Home » Misc » Alerts Archive 
Action Alerts - Local, State, Non-US & Global Archive

Local, State, Non-US & Global Alerts Archive

NOTE: This page is made available for archival purposes only. EFF's current Action Center is located at action.eff.org.
  • EFF Announces the Blue Ribbon Campaign - a grassroots initiative to oppose Internet censorship and support online freedom of speech, press and association.
    • Download Blue Ribbon campaign graphics for WWW pages, newsletters, stationery, and anything else you can think of.
    • What you can do now: Put Blue Ribbon graphics on your homepage, encourage your ISP to put it on their company WWW pages, wear a real blue ribbon on your shirt, and spread the word. See the Blue Ribbon Page for more info.

  • Internet Censorship - Australia

  • Internet Censorship - Germany
    • CompuServe (CIS) limits Usenet offerings at behest of Bavarian Prosecutor - According to a CompuServe press release, "During the past week, CompuServe Incorporated temporarily suspended access to more than 200 Internet newsgroups in response to a direct mandate from the prosecutors office in Germany. Each of the newsgroups that was suspended was specifically identified to CompuServe by the German authorities as illegal under German criminal law. CompuServe did not select any groups or determine the nature of the newsgroups that have been impacted by this action." (Subsequently, the German authorities claim that the opposite is true, and that CompuServe decided which and how many newsgroups to censor.)
      Groups on the banned list include clari.news.sex, clari.news.gay, soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi, and many other groups, which any reasonable person will agree, should be able to be distributed. This is another example, like the AOL "Breast Ban" of the chilling effect of government regulation of Internet content. EFF deplores actions of these types, and calls for people to fight for free speech on the Internet!

    • UPDATE: CIS reinstates ~200 newsgroups. (Feb. 13, 1996). Only a few remain blocked - CIS says five newsgroups "separately identified" as containing explicit child pornography will remain suspended pending further legal investigation. CompuServe is also introducing Cyber Patrol, an online content filtering tool for parents and other users.
      EFF approves of CIS's commitment to the empowering of parents and families to make their own choices about online content. CIS's decision not to restore access to newsgroups that may be dedicated to transmission of illegal material, or to the planning of crimes, is appropriate. CIS's earlier decision to cancel an undisclosed list of 200 newsgroups may have represented a misunderstanding as to what is legal under American or German law. To the extent that this resolution represents a clearer understanding of what is legal online, EFF endorses CIS's decision to reinstate almost all of the newsgroups.
    • Related News Articles:

  • Online Privacy - United Kingdom

  • Alabama House Bill 100 would prohibit "electronic transmission" of material deemed "obscene as to minors".
    The US Supreme Court has already ruled obscenity to be NOT protected expression, but many questions remain about just what "obscene as to minors" includes, and as to this legislation, whether the statutory language reflects current court understanding of this term, or is broader (and therefore probably unconstitutional.) If it is not broader, then the bill serves no purpose whatsoever, as such material is *already* illegal online or offline, nation-wide. This therefore implies that the Alabama bill is attempting to re-define "obscene as to minors" to include constitutionally-protected expression.

    For more information (when available) see Rich Burroughs' State Net Censorship page.

  • California considers Net-porn regulation that is mostly pointless but offers sysop liability protection.
    CA Assembly Bill 295 would "extend" child porn and obscenity statutes to cover the Internet. As currently defined in existing statutes, this material is *already illegal* on the Net, and offline too, all over the US, so there's not much point to it. The definition used is that provided by the US Supreme Court, so bill would make a much better statute that most state laws on this topic. Additionally, it provides liability protection for system operators, and almost unique, but very necessary, feature of this sort of law. Bill passed the Assembly, and has been sitting in the CA Senate Judiciary Committee for many months. URGENT: A HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 18, 1996! Beware attempts by theocratic organizations to push for the bill to be changed to criminalize sysops or to change definitions or terms.
    California is also considering anti-Net legislation very similar to the incredibly stupid intellectual property bill already passed in the state of Georgia.

  • Connecticut Bill signed into law in March would put you in prison for flaming!
    House Bill 6883 creates criminal liability for sending an online message "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person". Sheer idiocy, and blatantly unconstititional. For more information (when available), see Rich Burroughs' State Net Censorship page.

  • Florida draft amendment to online (and offline) porn statues would make transmitters of adult matterials pay victims of sex crimes.
    FL Senate Bill 238, the "Pornography Victims' Compensation Act", create private cause of action for victims of crimes supposedly related to pornography, including Florida's computer porn statute (itself a terrible piece of work). Florida (hypocrically, given it's well-deserved reputation as flesh-haven for horny college students during spring break) is well known for attacking sexually explicit or even just subjectively "yucky" or "gross" material, and prosecuting nationally-acclaimed artists for "obscenity". SB 238 is very disturbing - any rape victim could sue you for all you're worth if you happen to create disturbing art, even though there would be not provable connection of any kind between your art and the victim's misfortune. This is a recipe for legal mahem. The bill appears to be moribund as of May 1995 - as are it's companion bills HB 13 (House version) and SB 76 (Senate bill to redefine child porn, etc.) - but be on the look out. This legislation could be back next session. Familiarize yourself with it now and draft responses early. For more info, including bill texts, see the EFF "Internet Censorship Legislation - Florida" Archive, and Rich Burroughs' State Net Censorship page.

  • Intellectual-Property-based Censorship of the Net from Georgia State Legislature - the "Internet Police Law"
    Georgia House bill 76 was also signed into law, Mar. 1995. HB 76 prohibits online transmission of "fighting words", "obscenity" or "vulgar speech" to minors, and information related to "terrorist acts" and certain "dangerous weapons". It is almost certainly unconstitutional on its face and richly deserves a legal challenge.

  • Illinois Intenet censorship legislation
    • Members of the Illinois state legislature have announced they will reintroduce a failed 1996 bill in 1997, to make it illegal to "harass" anyone online. Were the statute narrowly drafted it might stand constitutional scrutiny, but as written the draft statute would criminalize "annoying" messages and other protected expression. Please contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose this censorship legislation, or at very least bring it within consitutional boundaries. Remind them that SIX federal judges have already struck down an Internet censorship law. The full text of this provision is not presently available, and will not be until officially introduced in the 1997 session.
    • Illinois law prohibits "sexual solicitation of a minor by computer".
      Senate Bill 838, signed into law July 1995, raises many questions regarding several aspects of this legislation, such as system operator liability, and minors masquerading as adults. The statute may also conflict with other state's laws. While the bill's intent seems lofty, and it will probably protect a handful of children from some rather noxious sexual advances, the wisdom of trying to handle this problem at fifty different state levels, is questionable. The ACLU finds it to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in several ways, and has warned that it could be used by religious extremist prosectors to go after disseminators of sex education materials. The real danger here is that theocratic organizations, smelling an easy victory, may introduce follow-on legislation next session to restrict indecency and other constitutionally protected speech online. Be on the lookout.

  • Kansas law criminalizes fake child porn
    House Bill 2223 was signed into law May 1995. This bill expands the definition of child pornography to include "computer-generated images". Insofar as this targets scans of actual child porn, no constititional issues are raised. However, the law runs into possible constititional trouble by failing to exempt material that does not depict actual children, and as a result it bans material that is completely fake. This could have the result of criminalizing constitutionally protected works of art, and it also subverts the entire rationale and purpose of the child pornography statutes (to protect children from sexual abuse in the process of producing pornography, and to punish those who so abuse children.) As no children are used in the example in question, there is no actual crime. As for truly disturbing works of this nature - probably what the bill drafters had in mind - current obscenity statutes already provide criminal penalties, making this Kansas law not only a bad idea because of its vagueness, but also completely unnecessary. Action: Urge repeal or clarification to protect non-obscene art that does not use actual minors, and be on the lookout for follow-on bills to criminalize other forms of protected expression such as "indecency", next legislative session.

    • Members of the Maryland state legislature have announced they will reintroduce a failed 1996 bill in 1997, to make it illegal to "harass" anyone online. Were the statute narrowly drafted it might stand constitutional scrutiny, but as written the draft statute would criminalize "annoying" messages and other protected expression. Please contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose this censorship legislation, or at very least bring it within consitutional boundaries. Remind them that SIX federal judges have already struck down an Internet censorship law. The full text of this provision is not presently available, and will not be until officially introduced in the 1997 session.
    • Maryland Legislature redundantly re-criminalizes online obscenity distribution to minors, sexual solitication of minors, and child porn.
      Senate bill 21, passed into law April 1995, targets online distribution of obscene materials to minors. As with other such laws in different states, it is completely pointless, as distribution of obscenity to anyone in any medium is already illegal, nationally. Creates serious liability concerns for all access providers, as the bill is too poorly drafted to target only the guilty parties.
    • Senate bill 22 (still pending as of our latest news, but may have passed or died by now), prohibits (again, redundantly) online child porn, as well as sexual solicitation of a minor by computer. As with the Illinois bill, this appears to mean well, but, as usual, creates legal mayhem due to inconsistency with other statutes, and poses legal threats for innocent access providers. Also this bill, like the Kansas law, probably unconstitutionally redefines "child pornography" to include even completely fake computer-generated art, as well as actual child porn and already-legally-obscene fake child porn of the hardcore sort. Creates major sysop liability. Though high-minded, the law is very poorly thought out and dangerous for all system operators. If one of your users does something Maryland prosecutors don't like, you could go to prison for it.

  • Massachusetts bill adds "inducement by computer" to the law prohibiting the luring of a minor for purposes of pornography
    House Bill 1804, like similar laws in other states, poses serious threats to system operators, by failing to differentiate between the perpetrators and the operators of the systems they abuse. This bill appears to still be pending - but this needs verification as of June 1996.

  • Montana child porn law targets material that did not use children
    House Bill 161, like Kansas and other bills, expands definition of "child pornography" to cover obscene faked child porn (pointless - it's already illegal) and non-obscene art that does not feature real children at all (unconstitutional - such art is protected under the First Amendment). Singed into law, March 1995. As elsewhere, be on the lookout for theocratic organizations pushing revision bills to criminalize "indecency" and other protected expression.

  • New Jersey child porn law targets protected expression
    Assembly Bill 38 (passed into law in 1995), like clone legislation in Montana, Kansas and elsewhere expands definition of "child pornography" to cover obscene faked child porn (pointless - it's already illegal) and non-obscene art that does not feature real children at all (unconstitutional - such art is protected under the First Amendment).

  • Internet & Art Censorship - New York (State)
    • Members of the New York state legislature have announced they will reintroduce a failed 1996 bill in 1997, to make it illegal to "harass" anyone online. Were the statute narrowly drafted it might stand constitutional scrutiny, but as written the draft statute would criminalize "annoying" messages and other protected expression. Please contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose this censorship legislation, or at very least bring it within consitutional boundaries. Remind them that SIX federal judges have already struck down an Internet censorship law. The full text of this provision is not presently available, and will not be until officially introduced in the 1997 session.
    • The New York State Assembly and Senate have passed a bill (A.3967 / S.210-D) that would make online service providers liable for the content on their networks. The bill would prohibit the knowing "dissemination" of material that depicts "actual or simulated nudity,[or] sexual conduct", that is "harmful to minors" and is communicated to a minor through a "computer communications system". Additionally, S.210-D would make it a felony to intentionally engage a minor in an explicit, sexually-oriented communication via a computer or on-line service, and then make contact with the minor. It provides for penalties of up to seven years in prison for certain offenses. If Gov. Pataki signs this bill into law it could impose significant burdens upon Internet Access businesses to screen the Internet for their users, drive Internet content businesses from New York state, and chill free speech. The bill is vague and over-broad, may force service providers to become censors, ignores existing parental control technology & services, and lumps most responsbility on to the shoulders of service providers.
    • As of Sept. 10, 1996: A version of the bill has passed again. Text of the passed version will be posted when available.
    • As of Feb. 7: the bill is being altered due to pressure from the Net, to prevent Internet providers' liability for users' actions. Keep the pressure up. State Sen. William R. Sears is to introduce the chapter amendment, and the legislature is asking the Governor to NOT sign the bill as it stands, even though it was already passed.
    • See the Voters' Telecom Watch WWW Site for more info.

    • New York City

  • Oklahoma passes confused "obscenity" and "harmful to minors" online content restriction
    House Bill 1048 defines "obscene" as the less specific "harmful to minors" and barrs distribution of such material online. As with other such laws, and the national Communications Decency Amendment, the OK law, passed April 1995, is either completely pointless (obscenity is already illegal offline or online), or unconstitutional (as an attempt to broaden the definition of obscenity to include constitutionally-protected material).

  • Oregon considering bill to (redundantly) illegalize "electronically furnishing obscene material to minors."
    As with other similar state bills/statutes, this legislation serves no legitimate purpose, as the material it targets is already fully criminalized, from coast to coast, regardless of medium, and for adults as well as minors. The bill is almost certainly an attempt to hold innocent system operators criminally liable for the actions of users beyond the operators' control. Early in 1995, the state House Judiciary Committee reported unfavorably on this bill. No news since then. It may well have passed or died by now.

  • Pennsylvania introduced legislative stupidity: Attempts to ban online government publications and Encyclopaedia Britannica!
    PA House bill 1727 (which we believe to still be pending) would, in utterly flagrant violation of the First Amendment, ban the distribution via computer network of information describing the production of explosives - information avaialble in many high school chemistry texts, almost all encyclopedias, and the US Goverment's own publication, "The Blaster's Handbook" (published by the US Forest Service). The bill appears to be modelled on a national-level amendment offered by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) - an amendment the Senate balked at and gutted. Call your state legislator and ensure that the same fate awaits HB 1727.

  • Virginia legislature violates First Amendment - defines constitutionally protected artworks as "child pornography".
    Senate bill 1067, singed into law May 1995, like clone legislation in Montana, Kansas and elsewhere expands definition of "child pornography" to cover obscene faked child porn (pointless - it's already illegal) and non-obscene art that does not feature real children at all (unconstitutional - such art is protected under the First Amendment).

  • Washington (state) governor vetoes bill that targets online material deemed "harmful to minors".
    Senate Bill 5466 was vetoed by the governor, May 1995. State legislature has threatened to try to over-ride the veto, but has not done so, to our knowledge, as of June 1996, though the bill was reintroduced as SB 6079 in a failed attempt to do so. BEWARE! This bill or something like it will probably be back in late 1996 or in 1997, perhaps targeting material "obscene as to minors" or "indecent" (or some other meaningless, undefined "term of art" that targets Constitutionally-protected expression).
EFF Foreign/State/Local Legislation & Regulation Archive
EFF Foreign/State/Local Legal Issues & Cases Archive

Links to Related Off-Site Resources

Declan McCullagh's global net-censorship archive
Rich Burroughs' index of US state-level Net censorship happenings
(includes legislative text, articles, and more).
Center for Democracy & Technology's Action Items Page
FACT's First Amendment and Censorship Alerts