College papers help


A discussion of the regulation in cyberspace in communications decency act

The relevant sections of the Act were introduced in response to fears that Internet pornography was on the rise.

Indecency in TV and radio broadcasting had already been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission —broadcasting of offensive speech was restricted to certain hours of the day when minors were supposedly least likely to be exposed. Violators could be fined and potentially lose their licenses.

  1. The first uses the word "indecent," 47 U. The CDA makes a server liable for data being transmitted between users.
  2. In arguing that the CDA does not so diminish adult communication, the Government relies on the incorrect factual premise that prohibiting a transmission whenever it is known that one of its recipients is a minor would not interfere with adult-to-adult communication. The Internet is the telecommunications means for the common person; bogging it down while deregulating and freeing the hands of huge telecommunications giants is offensive.
  3. Databases can be developed based on the values of the most conservative to the most progressive parts of our society. The conference compromise placed enforcement of CDA under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.
  4. Credit card verification is only feasible, however, either in connection with a commercial transaction in which the card is used, or by payment to a verification agency. It was soon to become clear that many children also knew more about computers than their legislators.
  5. Originally the CDA preempted state legislation only with regards to commercial entitites.

The Internet, however, had only recently been opened to commercial interests by the 1992 amendment to the National Science Foundation Act and thus had not been taken into consideration by previous laws.

The CDA, which affected both the Internet and cable televisionmarked the first attempt to expand regulation to these new media.

A. The Problem: The Availability Of Pornography

Passed by Congress on February 1, 1996, [3] and signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996, [4] [5] the CDA imposed criminal sanctions on anyone who knowingly A uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or B uses any 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.

It further criminalized the transmission of materials that were "obscene or indecent" to persons known to be under 18. Free speech advocates, however, worked diligently and successfully to overturn the portion relating to indecent, but not obscene, speech. They argued that speech protected under the First Amendmentsuch as printed novels or the use of the seven dirty wordswould suddenly become unlawful when posted to the Internet.

Critics also claimed the bill would have a chilling effect on the availability of medical information. Online civil liberties organizations arranged protests against the bill, for example, the Black World Wide Web protest which encouraged webmasters to make their sites' backgrounds black for 48 hours after its passage, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation 's Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign.

Legal challenges[ edit ] In Philadelphia on June 12, 1996, a panel of federal judges blocked part of the CDA, saying it would infringe upon the free speech rights of adults.

The next month, another US federal court in New York struck down the portion of the CDA intended to protect children from indecent speech as too broad. American Civil Liberties Unionstating that the indecency provisions were an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech because they did not permit parents to decide for themselves what material was acceptable for their children, extended to non-commercial speech, and did not carefully define the words "indecent" and "offensive.

Sheawas affirmed by the Supreme Court the next day, without a published opinion. A separate challenge to the provisions governing obscenity, known as Nitke v. Gonzaleswas rejected by a federal court in New York in 2005.

A discussion of the regulation in cyberspace in communications decency act

The Supreme Court summarily affirmed that decision in 2006. Congress has made two narrower attempts to regulate children's exposure to Internet indecency since the Supreme Court overturned the CDA. Court injunction blocked enforcement of the first, the Child Online Protection Act COPAalmost immediately after its passage in 1998; the law was later overturned. It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Communications Decency Act

On July 23, 2013, the Attorneys General of 47 states sent a letter to Congress requesting that the criminal and civil immunity in Section 230 be removed.

The ACLU wrote of the proposal, "If Section 230 is stripped of its protections, it wouldn't take long for the vibrant culture of free speech to disappear from the web. Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist, has been banned from Facebook and YouTube. This has caused a spur amongst the online community of those who feel strongly about freedom of speech.

  1. It is unclear, however, how the CDA itself erodes that right. The software, which is not state action, does not face a constitutional challenge.
  2. The Communications Decency Act Sen. S9017 June 26, 1995 statement of Sen.
  3. Prodigy was found liable in Stratton for what essentially amounted to as an ommission, the failure to monitor for and remove a defamatory remark. The Act includes seven Titles, six of which are the product of extensive committee hearings and the subject of discussion in Reports prepared by Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
  4. As such, identifying common assumptions among various stakeholders proves quite difficult.
  5. Exon, commenting on FCC's role.

They feel disturbed at the fact, large platforms are dictating what is seen online by the world. House of Representative by Ann Wagner in April 2017.

II.The Communications Decency Act

Senate bill introduced by Rob Portman in August 2017. The intent is to provide serious, legal consequences for websites that profit from sex trafficking and give prosecutors tools they need to protect their communities and give victims a pathway to justice.