Panelists vigorously debate CDA

James O'Donnell, interim vice provost for Information Systems and Computing, warned that a panel discussion he was moderating last week could "disintegrate into a great-taste/less-filling argument." His prediction appeared to come true as opposing sides battled in last Wednesday's four-person debate concerning the newly-signed Communications Decency Act. The CDA, signed into law last month by President Clinton, contains clauses that regulate the type of information allowed on the Internet. The CDA makes it illegal to "knowingly send to a specific person under 18, or make available to persons under 18, [certain Internet materials concerning] sexual or excretory acts or organs," according to panelist Bruce Taylor, president of the National Law Center for Children and Families. Robert Peters, an attorney for Morality in Media, joined Taylor in defending the CDA. Peters said he did not feel that the CDA would radically alter the Internet environment. "The CDA will have relatively little impact on the Internet," Peters claimed. "It will have an effect on the form or manner of speech, not the content." Pitted against Taylor and Peters were Jim Crawford, president of the American Civil Liberties Union's Pennsylvania branch, and WIRED Magazine Managing Editor Chip Bayers, who also serves as the managing editor of the on-line HotWired 'zine. Last month, the ACLU filed a national lawsuit against the Justice Department for the repeal of the CDA. "We can't deprive adults of legal material that's indecent in order to protect children," Crawford said, explaining that regulation would only be acceptable if it did not infringe upon the rights of adults. Bayers addressed the audience of approximately 40 people via telephone. He said he was concerned that items in his magazine would not be allowable in the on-line version. "Indecency goes beyond issues of pornography," he said. "The CDA is not based on pornography and that's the big lie of the CDA." The two-hour debate centered around the wording of the law. CDA opponents objected to the vague definitions of "indecent" and "obscene." "News organizations would be censored," Crawford said. "Things in newspapers and libraries would have to be censored [if put on line]." But Taylor assured the audience that the law was, in fact, unambiguous in its terms. "The CDA adopts the Supreme Court definition of 'indecent'," he said. "The law does not apply to legitimate, protected forms of literature." As examples, Taylor cited Catcher in the Rye or AIDS information as acceptable under the law. Since Internet users can access sites in Beirut as easily as those in Buffalo, several audience members were concerned with international site regulation. "How would the United States enforce the law overseas?" Wharton and Engineering sophomore Salman Niaz asked. Taylor said foreign offenders could be arrested if they ever enter the United States, comparing the crime to terrorism or drug trafficking. And American users could be convicted for downloading the objectionable material onto their computers, Taylor added. Audience members were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the CDA, applauding several criticisms of the law throughout the evening. "The only thing [the CDA supporters] convinced me of was how well-funded the censors are," said Engineering and College junior Chris Metcalf. "I never until this day considered giving money to the ACLU." The First Amendment Task Force sponsored the panel discussion, in conjunction with the Philomathean Society, the Society of Women Engineers and the Dining Philosophers.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.