Your Feelings Hands Off The Net Most Respondents Think The Internet Should Be A Self-Policing Forum

Since last year, Sen. James Exon, D-Neb., has been pushing a highwaybeautification bill for the information age. With Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., as his co-sponsor, Exon is trying to cleanse the information superhighway of roadside smut by outlawing the transmission of indecent material.

In 1994 the two senators attached such a proposal, containing stiff criminal penalties, to a telecommunications bill that later died. This year, they introduced it as S 314.

In a column published on the March 19 Perspective Page, James Levendosky, editorial page editor of the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune, denounced the legislation as a chilling assault on the First Amendment.

Gorton responded, in a separate column requested by The SpokesmanReview, that, yes, the legislation needed to be fine-tuned but it nevertheless was imperative to protect Internet users from the kind of obscenity and harassment already outlawed in telephone communications.

On March 23, the Senate Commerce Committee adopted a variation of Exon’s bill as an amendment to the federal telecommunications law. Senate floor action could come this month.

The present language, said a spokeswoman in Gorton’s office, addresses concerns in the communications industry that the earlier version would have held access providers responsible for the improper conduct of users.

Not everyone is satisfied, however. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., condemned the amendment in a floor speech Thursday.

“Under this Exon Amendment,” he said, “those of us who are users of computer e-mail and other network systems would have to speak as if we were in Sunday School every time we went on-line. I, too, support raising our level of civility in communications in this country, but not with a government sanction and possible prison sentence when someone uses an expletive.”

Spokesman-Review readers were asked in the March 19 Perspective Page package to give us their feedback on this issue. Responses, definitely not a scientific sampling, were heavily weighted against the legislation, especially among those who commented by e-mail.

Here are some excerpts:

Gerald Bozarth, Spokane: “We would do well in this country by leaving cyberspace alone. I think it would be nice if just once we could have something remain free and open to the public without government interference. I really don’t see how anyone could be harassed in the same way that a telephone could be used for that purpose. There will always be people who use and abuse anything, but I don’t believe this gives our government the right to snoop on our computer conversations.”

Roy Wolfe, Endicott: “I feel like the bill is a good bill. I don’t think that our computer lines, telephone lines or anything should be used for pornographic things and anything private like that. People should be able to just do it in person. I see nothing wrong with banning anything that shouldn’t be on there. If they want to put pornography around, why let them use some other method. I don’t think it should be on our telephone lines or anything that children have access to. And also I don’t like this stuff being blown up to make news either.”

John Sherwood, Post Falls: “How can a morally, spiritually and ethically bankrupt subculture of our society, namely our elected and appointed government officials, possibly think it has a right to determine what is appropriate behavior for another segment of society? “They should implement legislation which will control ‘real’ crimes, beginning with their own, which victimize ‘real’ people.

“If some folks are uncomfortable about material on the Superhighway which they consider ‘filthy’ or obscene, let them avoid it by controlling what they recieve.

“We have turned into a thin-skinned, nit-picking society wherein everyone feels he has a right to control others. People need to be reminded that our Constitution guarantees each of us freedom, but it does not guarantee us comfort.

“Our government has already gone too far in invading our privacy. Let it butt out.”

Larry McAdams, Spokane: “I am sick and tired of Uncle Sam monitoring us in every way shape and form. We have no more privacy any more, thanks to these little invasions. We don’t need them. We’re adults and it’s one more weight on our back that we don’t need.”

Patricia R. Abson, Addy, WA: “Just as telephone and mail are subject to regulations regarding content and use, so should be the next preferred mode of communication. I support Senator Gorton’s proposed legislation toward this end.”

Gary Bell, Spokane: ” No one should ever be able to tap into private e-mail transmissions, especially the government. I think that oversight of Internet content should only come from parental control over their children’s access. Our freedoms of speech and the press demand full freedom to send and receive anything we’d like; parents concerned about their children must control their own children’s access rather than force a universal control on everyone else.”

Rick McGee, Spokane: “The individual has the option of not entering a particular news group, just as they can pass an adult book store or enter of their own free will. The answer is not to regulate, but to place the issue back where this country seems to be failing the most. Take responsibility for themselves and more over their children as well.”

Roger Martin, Pullman: “I am so strongly in favor of policing cyberspace. I think it’s just outrageous the viewpoint that he (Levendosky) put down. Give me 10 votes against what he said. He has petty issues that are unimportant. The issue is to get something done so that kids don’t get ahold of that stuff. It’s bad enough for grown-ups.”

Robert Barcus, Spokane: “In an effort to ‘protect’ computer users from potential incidents of electronic harassment or obscenity, you would inject the dead hand of government bureaucracy into a medium that has flourished precisely because it has evolved worldwide in an atmosphere of freedom from such interference.”

Kurt Howard, Spokane: “As for protecting children, is it really a responsible adult decision to allow children to chat without supervision? Sort of like dumping them at a flea market and saying, ‘See you in an hour; be careful.’ Of course, they will be exposed to things they shouldn’t, but that’s the parent’s responsibility, not the privider’s, or even the other users’.”

David Reese, Spokane: As a person who enjoys fine art and literature, I would not want some government oversight on what I read or what I looked at. In the photography Usenet groups there are stories of people who have been arrested because they took pictures of them and their kids with clothes on. My grandfather would have been arrested since he loved taking pictures of his grandchildren, some of which involved bath time.”

Terence L. Day, Pullman: “In this legislation, Sen. Gorton’s real purpose is an attack on sexually oriented materials. He is not content to stop with obscenity, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is beyond First Amendment protection, but wants to ban from the Internet mere nude pictures, which the Supreme Court has ruled aren’t obscene.

“What the senator is trying to pull off under the cloak of purity and child welfare is to prohibit adults from access to any material with sexual content that isn’t suitable for viewing by a 10-year-old, or even younger, children.”

Russell G. Raney, Spokane: “I agree there are things on the Internet that are objectionable, e.g. neo-Nazis, Militias, cybersex, ad nauseum. But where do we draw the line?…

“Need I fear downloading ‘Huckleberry Finn’ from the library because it contains things that are objectionable to some individual or group? How many works of literature and/or art have been banned because they run counter to someone’s sensibilities? If Mrs. Jones or Sen. Gorton do not want their children to be exposed to subjects they consider objectionable, keep them on the ‘backroads’; do not allow them on the Superhighway until they learn to drive.