Black pages

[Ronnie Morgan]

Okay, I have read several messages replying to what I had said.  Let me  
make a couple more statements about this issue.

First, I do believe that the parents should take some, if not most, of  
the responsibility of what his/her child views on the Internet, TV,  
etc.  But, the information providers have to take some as well.  I can  
leave my child in front of the TV, and feel pretty good that he won't  
see some naked woman (although late at night, that may not be true).  I  
don't feel the same way while he is on the internet.  And yes, I know  
about the software out there that can prevent him from accessing the  
stuff, but even that isn't fool proof.  The information provider has to  
take some responsibility.  

Second, anything I say is my own opinion, and not of Harding  
University.

Third, I have yet to see ANY evidence that this bill will violate ANY  
of my rights.  Some one will need to point me in the right direction,  
because I have not yet found the way.

I believe what is happening is, one person reads the bill, interprets  
it to mean one thing, tells someone, that someone believes him and  
tells others.  It's called the snow-ball effect.  Let's have a moment  
of silence while we all read the bill ourselves, and then we can  
interpret it ourselves.  And with a little common sense from each of  
us, we may come to some common ground.

The http address for the final bill is,  
http://www.cdt.org/policy/freespeech/12_21.cda.html.  (I think someone  
else has already posted it).

I just read most of it, and it's interesting.  I still don't see where  
my rights are being affected...  

It's also interesting to point out the difference between a publisher  
and a provider.  The provider is the one who is giving a publisher  
access to the internet.  The provider is not held responsible, in any  
way, shape or form, for any thing his/her users (the publishers) put on  
the internet.  The publishers can still provide thier material.  

The following is a direct quote from the bill regarding this issue: 

"(c) PROTECTION FOR 'GOOD SAMARITAN BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE 
  MATERIAL.

    "(1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER. 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.     

    "(2) CIVIL LIABILITY. No provider or user of an interactive  
computer service shall be held liable on account of

      "(A) any- action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict 
      access to or availability of material that the provider or user 
      considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively 
      violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not 
      such material is constitutionally protected; or     

      "(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information 
      content providers or others the technical means to restrict 
      access to material described in paragraph (1). "

I didn't see "can not provide" any where in there, or in the entire  
bill...  So, again I say, how is this bill violating any of my rights?

And, I didn't see anything about abortion, AIDS, the Bible, or anything  
that people have said would be "banned" because of this bill.  



Ronnie Morgan
Team OS/2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harding University Library        Internet : rmorgan at harding.edu
Systems Manager                                       
Box 2267, Searcy, AR  72149       Phone : (501) 279-4077 (voice)