will cause my phone and cable bill to be increased.
Michael H. Sodos
Email : msodos@crl.com
God only knows how it will affect us!! But some things are obvious. Some one (organization's too) will find a way to make a lot of money at the expense of the customer!! Profit is not a dirty word in my vocabulary, but profiteering is. So it is certain that abuses will happen!! I can only hope that Great God Government in it's infinite wisdom will then fix the problem, and not make it worse, as it normally does. Also, beware the provisions of censorship, not matter what the language of the law!! France is beginning it, Germany already has begun and, of course China. Remember, you're next.
Robert Trostle
onestro@Netrax.Net
Since I've stated being active on the Internet I have really appreciated my First Amendment rights.
I think that deregulation of the cable companies and their rates only sets the consumer up for difficulties while the cable companies work out what they will charge. It's time for a satellite dish in every home, I think.
I'm glad to see that the FCC wants to regulate pornography. I just wish they could stop the marketing of girls who are underage through the Net. The problem with regulating pornography is that it's here to stay and any 12-year-old could probably hack their way to any site.
Lastly, I don't want these communication companies on the Internet turning a buck where we have the last bastion of communications with people from all around the world. I enjoy my relations with others and would hate to have to pay somebody to meet good friends and bring this planet closer together.In summary, I want my First Amendment rights protected. I want the priviledge of viewing whatever I want on any media. I know I have the right and knowledge to turn it off! Keep the FCC away from the Internet!
Linda Champlin
lindac@computek.net
President Clinton has promised to sign this bill into law. However, as hard as it can be, it is up to us a private citizens, parents to censor for our children what is available on the Internet. I fear letting someone else interfere with the freedom of speech and thought.
Margery Schab
whs@quicklink.com
While the purely communications portion of the bill have merit, Sen. Exon's 'decency act' provisions have the ultimate effect of providing nothing but pure censorship of the web. The provisions are so vague as to allow materials to be arbitrarily deemed indecent and a provider who might carry what would be perfectly acceptable on the pages of a mainstream men's magazine to be subject to massive fines and imprisonment for showing the same materials. No reasonable person opposes protecting children from exploitation; however there are better, less-restrictive means of controlling their access than the censorship which would be a part of this law.
Ken Cline
sinbad@sunset_strip.sparks.nv.us
Fascinating. Congress sees fit to deregulate everything but the Internet. There, it's necessary to ensure that our young people don't see anything "sexually explicit." How much will this restriction cost to implement? Will it matter to a generation of youth that is experiencing increasing drug usage, violence, and preganancy? Our children go to school in an environment that makes the old movie "Blackboard Jungle" seem like a picture of propriety. Yet, yes, our congressmen want to protect these little dears against seeing a sexually explicit photograph. Hell, let 'em look if it will encourage the kids to use a computer and to stop using a gun.
robert hazlett
bhazlett@lavida.com
I find it a sad day when, along with meaningful reform, ludicrous "indecency" measures are railroaded through. The fact that any transmission regarding abortion (even from one doctor to another) will now be considered "indecent" greatly disturbs me.
What I find even scarier, however, is the fact that a lot of this legislation was written by people who have no grasp of the technology that their laws affect.
It may very well be that history will look upon this day as the day when the Information Technology industry was placed at the "mercy" of Big Brother and Big Business, when consumer rights and free speech were tossed aside in the drive for some 500-channel digital utopia.
Rakesh Bharania
densaer@earthlink.net
It;s about time that Congress updated the archaic communications bills. Anything that promotes competition is good for the consumer and the United States.
Mark Boger
Boge@usanet.com
The telecommuncations bill is horrible because the mega-company with the deepest pockets will win the bidding war for all the media outlets and then we will get all our media from one source, with prices going through the roof because of the monopoly and corrupted biased material from one controlled source!!!
Unfortunately, as more and more government regulation begins to take over the Internet, the spectrum of human communication will begin to decline. Because of the Christian right and other such extremist groups, I will now no longer be able to access material that is deemed by the U.S. government as "indecent". Sadly, the gains made by the bill are going to be far outshadowed by the increased presence of "Big Brother"...personally, I feel that this is one of the truest examples of the nature of our government, and the general ignorance of the politicians and most of the country as well.
Darren Reinig
dreinig@ucsd.edu
It's about time! Let the people choose with their dollars. I look forward to being able to have high speed access to the Web along with interactive cable. The worries I have are that the government still included the V-chip and the Internet regulations. But those can be deleted later. Overall, it is a good bill.
Bob Ewald
b.ewald@ix.netcom.com
The fact that the government will make a television manufacturer put a chip inside new television sets to block out violent or sexually explicit programming proves that parents continue to pass off the responsability for their children. If they think that a chip is any substitute for a discussion about human sexuality or the proper time for violent actions, then they should all rethink their philosophies on parenting.
David Bowser
boww@eden.rutgers.edu
As a colleger student this is one of the scariest things I've seen come down from Capitol Hill. The government has been consistent in banning all that they see as dangerous as if that is going to help any long term social problems. It is the ABSOLUTELY worse thing that can be done for a medium that is a voice for the world. It's been proven before that the terms "offensive" and "obscene" are far too ambiguous to be included in such president setting bills. Hopefully the public will not stand for this bill simply because of flimsy promises to save a few bucks. William J Brieger william.brieger@wmich.edu
I think allowing the local phone, long-distance provider and, cable business get involved in each other's areas is fantastic. Nothing promotes better service than competition. Imagine how reliable your cable might be if, say, it were AT&T Cable?
Mark Spivey
bbf619@usa.pipline.com
The Communications "Decency" Act, which is attached to the Telecom Bill, is much more draconian than the headline which CNN chose to run, "Provisions include restrictions on Internet Smut." The CDA *if* enforced, will censor much more than sexually explicit images. It will be censoring words. The main problem, as I see it, will be just *who* will be deciding *what* words are "indecent". The Congress? The president? The local DA? And how will they be enforcing the CDA? This Amendment to the Telecom Bill delves into the censoring of private e-mail for indecent words. In a time when the president and congress are both calling for less government, it seems there will be a new government agency needed soley for policing the thoughts expressed in writing by Internet users. The whole CDA smacks of "Big Brother" and is a slap in the face of free speech for all Americans.
Jim Ciari
jamesc0@netcom.com
This Telecommunications Bill looks, overall, like a fine piece of work. Censorship of material on Internet, however, is misplaced here. Deregulating cable, telephone, and whatnot is great... more competition means higher quality to consumers. Outlawing 'indecent' material on Internet makes a mockery of the First Amendment. People have the right to choose to view and live in whatever kind of world they desire, no matter how distastefull it may be to the rest of it. I never thought this could happen in this country.
Kevin Pendley
nexus@rt66.com
The telecommunication act of 1995 does only one thing for America. It expands monopoly control of the media by a few corporations and individuals.It has no value for the average working person. It is capitalism at its worst. Telecommunications is a necessity of life not a option. When a few corporations own all the means of production (telecommunication) then we will all pay dearly for these services. Less competition in the marketplace will be the result of these laws. Just like the bank mergers and grocery market mergers here in California have put 10,000 or more persons on the streets only so that corporations can eliminate the competition.
Keith Wyatt
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" Apparently, our Congress lacks even a basic understanding of our country's most famous legal document. The telecommunications bill is a flagrant attempt to abridge the freedoms of America's Internet users. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has shown more common sense than Congress lately, and I have faith that the Communications Decency Act shall be struck down in short order.
Robert Levandowski
rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
You can no more regulate a world wide network, than you can control the weather. We've been through this all once when Prodigy or AOl banned the word breast. This of course prevented a womens group from discussing breast cancer. IMHO, the problem with our "representatives" is their willingness to jump into something without proper thought, information or preparation. They hear the watchword "protect the children" and immediately jump on the bandwagon.
bill Haynes
billh@MediaVis.com
As I work for NYNEX, one of the smaller Baby Bells, I am very pleased to hear of the passing of the Bill. I know that this will create competition locally and that there will be some shifting around of resources, but in the long run, this will allow my company to better compete with newer, sleeker companies.
Chris Brogan
cbrogan@usa1.com
As far as the Internet portion of the telecommunications bill goes, the feeling I have is this. If you watch your children and what they are doing, you will find wether they are getting into the good portions or the bad portions of the Internet. I do not believe that I should not be able to look at "dirty gifs" or read sexually explicit lyrics of music if I should choose to. This is MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Instead of worrying about what is on the internet and the sites children "could" get to, how about worrying about what the networks are "SHOWING" on TV.
Ilene Shannon
Ilene_Shannon@arcada.com
I believe deregulation for the telecomm industry is a positive direction for the public. I also believe, however, that trying to censor any communications across the Internet is harmful to the public. How can the U.S. be so arrogant as to attempt to regulate a worldwide communications system?
Marty Troum
mat21@spyder.net
The Internet censorship legislation, bundled with the Telecommunications Deregulation bill, would impose a speech standard on the Internet of "indecency," dumbing down public discourse on the net to only that which is appropriate for children. This legislation, available from http://www.cdt.org/cda.html, has changed consistently for the worse despite the best efforts over the last year of many public interest groups to bring it in line with the protections outlined in the First Amendment. If passed, the act will prohibit "indecent" material on the Internet. Indecent material includes pornography, the Federal Communication Commission's seven dirty words, explicit rap lyrics, and sex and AIDS literature. If the act passes, anyone who posts this material will be subjected to two years in prison and a $100,000 fine. On-line service providers including America Online and CompuServe will also be liable for breaking the law if they knowingly allow a user to send pornography to a minor despite their efforts to accept certain restrictions on pornographic content as proposed by Congress. Because of the "indecency" wording, there will be stories that CNN On-line will not be able to adequately report on because their content will have to be "dumbed down" to that which is "appropriate for children".
Douglas W. McCroski
doug@atlanta.com
In its present form, it contains numerous highly intrusive and clearly unconstitutional provisions, trying to censor the content of communications networks. Far from deregulating, these provisions introduce new and unnecessary liabilities on the networks' operators, criminalizing constitutionally-protected speech merely because it goes over a wire.
Jim Hickstein
Boston, MA
I think it will open the Internet up. Cables coaxle can bring 10 times the data into the home and this rewrite of the bill should guarantee this to be the MOST exciting times in which to live......ever!
gking
gking@GroupZ.net
The Internet, which was established by our goverment I belive in the early to mid '60s, was designed to survive any form of attack or attempt to shut it down due to the fact that it was so vast, and there were so many ways to get to the same place. This in point, the "Internet" as we know it now will survive this or any attack. Regardless of any law or regulation that is passed there will always be places that information considered "Illegal" will be distributed to the individuals with intelligence enough to ping to the right site(s). My opinion is that everyone KNEW that kind of information was availabe BEFORE the whole Internet craze hit. It's sort of like building homes next to an airport, then the home owners complaining that there's too much noise.
Blaine Helmick
helmick@magicnet.net
So France wants to regulate the Internet, because people around the world accessed a book that was banned in France? This is arrogance of the highest order. The las t time I checked, French law was only valid in France, and the fact that a book was banned in France held no relevance in the rest of the world. It's depressing to know that there are other places in the world besides the U.S. that are suddenly feeling provincial.
Phil Reed
pcr@ic.net
I think the new telecommunications legislation will greatly reduce the cost of telecommunications and provide for more competition for communications services. The world is shrinking with newer and newer technologies which make the old answers obsolete in terms of market monopolization, it is good that congress will open up this much needed competition which will be of great benefit to the consumers.
John Luke
johnluke@db.erau.edu
I think it's good anytime an industry is challenged by qualified competitors. Competition forces companies to work to make thier products or services better than those of thier competitors. Just look at the compitition for your long distance dollar. Sooner or later.
Darren
wwis@teleport.com
I strongly support this bill. The cable business is lack of competition and prices dominated by cable services really need to be controled by some way. I believe that cosumers will benefit from this bill.
ken Chen
kchen@wpogate.ssc.nasa.gov
I believe it is time Government got out of the communications business. I will profit by better operations at a lower cost.
Wm. Ledford
wledford@iquest.com
The assault on the First Amendment continues, hidden within this massive bill. Both the v-chip proposal and the indecency on the Internet proposal treats speech as something to be feared and that a paternalistic government should oversee to protect people.
The soon to be merge between various forms of communications is one that has been long awaited by telephone companies. Before too long you will pay one bill for telephone, cable, and Internet access, becazse you will sign up with one company like MCI or ATT to provide your service. It's the wave of the future, get ready to roll!
Ryan Jacobs
rj@dialnet.net
Broadcasters have spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying Congress over the past three years to ensure passage of this bill. The net result will be to drastically reduce the "share of voice" in our communities. Simply put, this means that as two or three companies own all the radio stations in a given town, access to the airwaves will be diminished if you are an ordinary citizen. This bill is good for broadcasters and bad for the public, whose interest broadcasters are mandated to support. Lack of competition will mean lowered risk-taking on the part of broadcasters. Fewer new radio formats will be tried. Less edgy investigations will dominate TV news.
Jon Sinton
Jsinton@aol.com
I'm happy that this bill has passed -- I hope it will end the local telephone service monopoly. Although a bit more confusing at times, the original AT&T break-up has been a boon to consumers -- service is great and the costs are dirt cheap. I can't wait to tell my local service company to either get its act together or take a hike!!
Scott Stephens
stephesc@up.lib.mi.us
I believe this decision will cause an economic shakeup for sure in the cable and telephone business. If I had money invested in specific domains of these two giant, I think I would be reviewing my portfolio. For us "general run of the mill Web surfers" it can only mean that in the future we will have faster Internet access at lower prices! Yeah!
Rod Wuetherick
rwuether@www.agt.net
The telecommunications bill contains a frightening set of provisions, the Communications Decency Act, which would apply unconstitutional restrictions to free speech to information moving across the Internet. I find it painful to think that calmer, more rational, better-informed voices were unable to keep the telecommunications bill from being passed without amending or removing the CDA.
Gregory Samson
gts@oz.net
The telecommunications bill should have been passed much earlier. It had a dreadful portent of becoming a presidential election issue, because VP Gore too quickly endorsed the bill after it passed the Senate. Thankfully, Sen. Dole finally figured out that this isn't the issue to base his presidential run on. Increased competition can only do good things for the telecommunications industry. Well done -- not let's get it implemented poste haste.
James Aiello
EJMD76C
I feel that the passage of the telecomunications bill will be the greatest thing that has happened to Internet users in small town America, like what I live in. This should allow to access E-Mail and the Internet with a local access number in time.
Bill Sparks
74757.743@compuserve.com
The telecommunications deregulation bill will prove to give higher rates and jumbled service to the general public. Remember why cable TV was re-regulated just a short time ago? Remember the complaints about outrageous charges and price increases?
I believe opening up communications to more companies will increase competition,provide better sevices,and reduce prices for quality services. In fact, with the www net growing so fast there will need to be cable, telephone companies and other communication providers to keep up with the increased traffic for the phone and computer use. This will a exciting new mode of communication for all.
Damon N. Crist
DCRIST@ VAX2.RAIN.GEN.MO.US
I'm extremely disappointed that the Congress passed a Telecommunications Bill which includes government control of my son's access to information over the Internet. It has always been my and my wife's job to monitor our son's reading, viewing, and computer use. We've done very well and do not need government to do it for us.
david gunckel
dgunckl@primenet.com
Copyright © 1996 Cable News Network, Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
