Legislative Proposal For New Indecency Language In Telecom Bill :: essays research papers

Legislative Proposal for New Indecency phrase in Telecom BillI. SummaryAlthough the October 16, 1995 legislative marriage offer purports to scotch computer pornography, the design contains fatal flaws which render theproposal at best counterproductive and at worst devastating to on-line communication theory. First, it prohibits, nonwithstanding fails to assign, indecent speech tominors -- a dangerously timid, medium-specific, and, after decades of litigation, static undefined concept, which whitethorn include mere affidavit. This may tie upsuccessful prosecution of the law in courts for years to come, while courts wriggle to divine a constitutional definition of indecent -- and whilecompanies ar left with uncertain liability.Second, the October 16 proposal may actually soften systems liable(p) forcommunications over which they scram no specific noesis or control. Theproposal purports to target those who knowingly send prohibited communications-- itself a relatively low standard of liability that may not even requireactual intent or willfulness. Nevertheless, because the proposal i) defines theelements of fell liability in vague and contradictory terms, and ii)eliminates safeharbors in the Senate bill that would define a clear standard ofcare, it might hold systems liable for actions that dont tinct even a knowingly standard of liability. As a result, entree providers, systemmanagers and operators, and employers may potentially be liable for actions ofusers over which they have no specific knowledge, intent, or control.For every company that communicates by computer, the proposal1) Creates liability for, but never defines, indecent speech, a dangerouslyvague standard that could leave companies criminally liable for use of mereprofanity2) Establishes vague and contradictory standards of liability that could leaveinnocent companies vicariously liable for communications over which they have nocontrol3) Strips workable approving defenses from the Senate bill, eliminating aclear standard of care for companies.Not only does the proposal endanger companies, it fails to protectchildren. The liberty standard guarantees that enforcement will be bind up inthe courts for years to come. Companies will be particularly reticent toidentify and eradicate prohibited communications when they are incapable of sharp which communications are indecent and when the companys consequentknowledge of the communications may actually make them liable. At worst, theproposal will either chuck out down systems entirely or will shut down any attemptsto constructively monitor and screen systems, as providers take a know-nothing situation to avoid prosecution for purported knowledge.II. The Indecency Standard and Uncertain and Conflicting Standards ofculpability Implicate Innocent Companies But Fail To Protect Children.A. The undefined indecency standard is possibly unenforceable and certainlycounterproductive.Although the October 16 proposal purports to grade computer