|
|
May 3, 1996
IS CONGRESS READY TO "REGULATE" ACCESS TO THE NET? ASK REPUBLICAN RICK WHITE - CO-FOUNDER OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INTERNET CAUCUS.
Congress has formed a bi-partisan, informal committee - the Congressional Internet Caucus - to help educate members about the Net. The caucus will encourage members to create their own Web sites and to establish e-mail links for constituents. The reason: when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1995, it contained provisions for Congress to regulate the transmission of indecent materials over the Internet.
If you're caught transmitting pornography to minors, it's a federal offense. And now that Congress is getting serious about using the Internet, it'll have a better understanding of what's on it.
Many users are angered by government's attempt to regulate this new media, and wonder if, in fact, regulation is even possible. (How can anyone really control a structure as big as the Internet? And won't First Amendment rights be violated?)
Rick White, a freshman Republican from Washington, who co-founded the Internet Caucus, worked during the formation of the Telecommunications Act to protect "online rights," while also promoting technologies to prevent access by minors of indecent material. Parts of his Internet Initiative were adopted into the final bill.
Congressman White formed the Congressional Internet Caucus last month along with Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Larry Pressler (R-SD), and Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA).
Rick White answers your questions about the Internet Caucus, its goals and his past work concerning the Net.
A question from Mike Higgins of Saratoga, NY:
What, specifically, do you plan on doing in your caucus to promote interest in the Internet within Congress? Won't it take proof that the people in the member's district are using the Internet to spark real interest? I mean even in cyberspace, isn't all politics still local?
Congressman White responds:
Thanks for your questions.
The Internet Caucus has two goals: 1) to do a better job of educating members of Congress about the Internet and 2) to encourage more members to go online.
One idea we have is to develop a road show where caucus members meet one on one with other members to show them what the Internet is all about. I plan on taking my lap-top to Henry Hyde, for example, and finding out what his hobbies are. If he is interested in fly fishing, I can show him how easy it is to search the Net to find information sites on fly fishing. The wonderful thing about the Internet is that it will pretty much sell itself and members will be able to see what a really powerful new information tool it is.
Internet from constituents will always be the best motivation for members of Congress, and I hope members get lots of pressure from the Net community. But even a little education is helpful. If we can spend 10 minutes with a member and just introduce him or her to the Internet, I think that's progress.
___________________________________
A question from Eric Dahlstrom of Hampton, VA:
Last December you said [in a PoliticsUSA forum]: "The government hasn't solved this problem and if you want to protect your own children from having access to this material, then you're going to have to have some sort of screening software on your own computer. It's the only way, because no matter how much we criminalize it, it's still going to be available from Amsterdam." If screening software is the answer - and allows the individual to retain control, then why get government involved? In such a grey area, it is hard to make black and white distinctions - let alone to try to define a national border in cyberspace.
Congressman White responds:
I would prefer not to get the government involved, and if I were king that is how I would do it. Unfortunately, there are 535 members of Congress and a president who do not fully agree with that approach. That is the battle we are going to have to fight over the next few years.
The great thing about the Internet is that it is entirely consistent with the approach that the founders of our country took when they adopted the Constitution. It's a marketplace of ideas as complimented by the First Amendment.
I hope that as we continue to educate members of Congress about the Internet, they will come up with the same conclusion that I have and will let the Internet flourish from private sector innovation.
___________________________________
A question from Charlotte Walsh of Charleston, WV:
How influential do you think the Internet will become in the future of campaigning? I know you worked with "Rock the Vote" to establish voter registration online, but isn't the Internet still seen by many as just entertainment?
Congressman White responds:
I think that the Internet will become very useful in creating a more open democracy -- not just campaigning. The more we can do to make Congress open and accessible -- by offering public e-mails and posting information on Web sites -- the more people will know about and feel a part of their government.
The Internet may have first been seen as a fad, but I think people are beginning to realize that it is a valuable research tool and an effective way to communicate. As a member of Congress, I use the Internet all the time to get news and information, find out what is going on in my district, and research topics of interest. It has become a very powerful new medium.
___________________________________
A question from Ralph E. Brewer of Linton, IN:
No one, not Congress, not some well intentioned group of busy bodies ever had to step in and "protect" my son from the evils of the Internet. The problems as I see lies with the parents of children who have Net access. If the parent can't find the time or refuse to get with the times (to understand what their children are doing) then those parents are in need of education. Please comment.
Congressman White responds:
I agree.
I have four young children between the ages of 4 and 12 who spend a considerable amount of time on the Net. My wife and I spend a lot of time discussing what they can and can't have access to. But this is a discussion I want to have with my wife, not a federal bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.
___________________________________
A question from Conor O'Reilly of Hyattsville, MD:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people seem so comfortable about posting things on the Net of a certain nature is that there is a pervasive feeling (or if desired, reality) of anonymity. Do you think it's possible to do anything productive without dealing with this question of anonymity? If you do think it's a roadblock, how would you deal with it?
My second question is, has there been enough consideration of the consequences that will result, if there is a curtailment of the freedom of people who post on the Internet?
Congressman White responds:
The Internet is a lot like some things we already know about. The Internet is like a market square where people are free to give and exchange information. The Internet is like a library where we pretty much have the ability to go in and get information. And, the Internet is like a post office where we can send and receive information. There is quite a bit of anonymity even in this institution. The fact is we don't regulate any of these too much and we should apply that same philosophy to the Internet.
I think that it is possible to be productive even with the anonymity factor. Most of the information on the Net is identified with an individual or a group, and as usage on the Net increases, I think that the anonymity will be less of an issue.
___________________________________
A question from Sheila Potter of Seattle, WA:
The "Era of Big Government is Over." This seems to be the case everywhere except the Internet. Why are so many in Congress rushing to create a new bureaucracy to regulate this new media?
Congressman White responds:
The first intent of the government is always to regulate, especially when you're dealing with something as exciting and significant as the Internet. It takes constant vigilance to fight that intent.
I am a freshman member who has never served in public office before. I came to Congress in order to reduce the size and cost of the federal bureaucracy. In our effort to decentralize the federal government it is unfortunate that some are trying to centralize the Internet.
As I have said in the answers above, I have fought to keep the federal government from regulating the Internet. The last thing we need is one more federal bureaucracy trying to figure out what the future of the Internet should be. No matter how many Rhodes Scholars you have in the government -- the federal government is never going to be smart enough, or quick enough, to be on the cutting edge of technology. That is better left to the private sector.
___________________________________
Additional Questions:
Mark Swanson of Greenville, SC
Government interference in the Internet
I think that the encouragement of coding/marking of Internet material so that PARENTS (and only parents) can regulate their household intake of material is a good idea.
Why doesn't the congress stay out of the way of the growing Internet until the above mentioned codes are developed??
You could even encourage their development, but why harm the rest of the Internet community in the meantime?
___________________________________
Alan Thornton of Stone Mountain, GA
Regulation of the Internet
The Internet is not broken. Please do not presume that the government needs to fix it. Other problems are far more pressing. Government should only do what cannot be doneby individuals.
I imagine that the only reason that the government is interested in the Internet is to find a way to regualte it the way they do the airwaves. Oh boy, more public serivce announcemets and early warning system announcements.Then, as someone said, it may have the simplicity of the IRS and the efficiency of the postal service.
___________________________________
James Lee of Bloomington, IN
Internet Censorship
If this were communist China, representative democracy depicted on the Internet would be considered harmful to children. Which begs the question, how does a government or service provider enact its newfound role of parent without infringing on the free speech of adults?
Restricting the content of any communication will invariably support the status quo. If this were a perfect world, that might be fine. However, this world is not as good as it can be yet.
Why do the power elite ignore the most effective and respectable means for protecting children--offering parents the technology, and respecting their discretion, to block their children's access to material they find offensive? Do they fear that parents might make choices that threaten the elite's beliefs?
Sincerely,
James Daniel Lee
___________________________________
Norman Montiegel of Honolulu, Hawaii
Internet access for Congress
It is about time Congress begins to use the Internet. In addition to e-mail as a way to keep in touch with the folks back home, members of Congress would be well served if their staff had access to the Internet to do research. Because the Internet is not available to the staff personel we the taxpayers are likewise not well served because of this lack of informed members of Congress. Open up the Net to your staff so they can do the job you hired them to do first class.
Click to see a Forum Menu.
 |
   
|
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
