Tuesday, November 26, 1996
INTERNET:
Many experts stand against law, citing subjectivity of standardsBy Jennifer Mukai
Daily Bruin Contributor
The laws of the land are meeting the laws of science these days. As the 21st century draws closer, communications technology continues to evolve at a dizzying pace, with legislation scrambling to keep up.
The Internet is the newest media species in the spotlight. As with its predecessors of both print and electronic form, the question of its regulation has emerged with its development. This question is now being hotly debated among both the government and the public at large.
In early February 1996, thousands of World Wide Web pages across the Internet went black, with symbolic blue ribbon icons added overnight. Their creators were protesting the Communications Decency Act (CDA) signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The CDA, passed as part of the larger Telecommunications Bill, prohibits transmission to a minor of "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication which is obscene or indecent," or "patently offensive."
The American Civil Liberties Union and dozens of other free speech advocacy groups immediately kicked up a storm. These groups objected that the bill's wording was too vague and broad-based, leaving many innocent Internet denizens vulnerable to felony charges at any time. They also questioned what defined "indecent" and "patently offensive" material.
Richard Kroon, manager of UCLA's Student Technology Center, believes that this very subjectivity of definition will be the death of the CDA in court.
He likened the situation to the old quote, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." That, he said, was the crux of the whole problem.
"Decency laws are all based on community standards. Since there are no international boundaries on the Internet, who's to say what's 'decent?'" he asked. "Should we be able to bring action against a Web page in Denmark (based on Los Angeles standards)?"
If the CDA stands, he believes that will be the case.
Kroon isn't too worried, however.
"It's too broad, unworkable; it wasn't terribly well thought out," he said. "I don't think it will have a long-term impact." He added that the CDA seemed like a "political hot potato," inspired by other interests and concerns at the time it was drafted.
"It sort of smacked something by the religious right," he commented, referring to the concern over pornography on the Internet. For the most part, he continued, the need for censorship has been blown out of proportion.
Professor Leonard Kleinrock of UCLA agreed. "The Internet began in my laboratory in 1969," he stated, "and I have never ever seen a piece of pornographic literature cross my screen; you have to reach out and get it."
Kleinrock, widely known as a "father of the Internet," supervised the first transmission over the Internet's predecessor, the ARPANET, in October 1969.
Kleinrock acknowledged that minors might be tempted to "reach out and get" materials from the Internet that their parents deem unsuitable, but he felt that this was where parental control, rather than governmental control, needs to come in.
"I don't think that this issue of decency is something that you can legislate, either through law, or technically," he said. "It has to be handled at a much higher social level a level of ethics, education, parental control, et cetera."
The challenged provisions of the CDA were overturned in a Philadelphia federal court June 12, declared by a three-judge panel to be unconstitutional.
This landmark decision, American Civil Liberties Union vs. Reno, was quickly followed by similar cases in other cities, all of which corroborated the verdict that the provisions in question violated the First Amendment, specifically the right to freedom of speech and press. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed an appeal, and the case is now pending for the Supreme Court. In response, a coalition of nearly 30 groups filed an appeal Oct. 31 for a Supreme Court summary affirmance of the Philadelphia ruling.
The Philadelphia court's decision emphasized that, rather than government regulation, technology is the best way to keep undesirable material out of the reach of children. It specifically cited several brands of software available to parents to self-censor the Internet, as well as ratings schemes that either exist or are under development.
According to the San Jose Mercury News, the ruling also left intact provisions of the CDA that bar "obscene material or child pornography" on the Internet, and prohibit "stalking" people via computer networks. The ruling itself notes that the plaintiffs made it clear that they did not quarrel with the statute to the extent that it covers these areas, which were already proscribed before the CDA's adoption.
While the battle rages on in court, Bonnie Mika, manager of user services at the Office of Academic Computing, says that UCLA is committed to students' electronic rights. Even if the CDA is upheld, she doesn't foresee it affecting that commitment.
"Our policy is to ensure freedom of speech. We respect the privacy of our users, and it's important that we do," she said.
That is not to say, Mika quickly added, that the university will not comply with the law when necessary. As a representative on the Electronic Communications Task Force, she is currently helping to draft an official UC-wide policy on all electronic communications.
"I'm sure the Telecommunications Bill will be in the forefront of all our minds as we establish the policy," she said.
Kroon echoed these sentiments. The Student Technology Center won't be policing the Web anytime soon, he said, emphasizing, "We don't want to be an investigative body. That's just not a business we want to get into."
Besides the moral issue of freedom of speech, Kroon explained, trying to actively maintain editorial control over the content passing through UCLA's network could make the university liable for material that is not caught. He pointed to recent cases brought against the Internet service providers America Online and Prodigy as examples.
The UC system is now attempting to strike a balance between principles of privacy and academic freedom and the sometimes conflicting demands of law. The task hasn't been easy, however.
The subjectivity involved in defining "indecency" in telecommunications presents a special dilemma for a university environment, noted Mary Stephens of the UC Office of the President in Oakland. "One person's indecency is another person's research," she remarked with a laugh.
Stephens, staff to the Electronic Communications Policy Task Force, went on to explain the difficulty the University of California faces as both an educational institution and a state agency. Academic freedom is absolutely critical to the UC schools, she said, but at the same time they are subject to certain federal and state laws. She stressed, however, that the University is committed to students' constitutional rights.
"It isn't electronics that makes (material) 'indecent.' It's the content," she observed. "We wouldn't want to single out electronics from paper." She explained that, regardless of the outcome of the CDA case, the UC system will treat disciplinary questions involving electronic communications the same way as any other, based on existing policy on student, staff and faculty conduct.
Both Stephens and Mika were also part of the Electronic Mail Task Force, which in August issued an official UC-wide policy statement on the proper usage, privileges and rights of e-mail users. The policy sought to "strike the right balance between ... principles of privacy and academic freedom and the often conflicting needs of law, University policy and administrative practice."
In an attached letter, UC President Richard Atkinson ordered the University of California Electronic Mail Policy to be implemented systemwide by Jan. 1, 1997. In the meantime, it is effective as "interim policy" while each campus develops its own supporting guidelines and procedures.