STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON
CYBERPORN AND CHILDREN: THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM, THE STATE 
OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION 

July 24, 1995

The issue we are discussing today is of great concern to me, not simply 
because I am a member of this Committee, but because I am a parent who 
is concerned about the welfare of my children as they use the Internet. 
I am also a parent who is enthusiastic about the positive changes and 
opportunities new forms of communications technology can offer to my 
children.

Interactive computer networks have clearly changed the way Americans, 
and indeed people throughout the world, communicate with one another. 
While individuals carry on conversations in cyberspace much like they do 
over traditional telephones, the use of the Internet goes far beyond 
that characteristic.

* On the Internet, one can act as a publisher and a writer 
  simultaneously by posting their works on various bulletin boards, 
   newsgroups, and on a World Wide Web page.

* One can search out just about any information they wish without 
  leaving their home. Students can access books and other research 
  materials simply by sitting at a personal computer properly outfitted 
  for Internet access. There is a wide range of literature available 
  through the Internet, and with efforts such as Project Guttenberg, 
  which we'll learn more about today, there will soon be many more books 
  available on-line. 

* Individuals can participate in political, academic and scientific 
  forums without being an expert in a particular field. 

* Entrepreneurs can market and sell their products simply by 
  establishing their own home page on the World Wide Web. 

* And now, people throughout the United States will be able to 
  participate in Senate Committee hearings through the Internet. 
  Committees will not be limited to hearing the comments and opinions of 
  those who are part of more organized coalitions and who can afford to 
  make the trip to Washington D.C. The U.S. Senate, more than ever 
  before, has the opportunity to have true grass roots participation in 
  the political process through the Internet. That is an incredibly 
  positive development for this country and emphasizes the potential of 
  decentralized interactive communications networks.

In short, this new world of communications is virtually open to anyone 
with access to a computer with a modem and an Internet connection and 
who is also willing to take a little time to learn how to retrieve all 
the types of information out there.

In fact, there are a number of discussion groups on the Internet 
debating the very issue we are addressing today in this hearing. Those 
on-line debates are very heated, but they provide a positive outlet for 
the exchange of ideas.

While it is doubtful that, at least in the near term, interactive 
computer networks will completely replace more traditional forms of 
communications, it is clear that they have found at a minimum a lasting 
place within our society. The potential of this technology is virtually 
without bound.

However, with these new opportunities come new challenges -- the most 
important of those protecting our children as they use the Internet to 
communicate with others. As tragic as it may be, there are those in this 
country who will try to harm our children, either for profit for even 
more perverse reasons. Unfortunately those individuals, who prey off the 
vulnerability and innocence of children will use whatever means they can 
to commit their crimes, including communications technologies. 

In trying to protect our children, we must recognize the Internet for 
what it is, simply a new way of communicating. My concern in recent 
months, as I have participated in this debate, is that the discussion 
has become so sensationalized that we may fail to react appropriately in 
areas where on- line dangers actually exist. I don't want to see this 
Congress respond to existing problems by creating new legal and 
constitutional dilemmas. 

That is what I believe happened when we passed telecommunications 
legislation last month. Members of the Senate reacted as any parent 
would when they were confronted with the "blue binder" filled with 
pornography downloaded from the Internet. What members weren't told was 
where the graphics and text came from --whether from public on-line chat 
groups or for-pay adult bulletin boards -- and how difficult they were 
to access. Senators reacted as most of us would in that situation, they 
voted for an amendment they thought penalized pornographers and sexual 
predators and which purported to protect children. 

In my opinion, that legislation duplicated existing prohibitions for on-
line obscenity and created new restrictions on speech which is protected 
by the First Amendment.

In a well-intentioned attempt to protect children, we trampled on one of 
the most fundamental rights we have in this country -- to speak freely 
and without reservation independent of prevailing views of what is 
offensive and unconstrained by a frequently changing political 
environment.

I am concerned that the Senate will take further legislative steps that 
will stifle the growth of interactive communications technology and 
ultimately censor communications on the Internet while not truly solving 
the problem.

I think we need to look very carefully at the following questions: 

Where do the fundamental problems exist with abuse of the Internet --on 
newsgroups, on for-pay bulletin boards, within electronic mail, or 
elsewhere?

What is the nature of the problem -- sexual predation, obscenity, 
pornography, indecency, profanity, or harassment? 

What laws -- federal, state and local -- exist currently to address 
those problems?

And finally, where do those laws fall short of protecting our children? 

It is incumbent upon Congress to restore some rationality to the debate 
by trying to answer these questions. In addition, those participating in 
this debate need to stop using terms with very different meanings 
interchangeably, such as obscenity, pornography and indecency. We must 
learn how interactive communications systems differ structurally from 
existing types of communications technologies as well as how they are 
similar. Supreme Court decisions on content regulation and the First 
Amendment have always weighed heavily on the nature of the medium in 
question.

Hopefully, we will have some of these questioned answered in today's 
hearing. However, I want to caution my colleagues that one hearing alone 
cannot adequately address the complexities of this issue nor will it 
lead us to the proper solution without further study. 

I strongly urge my colleagues to exercise caution and restraint when 
considering legislative attempts to regulate free speech. We must look 
for solutions that empower parents to exercise more control over the 
types of information their children receive over computer networks. 
Free- market remedies, where they are possible, are almost always 
preferable to heavy handed content regulation and criminal penalties 
imposed by the federal government.

I look forward to learning more about all of these issues from our 
witnesses, and I thank them from participating in this hearing.