THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, June 25, 1995 TAG: 9506240335
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: D1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY DAVE MAYFIELD, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 145 lines
There's a place where just about anything goes when it comes to sexually explicit material. From graphic photos to ribald chat lines, it's laced with virtual sex dens.
This ``place'' is the electronic world of the Internet, the global web of computer networks now frequented by tens of millions of people.
Pornography is but a small part of the Internet's overall content. Business executives, educators, students, military people and hobbyists of every variety use it to post and retrieve vast amounts of information daily and send messages to each other.
But the seamier side of this information highway has received lots of attention lately from politicians and some indignant citizen groups. The result is a U.S. Senate bill, passed earlier this month, that civil libertarians call the most blatant threat to free-speech rights in many years.
The so-called Exon-Coats amendment is part of a sweeping telecommunications-reform bill that passed the Senate June 15. The proposal sailed through so swiftly that defenders of free-speech rights were practically dumbfounded.
Approved 84-16, the measure would ban the distribution of sexually explicit material on the Internet and other computer networks. Even so-called ``indecent'' speech - like foul language - would be barred in forums accessible to individuals under age 18. Violators would face jail terms of up to two years and fines up to $100,000.
Groups like the Chesapeake-based Christian Coalition lobbied for the measure. Leaders of mainstream churches gave their qualified support.
``We understand that there are some concerns about freedom of speech,'' said Stephen Colecchi, special assistant to Bishop Walter F. Sullivan of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond. ``But a civil society has to have some ways to protect children in their formative years, who are developing values and outlooks that will guide them for the rest of their lives.''
In spite of the well-intentioned motivation behind the measure, civil-rights advocates insist the legislation is based on overblown anxieties and misunderstandings about the Internet and other rapidly developing new interactive media.
``There is a natural fear out there about what this technology can do and be used for,'' said Jonah Seiger, policy analyst for the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology. ``What we've gotten as a result is a massive case of overreaction.''
The anti-smut amendment's passage cast light on some divides in the civil-rights movement. Some feminists, for instance, think it's worth sacrificing some freedoms of expression to rein in pornography.
``We believe it is sometimes the vehicle that leads to crimes of rape and violence against women,'' noted Connie Hannah, vice president of the Tidewater chapter of the National Organization for Women. ``So we would applaud guarded steps to get rid of smut in any medium.''
Intriguingly, the legislation also exposed disagreement between congressional Republican leaders. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, the GOP presidential front-runner, heartily supported the measure. But last week, House Speaker Newt Gingrich condemned it.
``I don't think it's a serious way to discuss a serious issue,'' Gingrich said, ``which is: How do you maintain the right of free speech for adults while also protecting children in a medium that is available to both?''
Gingrich's statement fueled momentum in the House of Representatives to find less intrusive ways to deal with cyberspace smut.
Bipartisan legislation being drafted in the House would rely on technology rather than government censorship to help people keep offending material out of their homes.
What happened in the Senate was an exercise in skillful fear mongering, said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.
In grandiose style, the amendment's chief sponsor, Nebraska Democrat James Exon, waved a large blue binder marked ``Caution'' that he said was full of ``disgusting'' pictures copied off the Internet that week.
After that, ``nobody wanted to look like he was for pornography,'' Rotenberg said. ``Forget the fact that it's a backwards form of legislation . unconstitutional.''
A few senators took to the floor to denounce the measure. ``It's a political exercise, and I'm against it,'' said Sen. Orrin Hatch, the conservative Utah Republican. But in the end he voted for it too.
Not surprisingly, reaction among Internet users - at least through their postings in discussion forums - has been largely negative.
In a group that focuses on censorship issues, one participant suggested that Internet users electronically mail nude images to Exon. ``What's he going to do? Put us in jail?'' the user wrote.
``You are tempting fate mightily,'' another responded.
``Let's go for it. I'm outside the U.S. anyways,'' still another chimed in, indicating that he lived in Canada.
More serious discussion has focused on what many users saw as the impracticality of the United States imposing decency standards on a global communications network and the difficulty of defining pornography.
Ann Harney, president of the Hampton Roads Internet Association, a users group, agrees with the doubters.
``It's absolutely ridiculous to think that the Internet can in any way be controlled,'' she said. Even if, unimaginably, every other country went along, she said, ``How do you define pornography? What is smut? In a room of three, you'd get three different definitions. . . . We'll end up in the courts all the time.''
The problem with the legislation is it assumes that pornography is literally foisted on Internet users, Harney said. ``It's the kind of thing you have to go find.''
And the measure ignores the fact that software makers are developing increasingly effective ``screens'' or ``filters'' to protect users from stumbling onto offensive material, noted Seiger of the Center for Democracy and Technology.
``The market is responding to the perceived need,'' he said.
One such program was developed by a Los Altos, Calif., company called SurfWatch Software Inc. The company has a panel of experts who cruise the Internet looking for material deemed unfit for children. The program is updated monthly to keep pace with new Internet domains.
These screens are among the technological solutions that Reps. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., are counting on to build support for their alternative bill to Exon's. The congressmen's measure would require the government to help computer users find technologies to block unwanted material.
The Cox-Wyden bill doesn't bother David Taylor, a partner in Pleasure Dome, a Virginia Beach-based, adult bulletin-board service with 1,500 customers worldwide.
Taylor said he routinely does ``spot verifications'' on his network to make sure youths aren't participating. A year ago, he said, ``I put about 40 percent of my customers on hold until I could verify who they were.''
Taylor said he thinks law enforcers should hound child pornographers on the Internet and other electronic media.
If he's doing his job and parents are doing theirs, Taylor said, there's no reason to stop adults from using their computers to look at images of other consenting adults, let alone talk dirty to one another.
``Big Brother needs to be there,'' he said, ``but he doesn't need to be there with such a tight stranglehold.'' ILLUSTRATION: KEN WRIGHT/Staff
Color photo
BILL TIERNAN/Staff
David Taylor is a partner in Pleasure Dome, a Virginia Beach-based,
adult bulletin-board service, Taylor said he routinely does ``spot
verifications'' on his network to make sure youths aren't
participating.
by CNB