The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CENSORING THE INTERNET” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S17963-S17964 on Dec. 5, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CENSORING THE INTERNET
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to follow the Senator from Vermont who spent a few minutes to address a matter which was reported by the news media throughout the country this weekend in which the Senator from Vermont referred to and has a great relevance to legislation which the Senate passed this summer and will consider soon again.
The telecommunications conferees may within the next 24 hours decide whether this Congress is going to take the unwise step of censoring the Internet.
I am speaking of the Communications Decency Act which passed the Senate overwhelmingly as an amendment to the telecommunications deregulation bill in June. The Communications Decency Act contained criminal penalties for the transmission of constitutionally protected speech over computer networks. The penalty for transmitting indecent speech which might be accessed by a minor was up to 2 years in prison and fines of up to $100,000. Indecency, unlike obscenity, is constitutionally protected. Indecent language has thus far, only been defined by the FCC in regard to the time, place, and manner in which it may be transmitted. The definition includes the so-called seven-dirty words including what some might call mild profanity.
When this legislation was offered as an amendment in the Senate, I objected for a number of reasons. My fundamental concern was, and continues to be, that prohibitions on speech labeled indecent are unconstitutional. While courts have upheld restrictions on indecency to minors on other some forms of media, the Communications Decency Act would restrict communications between adults as well. The legislation, as passed by the Senate, could subject consenting adults communicating over a public USENET group to criminal penalties if their conversation took place in a forum that was accessed by a minor. I believe that not only is that unacceptable, it is also unconstitutional. Adults should not have to self-censor their words over public information forums. A profane exchange between two adults on a street corner which is overheard by a child would not subject those adults to criminal sanctions. However, if that exchange occurred on a public forum over the Internet and a child accessed that forum, those same adults could land in jail.
During the floor debate, I raised serious concerns that the Communications Decency Act would have a chilling effect on computer networks, forcing adults to self-censor their words to what is appropriate for the youngest of children in the most conservative communities in the country. I, along with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, suggested that this type of censorship would also have a chilling effect on the many socially valuable forums that exist via the Internet. There exist currently many on-line support groups for child abuse victims, rape victims, victims of disease, for those coping with AIDS, and other social issues. In addition, there exist chat groups, bulletin boards and USENET groups to discuss presumably adult topics which might contain the seven dirty words or other adult language. I suggested that the Communications Decency Act would suppress those types of forums, limit the content of the discussions within those forums, and ultimately result in their termination.
The proponents of the Communications Decency Act assured the Senate that such was not the intent of the amendment. In fact, Mr. President, some suggested that these types of concerns were raised in an effort to spin the issue. They suggested these fears were not real and were not likely to be realized.
I suggest to Members of this body that news reports over the weekend confirm just how quickly those fears could be realized if the Communications Decency Act became law. One of the companies providing on-line services to consumers, America Online, in an effort to screen out filthy, vulgar and obscene language, apparently included the word
``breast'' in the list of prohibited words on AOL's services.
Mr. President, the word ``breast'' has been used many times on the Senate floor with respect to health care legislation, is not even among the so-called seven dirty words. It is not indecent. It is not profane. Yet it was screened out by a service which has been under tremendous fire for not policing its networks carefully enough.
Of course, the deletion of the word breast was met with an enormous outcry by women who participate in a breast cancer survivors online support group. According to press reports the deletion of the word breast from allowable AOL language became known when an AOL subscriber created her member profile identifying herself as a breast cancer survivor. She received a message from AOL indicating she could not use
``vulgar words.'' AOL soon was barraged by complaints by other users of the breast cancer survivors chat room. The word ``breast'' was subsequently allowed back on the service. However, an AOL spokesperson caveated that with ``as long as it is used in an appropriate manner.''
I mention this incident not to fault America Online. They are responding to a series of calls by interest groups, Members of Congress, and others to police speech over their services and to keep AOL family friendly. AOL like other on-line service providers is anticipating additional Government restrictions on speech over the Internet. When under the threat of Government imposed speech restrictions and potential criminal sanctions, it is quite reasonable to overreact, to be overly cautious, and to restrict more than that which is necessary.
Mr. President, this is exactly what I fear will happen if the Communications Decency Act becomes public law. Words will be banned. Speech will be restricted. This, Mr. President, is the chilling effect that Senator Leahy and I referred to on the Senate floor just 5 months ago. Perfectly reasonable and acceptable language will be restricted and prohibited.
Mr. President, while it may seem ridiculous that the word ``breast'' was, at least for a short period of time, considered vulgar, it would not be unreasonable for a company like AOL to restrict such words if the Communications Decency Act becomes law. Indecency is a largely undefined term. We know how the FCC has defined indecency for broadcast, but it is unclear what would be indecent on computer networks. If such restrictions are imposed, people will err on the side of caution in their speech. Under the Communications Decency Act, to protect themselves from criminal liability, on-line services will likely find themselves prohibiting the word ``breast'' as well as many other words. Adults with direct Internet access will also be forced to self-censor their speech, guessing what might be indecent, and guessing who might access their communications.
In Saturday's Chicago Tribune, Barbara LeStage, a member of the American Cancer Society, commented on the AOL prohibition on the use of the word ``breast''. Her comments, I think are fairly insightful. She stated
I don't have any problem with AOL trying to keep dirty words off their service. But I don't consider breast to be a dirty word. If you have people who see it as dirty, for whatever reason, then this [prohibition on use] is going to continue to happen.
Mr. President, Ms. LeStage is exactly right. If indecency is going to be outlawed and the term therefore defined by community standards and the courts, this will continue to happen. People differ in their beliefs about what is appropriate for children, about what is dirty, vulgar or indecent. To some individuals even extreme profanity may not be indecent, to others, perhaps the word ``breast'' is indecent. When AOL determined that ``breast'' would be allowed under appropriate circumstances, we must wonder under what circumstance would it be inappropriate and who decides.
This is the danger of government censorship of the Internet. Who defines what can be said without criminal sanctions? Who defines what is indecent? Who defines when certain terms are used appropriately and when they are not?
Mr. President, Congress has entered a very dangerous area in its attempt to restrict constitutionally protected speech on the Internet. In the next 24 hours, the Telecommunications conferees will decide which road to take--that of Government excess or that of caution.
I urge the conferees to err on the side of caution and to protect first amendment rights of Internet users. Such a goal is not inconsistent with our overriding objective of protecting children. Technology exists now to allow parents to screen out materials they find objectionable for their children. Obscenity, child pornography, and solicitation of minors via the Internet is already a violation of criminal law and is being aggressively prosecuted by the Department of Justice.
I urge my colleagues not to take the step toward censorship. I believe we will immediately regret it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from South Carolina is to be recognized to speak.
Mr. SIMON. I have the consent of my colleague from South Carolina to speak for 2 minutes, if there is no objection, and I ask unanimous consent to speak.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I have to be at a negotiating session at 3 o'clock. I introduced this bill 4 years ago, so I ask if maybe I could have some time before 3 o'clock, 10 minutes or something?
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest that we grant the unanimous-
consent request of the Senator from Illinois, during which time--not to be disrespectful to his announcement--we sort out the time on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair must clarify that under the previous order, the Senator from Utah is to be recognized, then the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SIMON. I ask my colleague from Utah if he would permit me to speak for 2 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
