Is This What They Mean by "Indecent"?

With the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress has prepared to turn the Internet from one of the greatest resources of cultural, social and scientific information into the online equivalent of the children's reading room. By invoking the overbroad and vague term "indecent" as the standard by which electronic communication should be censored, Congress has insured that information providers seeking to avoid perceived liability and criminal prosecution will close the gates on anything but the most tame information and discussions.

This list was compiled as a tool for people to see how broadly defined the term "indecent" -- the key term in the CDA -- may be construed. While you or I or many members of congress who voted in support of this act may believe that "naked Swedish girls" is "indecent," others may think that is not. And still others may believe that medical texts on abortions, academic discussion of the side effects of Prozac, certain works of art, etc., may be "indecent."

You see, unlike "obscene" material which has been, is still and should always be illegal on the Internet or anywhere else, "indecent" material has not been legally defined. This is the basis of our court challenge to the CDA; that the law is unconstitutionally so overbroad and vague that no one knows exactly what is permissable and what is not.

We are not crying wolf here. In many, many school districts around the country, school boards have banned the works of Twain, pulled nude paintings from the classroom, and fought against mature discussion of reproductive health.

And even if you believe, as many people do, that the aforementioned topics are not appropriate for high school students, there is no technologically possible way of restricting information from children while permitting access to it by parents.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation believes that personal and parental choice is the best filtering mechanism of content on the Internet. The development of technological filtering tools and children's services will go much further to promote the safety of children and free speech than any legislation.

To illustrate just how far Congress may have gone in taking the power of choice away from the family, EFF has compiled a small sample of sites that may fall victim to the Telecommunications Act. The list ranges from Renaissance art to discussion of safe sex. It includes federally funded resources and lyrics to songs played on radio stations across the Unites States.

You will be comfortable with some of the sites and uncomfortable with others. That is precisely the point. For those sites which you would allow into your home may not be the sites your neighbor would allow into hers. You should be the one choosing what you do and do not want to see, you should be the one controlling your childrens' access to mature discussions -- on the Internet, on television, or in the city library.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation does not believe that Americans are prepared to deny their cultural heritage,ignore their compassion for those people suffering from serious illness and relinquish the United States' reputation as a leader in medical science.

Take a look at these sites. If you feel that Congress has gone too far in abridging not only the First Amendment, but the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights, then ACT NOW. Let YOUR representatives know how you feel. If we are silent now, we very well may be silenced forever.

Art
Literature
Health
Support Groups
Entertainment
News Media, Goverment, etc.


-->
Join the Blue Ribbon Anti-Censorship Campaign!