Friday, March 29, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

Bill and bills go on-line

By Daily Bruin Staff

April 16, 1995 9:00 p.m.

Bill and bills go on-line

Senator proposes regulation; critics protest cyber-spy

By Alisa Ulferts

Special to The Bruin

What cynics have said for years may actually be true: government
is a virtual thing.

With new sites popping up on the Internet every month, the U.S.
government has gone on-line. Cyber-citizens can search for bills,
e-mail their congressman or take a virtual tour of the White
House.

Finally.

While critics may wonder why it took the government so long to
follow the private sector on-line ­ the Republican home page
was established less than two weeks ago ­ the Internet
actually began as a government project in the ’60s when the defense
department decided to decentralize its computer system.

More than two decades later 35 million users generate several
billion e-mail messages each month. Now, the Internet’s potential
as a cyber-soapbox has caused a partisan struggle for domination of
the net reminiscent of the race for space between the United States
and Russia 30 years ago.

"(Newt Gingrich) is very interested in expanding the access of
all people to the political and legislative information on the
Internet," said Robert George, staff writer for the Speaker of the
House.

George added that Gingrich has worked closely with the Library
of Congress to put all legislative information on THOMAS, the
library’s legislative searching tool. Already the system has
generated millions of inquiries since it opened in January, George
said.

April 6 saw the birth of the Republican home page with the
speaker’s address to the nation. Despite the initial Democratic
advantage of having the only partisan home page, Republicans are
making gains in putting other speeches and Republican positions on
the Internet, George said.

Democrats disagree. "There are many more Democrat pages than
Republican pages (on the Internet)," countered David Lytel, an
information infrastructure specialist for the White House.

Lytel dismissed claims that the Internet, whose domination is
informally sought by both sides, could replace representational
democracy or that absence of the media interpretation of government
information would allow the government to deceive the
citizenry.

"People still want interpretation," from the media, Lytel said,
but added that the information currently put on-line, such as
government documents, speeches and real tours of the White House
have always been available to the public ­ just not
electronically.

"It can only make for a more informed citizenry," Lytel said.
The Internet is just a public forum no different from a community
calling its members together for a debate. In other words, he
added, democracy.

"Democracy is people talking to other people ­ most
political communication takes place without the government," Lytel
said.

But if democracy is people talking to people then it may be
threatened, charge critics opposed to what they call congressional
efforts to censor the net.

Last month, the Senate Commerce Committee passed the
Communications Decency Act, which prohibits "communication which is
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent." Critics say the
bill, sponsored by Sen. Jim Exon, D-Nebraska, unconstitutionally
restricts free speech ­ a charge Exon denies.

"The Communications Decency Act … extends to computer users
the same protection that has existed for years for telephone
users," Exon said in a statement. "The fear, annoyance and harm
engendered by obscene or harassing messages over a computer are as
real as those over the telephone," he added.

Certainly harassing messages abound on the Internet, which is
characterized as a lawless society where, if e-mail were loaded,
one could get shot for snoring too loud. "Flaming" ­ issuing a
nasty and often profane response to another Internet user ­ is
an accepted and even encouraged part of netiquette.

But critics of Exon’s bill say it punishes consenting adults for
having an electronic conversation on the topic of their choice.

"The Internet should be treated with First Amendment
protection," said Marc Rottenberg, chair of a Washington based
computer group lobbying against Exon’s bill.

Rottenburg said the bill "drives everyone down to the level of
an educated sixth grader. That’s a mistake ­ what is
appropriate for a sixth grader isn’t appropriate for everyone."

Exon defended his bill, saying it "has been the object of a huge
disinformation campaign.

"The legislation does not make innocent ‘carriers’ of electronic
messages liable for inappropriate messages, nor does it by any
stretch of the imagination require system operators to ‘eavesdrop’
on electronic messages," Exon said.

Rather, he said, the purpose was to make areas of the Internet
which anyone can access, such as home pages on the World Wide Web,
safe for children.

"In addition to pornography and electronic breaking and
entering, there have been cases of computer stalking and
inappropriate contact with children," Exon said.

Passed as an amendment to overall telecommunication reform
legislation, the Exon bill must now face the Senate floor.
Concerned cyber-students can e-mail their senators with their view
of the bill ­ addresses are available on the Internet.
However, Bruins should be warned:

"E-mail scares the hell out of members of Congress," said Lytel.
"Unless people who e-mail include their (U.S. postal) address,
(congressmen) have no way of knowing whether the person is in their
constituency."

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts