Source Documents in the Legislative History of Section 230
From Bibliotheca Anonoma
Revision as of 09:56, 6 December 2020 by Quintuplicate (talk | contribs)
This is a supplement/appendix to A Comment on Malwarebytes v. Enigma, whose disclaimer also applies to this.
Since I wrote the article linked above I have decided to include some legislative history of Section 230. The legislative history of a law encompasses the debates in Congress that led to its being passed.
Due to the moderate degree of difficulty involved in finding the legislative history, and the improbability of you being here to read the comments of a tired 17-year-old on it, this will mainly be a convenient collection of source documents regarding the legislative history, including speeches, debates, excerpts from reports, and drafts. Some editorial comments will be made to aid the reader but no criticism or judgment of the matter will be made.
Schedule of Debate on Cox-Wyden Amendment
2-3. Cox (CA), Wyden (OR)--Insert a new section 104 protecting from liability those providers and users seeking to clean up the Internet and prohibiting the FCC from imposing content or any regulation of the Internet. (20 minutes)
Cox-Wyden Amendment (original source of section 230)
[The page numbers in this text are of Volume 141 of the Congressional Record]
amendment offered by mr. cox of california
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment numbered 2-3. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment number 2-3 offered by Mr. Cox of California:'
Page 78, before line 18, insert the following new section
(and redesignate the succeeding sections and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
[Subsection (d) in this draft was not in the final law]
SEC. 104. ONLINE FAMILY EMPOWERMENT.
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF
OFFENSIVE MATERIAL; FCC REGULATION OF COMPUTER
SERVICES PROHIBITED.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
``(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other
interactive computer services available to individual
Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the
availability of educational and informational resources to
our citizens.
``(2) These services offer users a great degree of control
over the information that they receive, as well as the
potential for even greater control in the future as
technology develops.
``(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services
offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,
unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad
avenues for intellectual activity.
``(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services
have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a
minimum of government regulation.
``(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive
media for a variety of political,
Page H 8469 educational, cultural, and entertainment services. ``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to-- ``(1) promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media; ``(2) preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by State or Federal regulation; ``(3) encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over the information received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services; ``(4) remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and ``(5) ensure vigorous enforcement of criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer. ``(c) Protection for `Good Samaritan' Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material.--No provider or user of interactive computer services shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by an information content provider. No provider or user of interactive computer services shall be held liable on account of-- ``(1) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to 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 ``(2) any action taken to make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). ``(d) FCC Regulation of the Internet and Other Interactive Computer Services Prohibited.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to grant any jurisdiction or authority to the Commission with respect to content or any other regulation of the Internet or other interactive computer services. ``(e) Effect on Other Laws.-- ``(1) No effect on criminal law.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 of this Act, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute. ``(2) No effect on intellectual property law.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property. ``(3) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. ``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section: ``(1) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the international computer network of both Federal and non- Federal interoperable packet switched data networks. ``(2) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive computer service' means any information service that provides computer access to multiple users via modem to a remote computer server, including specifically a service that provides access to the Internet. ``(3) Information content provider.--The term `information content provider' means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided by the Internet or any other interactive computer service, including any person or entity that creates or develops blocking or screening software or other techniques to permit user control over offensive material. ``(4) Information service.--The term `information service' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service..
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes. Who seeks time in opposition?
[Here, nobody asked for opposition, so the Speaker gave the 10 minutes to Wyden to also speak in support of the amendment.]
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], who has worked so hard and so diligently on this effort with all of our colleagues. We are talking about the Internet now, not about telephones, not about television or radios, not about cable TV, not about broadcasting, but in technological terms and historical terms, an absolutely brand-new technology. The Internet is a fascinating place and many of us have recently become acquainted with all that it holds for us in terms of education and political discourse. We want to make sure that everyone in America has an open invitation and feels welcome to participate in the Internet. But as you know, there is some reason for people to be wary because, as a Time Magazine cover story recently highlighted, there is in this vast world of computer information, a literal computer library, some offensive material, some things in the bookstore, if you will, that our children ought not to see. As the parent of two, I want to make sure that my children have access to this future and that I do not have to worry about what they might be running into on line. I would like to keep that out of my house and off of my computer. How should we do this? Some have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that we take the Federal Communications Commission and turn it into the Federal Computer Commission, that we hire even more bureaucrats and more regulators who will attempt, either civilly or criminally, to punish people by catching them in the act of putting something into cyberspace. Frankly, there is just too much going on on the Internet for that to be effective. No matter how big the army of bureaucrats, it is not going to protect my kids because I do not think the Federal Government will get there in time. Certainly, criminal enforcement of our obscenity laws as an adjunct is a useful way of punishing the truly guilty. Mr. Chairman, what we want are results. We want to make sure we do something that actually works. Ironically, the existing legal system provides a massive disincentive for the people who might best help us control the Internet to do so. I will give you two quick examples: A Federal court in New York, in a case involving CompuServe, one of our on-line service providers, held that CompuServe would not be liable in a defamation case because it was not the publisher or editor of the material. It just let everything come onto your computer without, in any way, trying to screen it or control it. But another New York court, the New York Supreme Court, held that Prodigy, CompuServe's competitor, could be held liable in a $200 million defamation case because someone had posted on one of their bulletin boards, a financial bulletin board, some remarks that apparently were untrue about an investment bank, that the investment bank would go out of business and was run by crooks. Prodigy said, ``No, no; just like CompuServe, we did not control or edit that information, nor could we, frankly. We have over 60,000 of these messages each day, we have over 2 million subscribers, and so you cannot proceed with this kind of a case against us. The court said, ``No, no, no, no, you are different; you are different than CompuServe because you are a family-friendly network. You advertise yourself as such. You employ screening and blocking software that keeps obscenity off of your network. You have people who are hired to exercise an emergency delete function to keep that kind of
Page H 8470
material away from your subscribers. You don't permit nudity on your system. You have content guidelines. You, therefore, are going to face higher, stricter liability because you tried to exercise some control over offensive material.
{time} 1015
Mr. Chairman, that is backward. We want to encourage people like Prodigy, like CompuServe, like America Online, like the new Microsoft network, to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see. This technology is very quickly becoming available, and in fact every one of us will be able to tailor what we see to our own tastes.
We can go much further, Mr. Chairman, than blocking obscenity or indecency, whatever that means in its loose interpretations. We can keep away from our children things not only prohibited by law, but prohibited by parents. That is where we should be headed, and that is what the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and I are doing.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment will do two basic things: First, it will protect computer Good Samaritans, online service providers, anyone who provides a front end to the Internet, let us say, who takes steps to screen indecency and offensive material for their customers. It will protect them from taking on liability such as occurred in the Prodigy case in New York that they should not face for helping us and for helping us solve this problem. Second, it will establish as the policy of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by the Federal Government of what is on the Internet, that we do not wish to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet because frankly the Internet has grown up to be what it is without that kind of help from the Government. In this fashion we can encourage what is right now the most energetic technological revolution that any of us has ever witnessed. We can make it better. We can make sure that it operates more quickly to solve our problem of keeping pornography away from our kids, keeping offensive material away from our kids, and I am very excited about it.
There are other ways to address this problem, some of which run head-on into our approach. About those let me simply say that there is a well-known road paved with good intentions. We all know where it leads. The message today should be from this Congress we embrace this new technology, we welcome the opportunity for education and political discourse that it offers for all of us. We want to help it along this time by saying Government is going to get out of the way and let parents and individuals control it rather than Government doing that job for us.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the Cox-Wyden amendment. In beginning, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for the chance to work with him. I think we all come here because we are most interested in policy issues, and the opportunity I have had to work with the gentleman from California has really been a special pleasure, and I want to thank him for it. I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], our ranking minority member, for the many courtesies he has shown, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and, as always, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] have been very helpful and cooperative on this effort.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the Internet is the shining star of the information age, and Government censors must not be allowed to spoil its promise. We are all against smut and pornography, and, as the parents of two small computer-literate children, my wife and I have seen our kids find their way into these chat rooms that make their middle-aged parents cringe. So let us all stipulate right at the outset the importance of protecting our kids and going to the issue of the best way to do it.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I are here to say that webelieve that parents and families are better suited to guard the portals of cyberspace and protect our children than our Government bureaucrats. Parents can get relief now from the smut on the Internet by making a quick trip to the neighborhood computer store where they can purchase reasonably priced software that blocks out the pornography on the Internet. I brought some of this technology to the floor, a couple of the products that are reasonably priced and available, simply to make clear to our colleagues that it is possible for our parents now to child-proof the family computer with these products available in the private sector.
Now what the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I have proposed does stand in sharp contrast to the work of the other body. They seek there to try to put in place the Government rather than the private sector about this task of trying to define indecent communications and protecting our kids. In my view that approach, the approach of the other body, will essentially involve the Federal Government spending vast sums of money trying to define elusive terms that are going to lead to a flood of legal challenges while our kids are unprotected. The fact of the matter is that the Internet operates worldwide, and not even a Federal Internet censorship army would give our Government the power to keep offensive material out of the hands of children who use the new interactive media, and I would say to my colleagues that, if there is this kind of Federal Internet censorship army that somehow the other body seems to favor, it is going to make the Keystone Cops look like crackerjack crime-fighter.
Mr. Chairman, the new media is simply different. We have the opportunity to build a 21st century policy for the Internet employing the technologies and the creativity designed by the private sector.
I hope my colleagues will support the amendment offered by gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and myself, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, this is a very good amendment. There is no question that we are having an explosion of information on the emerging superhighway. Unfortunately part of that information is of a nature that we do not think would be suitable for our children to see on our PC screens in our homes.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] have worked hard to put together a reasonable way to provide those providers of the information to help them self-regulate themselves without penalty of law. I think it is a much better approach than the approach that has been taken in the Senate by the Exon amendment. I would hope that we would support this version in our bill in the House and then try to get the House-Senate conference to adopt the Cox-Wyden language.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is a good piece of legislation, a good amendment, and I hope we can pass it unanimously in the body.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner] who has also worked hard in this area.
Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] in a brief colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's efforts, as well as those of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], to address the problem of children having untraceable access through on-line computer services to inappropriate and obscene pornographic materials available on the Internet.
Telephone companies must inform us as to whom our long distance calls are made. I believe that if computer on-line services were to include itemized billing, it would be a practical solution which would inform parents as to what materials their children are accessing on the Internet.
It is my hope and understanding that we can work together in pursuing technology based solutions to the problems
Page H 8471 we face in dealing with controlling the transfer of obscene materials in cyberspace. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. DANNER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for her comments, and we will certainly take this up with some of the private-sector firms that are working in this area. Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White]. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the House that, as my colleagues know, this is a very important issue for me, not only because of our district, but because I have got four small children at home. I got them from age 3 to 11, and I can tell my colleagues I get E-mails on a regular basis from my 11-year-old, and my 9-year-old spends a lot of time surfing the Internet on America Online. This is an important issue to me. I want to be sure we can protect them from the wrong influences on the Internet. But I have got to tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, the last person I want making that decision is the Federal Government. In my district right now there are people developing technology that will allow a parent to sit down and program the Internet to provide just the kind of materials that they want their child to see. That is where this responsibility should be, in the hands of the parent. That is why I was proud to cosponsor this bill, that is what this bill does, and I urge my colleagues to pass it. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I will bet that there are not very many parts of the country where Senator Exon's amendment has been on the front page of the newspaper practically every day, but that is the case in Silicon Valley. I think that is because so many of us got on the Internet early and really understand the technology, and I surf the Net with my 10-year-old and 13-year-old, and I am also concerned about pornography. In fact, earlier this year I offered a life sentence for the creators of child pornography, but Senator Exon's approach is not the right way. Really it is like saying that the mailman is going to be liable when he delivers a plain brown envelope for what is inside it. It will not work. It is a misunderstanding of the technology. The private sector is out giving parents the tools that they have. I am so excited that there is more coming on. I very much endorse the Cox-Wyden amendment, and I would urge its approval so that we preserve the first amendment and open systems on the Net. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Cox-Wyden amendment. This will help to solve a very serious problem as we enter into the Internet age. We have the opportunity for every household in America, every family in America, soon to be able to have access to places like the Library of Congress, to have access to other major libraries of the world, universities, major publishers of information, news sources. There is no way that any of those entities, like Prodigy, can take the responsibility to edit out information that is going to be coming in to them from all manner of sources onto their bulletin board. We are talking about something that is far larger than our daily newspaper. We are talking about something that is going to be thousands of pages of information every day, and to have that imposition imposed on them is wrong. This will cure that problem, and I urge the Members to support the amendment.
{time} 1030
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the ranking member of the subcommittee. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from California for their amendment. It is a significant improvement over the approach of the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon. This deals with the reality that the Internet is international, it is computer-based, it has a completely different history and future than anything that we have known thus far, and I support the language. It deals with the content concerns which the gentlemen from Oregon and California have raised. Mr. Chairman, the only reservation which I would have is that they add in not only content but also any other type of registration. I think in an era of convergence of technologies where telephone and cable may converge with the Internet at some point and some ways it is important for us to ensure that we will have an opportunity down the line to look at those issues, and my hope is that in the conference committee we will be able to sort those out. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take the time to thank him and also the gentleman from California for this fine work. This is a very sensitive area, very complex area, but it is a very important area for the American public, and I just wanted to congratulate him and the gentleman from California on how they worked together in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his kindness. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say that the reason that this approach rather than the Senate approach is important is our plan allows us to help American families today. Under our approach and the speed at which these technologies are advancing, the marketplace is going to give parents the tools they need while the Federal Communications Commission is out there cranking out rules about proposed rulemaking programs. Their approach is going to set back the effort to help our families. Our approach allows us to help American families today. Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond briefly to the important point in this bill that prohibits the FCC from regulating the Internet. Price regulation is at one with usage of the Internet. We want to make sure that the complicated way that the Internet sends a document to your computer, splitting it up into packets, sending it through myriad computers around the world before it reaches your desk is eventually grasped by technology so that we can price it, and we can price ration usage on the Internet so more and more people can use it without overcrowding it. If we regulate the Internet at the FCC, that will freeze or at least slow down technology. It will threaten the future of the Internet. That is why it is so important that we not have a Federal computer commission do that. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Congress has a responsibility to help encourage the private sector to protect our children from being exposed to obscene and indecent material on the Internet. Most parents aren't around all day to monitor what their kids are pulling up on the net, and in fact, parents have a hard time keeping up with their kids' abilities to surf cyberspace. Parents need some help and the Cox-Wyden amendment provides it. The Cox-Wyden amendment is a thoughtful approach to keep smut off the net without government censorship. We have been told it is technologically impossible for interactive service providers to guarantee that no subscriber posts indecent material on their bulletin board services. But that doesn't mean that providers should not be given incentives to police the use of their systems. And software and other measures are available to help screen out this material. Currently, however, there is a tremendous disincentive for online service providers to create family friendly services by detecting and removing objectionable content. These providers face the risk of increased liability where they take reasonable steps to police their systems. A New York judge recently sent the online services the message to stop policing by ruling that Prodigy was subject to a $200 million libel suit simply because it did exercise some control over profanity and indecent material. The Cox-Wyden amendment removes the liability of providers such as Prodigy who currently make a good faith effort to edit the smut
Page H 8472 from their systems. It also encourages the online services industry to develop new technology, such as blocking software, to empower parents to monitor and control the information their kids can access. And, it is important to note that under this amendment existing laws prohibiting the transmission of child pornography and obscenity will continue to be enforced. The Cox-Wyden amendment empowers parents without Federal regulation. It allows parents to make the important decisions with regard to what their children can access, not the government. It doesn't violate free speech or the right of adults to communicate with each other. That's the right approach and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The Chairman. All time on this amendment has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Vote on Cox-Wyden Amendment
[See https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1995631 for party statistics]
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420, noes 4, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 631]
AYES--420
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--4
Hunter
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Wolf
NOT VOTING--10
Andrews
Bateman
Moakley
Nethercutt
Ortiz
Reynolds
Scarborough
Thurman
Williams
Young (AK)
{time} 1156
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I was not recorded on rollcall vote No. 631. The Record should reflect that I would have voted ``aye.
Cox-Wyden Incorporated in Manager's Amendment as Section 231
[22. Online Family Empowerment]
Page 78, before line 18, insert the following new section
(and redesignate the succeeding sections and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 104. ONLINE FAMILY EMPOWERMENT.
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201
et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 230 (as added
by section 103 of this Act) the following new section:
``SEC. 231. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF
OFFENSIVE MATERIAL; FCC CONTENT AND ECONOMIC
REGULATION OF COMPUTER SERVICES PROHIBITED.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
``(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other
interactive computer services available to individual
Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the
availability of educational and informational resources to
our citizens.
``(2) These services offer users a great degree of control
over the information that they receive, as well as the
potential for even greater control in the future as
technology develops.
``(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services
offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,
unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad
avenues for intellectual activity.
``(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services
have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a
minimum of government regulation.
``(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive
media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and
entertainment services.
``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
``(1) promote the continued development of the Internet and
other interactive computer services and other interactive
media;
``(2) preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
computer services, unfettered by State or Federal regulation;
``(3) encourage the development of technologies which
maximize user control over the information received by
individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and
other interactive computer services;
``(4) remove disincentives for the development and
utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that
empower parents to restrict their children's access to
objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
``(5) ensure vigorous enforcement of criminal laws to deter
and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment
by means of computer.
``(c) Protection for `Good Samaritan' Blocking and
Screening of Offensive Material.--No provider or user of
interactive computer services shall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of any information provided by an
information content provider. No provider or user of
interactive computer services shall be held liable on account
of--
``(1) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to
restrict access to 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
``(2) any action taken to make available to information
content providers or others the technical means to restrict
access to material described in paragraph (1).
``(d) FCC Regulation of the Internet and Other Interactive
Computer Services Prohibited.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to grant any jurisdiction or authority to the
Commission with respect to content or other regulation of the
Internet or other interactive computer services.
``(e) Effect on Other Laws.--
``(1) No effect on criminal law.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223
of this Act, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110
(relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18,
United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute.
``(2) No effect on intellectual property law.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law
pertaining to intellectual property.
``(3) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law
that is consistent with this section.
``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the
international computer network of both Federal and non-
Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
``(2) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive
computer service' means any information service that provides
computer access to multiple users via modem to a remote
computer server, including specifically a service that
provides access to the Internet.
``(3) Information content provider.--The term `information
content provider' means any person or entity that is
responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or
development of information provided by the Internet or any
other interactive computer service, including any person or
entity that creates or develops blocking or screening
software or other techniques to permit user control over
offensive material..
