The Communications Decency Act of 1996 - No Big Deal.
Who am I ?
I'm just your average joe (actually, Rob). I'm not a lawyer, expert, or official anything.
My views and opinions are my own. I'm just tired of hearing people whine about the
"government censorship of the 'net".
So why isn't the CDA so bad?
I'll admit, when I first heard about the CDA, I wrote Email to everyone, from the
President to the paperboy, yelling about free speech and censorship etc...
Then I thought I'd actually read it (the Telecommunications Act of 1996) and see what
I was fussin' about. You can read it too,
click here to download the whole thing. Buried in Title V (Titles are like chapters)
is the Communications Decency Act of 1996. When you read the whole thing (in context)
it's just not so bad.
Examples, please!
The CDA makes it illegal to:
...make, create, or solicit, and initiate the transmission of, any comment, request,
suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious,
filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person.
So, even though the wording is vague, it doesn't matter as long as you're not trying to
be mean. And none of us want to be mean, because (as the bumper sticker says) Mean
People Suck.
The CDA also makes it illegal to:
...make, create, or solicit, and initiate the transmission of, any comment, request,
suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious,
filthy, or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18
years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call
or initiated the communication.
So no cybersex with or showing pornography to minors-big deal. They can't buy an
adult magazine in a store, why should they be able to access it via the net?
The CDA also makes it illegal to:
...use an interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person
under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as
measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs,
regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the
communication.
Here's a lot of vague wording. Good luck enforcing this in court. It was made with
good intentions (ie. sex education is ok for kids, pornography isn't) but they tap
danced around with the words and ruined it.
So what's the fine?
...shall be fined under title 18, United States Code (I was too lazy to look up the max),
or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
How do I comply with the CDA?
It is a defense to a prosecution [under the CDA] that a person has taken, in good faith,
reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or
prevent access by minors to a communication specified in such subsections.
Register with the software filter guys (SurfWatch, etc...) and put up a cover screen
making visitors to your site certify that they are over 18. Use the technology, don't
bitch about it.
In closing (finally).
I don't think it is the government's job to protect my kids; it is mine. I don't like
censorship. I'm a big boy, I can decide for myself if I wanna download that smut
(pornography). But the CDA isn't a big, nasty, evil government intrusion into my life.
It is simply an extension of existing laws to cover a new media. Read it yourself.
Be informed. And maybe, like me, you'll decide to eat all those Email messages you sent
to everyone, bitching about the CDA.
Some other people who don't think the CDA is a big deal.
The White Ribbon Campaign for Responsible Speech
Kathy (of Kathy's Place)
Back to the Front Page