On Feb 8, 1996, President Clinton put into law the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, including the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (Decency Act, "CDA" or Act) among its provisions. Also, the Decency Act was challenged in federal court in Philadelphia by the ACLU, EFF, EPIC and a host of other plaintiffs on the grounds that the Act was vague, overbroad, underinclusive, and violated rights of privacy (among others).

On February 15, 1996, the court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of one of the Act's provisions: the telecommunications device provision in Section 223 (a)(1)(B) as it relates to indecency but not as to obscenity (the indecency provisions). The court denied the application for a temporary restraining order regarding the interactive computer service provisions in Section 223 (d) related to materials involving sexual or excretory activities or organs that would be patently offensive by contemporaray community standards (the patently offensive provisions).

Preliminary Injunction Hearing Set

The TRO was dissolved on February 21, 1996. The Justice Department and the plaintiffs in this case entered into a temporary agreement on February 23, 1996 that will last until March 21, 1996, the date on which a three judge panel will begin to hear arguments on the plaintiffs' injunction motion. In accordance with the temporary agreement, the Justice Department will not initiate investigations or prosecute under the "indecency" or "patently offensive" provisions.

Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Files Suit

On Monday, February 26, 1996, the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition ("CIEC"), a coalition that includes libraries, book publishers, newspaper publishers, editors, advertisers, commercial online service providers, ISP's, non-profit groups, civil liberties advocates, and many higher education organizations, filed suit in Philadelphia as well. CIEC has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and its arguments will be heard at the same time as the ACLU's arguments. The CIEC petition is particularly well written and includes an excellent description of how the Internet works to demonstrate why the CDA will not be effective to achieve its stated ends.

Many have hypothesized about the implications of the Act for freedom of speech and I commend their writings to you; but at this time, with the decision on the preliminary injunction still in the future, it is just too early to predict which part, if any, of the Act will pass Constitutional muster and thus survive to affect our policies and procedures.

Description of the Act

The Act is Title V of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. It's full title is Broadcast Obscenity and Violence, indicating one of the problems with the Act: it applies broadcast standards to the Internet.

Title V contains 9 parts, Sections 501 through 509. Section 502 is the part that contains the provisions that have caused so much concern. Specifically, it replaces old Section 223 (a) with a new one and adds new Sections 223 (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h).

Section 223 (a) (1) (B) contains prohibitions against the use of a telecommunications device to expose a minor to indecency. The terms telecommunications device and indecency are not defined in the Communications Act of 1934, nor in the entire Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, except to say that a telecommunications device is not an interactive computer service. It appears, however, that this section deals with what used to be obscene and harassing phone calls that are now made using a wider range of telecommunications devices than telephones.

New Section 223 (d) prohibits the use of an interactive computer service, including but not limited to the Internet, to display patently offensive materials to minors.

Both Sections (a) and (d) make actors, those who actually do the actions prohibited, and service providers, those who permit facilities under their control to be used by the actors, criminally liable for offenses.

Defenses

Section 223 (e) (1) of the Act purports to give service providers some protection, but the provision is vague and not clearly applicable to us because we have control over our computer systems.

Section 223 (e) (4) of the Act gives employers some relief from the acts of employees outside the scope of their employment unless the employer knows of the employee's conduct, authorizes or ratifies it or recklessly disregards it.

Section 223 (e) (5) of the Act purports to provide a defense to actors, that is, those responsible for the materials described in Sections (a) and (d), if they take actions to effectively restrict access by minors to their materials. This provision was taken from the dial-a-porn context where it is more reasonable to expect an individual service provider to restrict access.

Section 223 (f) purports to prevent civil actions against persons for legal actions taken to comply with the Act but the defense is vague and not clearly applicable to State institutions with civil liability for First Amendment violations. It is supposed to supplement the Good Samaritan provision discussed below.

Finally, in Section 509 , entitled Online Family Empowerment, the Act adds a new Section 230 called Protection for Private Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material. This new Section includes subpart (c) Protection for Good Samaritan Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material that appears to overule Prodigy. It states that

• no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another content provider;
  
• no provider or user shall have civil liability for good faith actions to
  
  • restrict access to materials that are objectionable (to the user or provider); or
  • make the technical means to so restrict content available to others.

The actual language of this section goes much further than just overturning Prodigy. It could be interpreted to provide complete immunity even where a service provider knows of the defamatory content of third party information and knows it is false and not privileged. The interaction between this provision and the liability provisions of Section 502 is unclear.

Resources for Understanding the Act

There are many Web sites containing primary source materials and analyses:

ACLU: In the Courts

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Electronic Privacy Information Center

First Amendment Cyber-Tribune

Other Web sites contain only analyses:

Computers and Academic Freedom

American Communication Association

If you are suspicious about pornography being downloaded and kept on your computer hard drives by other members of your family, then the time has arrived for you to investigate. Media Detective is just the right tool to help you find out what you need to know.

Media Detective is the perfect pornography remover software package for cleaning porn from your computer's hard drives. Media Detective is a software utility that has been developed to help clean hard drives of offensive files, including pornographic material, undesirable images and movies. Using intelligent image and video scanning techniques, Media Detective can easily scan through the images and movies on your hard disk drives, checking each and identifying those containing nudity through statistical and analytical methods.

Files that then appear to have the characteristics of a pornographic image or movie are shown for user review, so that unwanted items can be cleaned from your disk. Not just a cookie eraser, Media Detective cleans out offensive material that cookie cleaners completely ignore.

There are many tracks eraser programs available which purport to remove pornography. But they only try to remove evidence of activity, and do actually investigate media files to determine if they contain nudity, and allow for their deletion. To actually remove porn the software must do some kind of porn scan and then invoke a porn remover pass to delete files.

The porn eraser functions of Media Detective are required to do a proper PC cleanup; cookie cleaners will not leave your pc cleaner of media files than before. Internet eraser and internet cleanup tools only serve to leave internet history cleaner. Various other hard drive clean up tools only really delete cache entries etc. leaving actual pornography on the computer.

And most hard drive cleanup tools leave the difficult task of effectively scanning for real porn files to software like Media Detective. It is guaranteed to leave your hard drive cleaner, to erase pornography and give the most effective disk cleanup available. No other disk cleaner software can delete pornography and delete porn as effectively.

Cookie eraser tools again only address a part of the problem. Cookie cleaner software will not clean up pornography in the true sense of the word, just signs that it has at some time been viewed. Therefore a computer clean up can only be done effectively by a computer cleaner like media detective. You can use it to safely clean up porn references, clean pornography directories and clean porn files. This will leave you with a clean hard drive and a clean computer.

CLICK HERE for more information, and the free downloadable demo!

freedomforum.org: Supreme Court follows lower court in upholding ... ... upholding a provision of the law that makes it a crime to send obscene e-mail via the Internet for the purpose of annoying or harassing someone else. ...

Managing The Internet ... There are a variety of technologies available to help parents restrict access to objectionable or obscene material on the Internet . ...

Obscene Materials on the Internet Obscene Materials on the Internet . A great deal has been written about the fact that the Internet is uncensored and objectionable materials are easily ...