STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEAHY AT HEARING ON CYBERPORN AND CHILDREN: THE 
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM, THE STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE NEED FOR 
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION 
July 24, 1995

This is the very first congressional hearing held on the issue of 
regulating indecent and obscene material on the Internet and the problem 
of children's access to objectionable online material. That is correct, 
the first.

In spite of the action taken by the Senate Commerce Committee when it 
added the Communications Decency Act to its telecommunications bills 
last year and this, they held no investigative or legislative hearings 
into this important and complex matter. Indeed, when the Senate passed a 
restrictive version of the Exon-Coats Communications Decency Act on June 
14, over my objection and those of Senator Feingold, it did so without 
the benefit of hearings or anything approaching a thorough examination 
of the matter. I am old-fashioned enough to remember when we used to 
hold hearings first and pass legislation after--after we got the facts, 
had analyzed the problem and had worked with the Administration and the 
public to craft a legislative solution to the public's legitimate 
concerns.

With all the magazine articles, talk show babble, and furor that has 
surrounded this issue, I am glad the Judiciary Committee is holding this 
hearing in order to begin to set the record straight. I want to commend 
Chairman Hatch and Senator Grassley for convening this hearing and look 
forward to the testimony of our witnesses this afternoon. These are 
issues that greatly concern me: the future of the Internet; the best 
ways for parents to control their children's access to the Internet and 
to protect against inappropriate and offense materials; the appropriate 
role of law enforcement.

I had asked the Attorney General of the United States as well as a 
coalition of private and public interest groups known as the Interactive 
Working Group to look at these issues and provide recommendations on 
addressing the problem of children's access to objectionable online 
material in a constitutional and effective manner. I look forward to 
receiving the report of the Department of Justice as promptly as their 
study can be concluded.

Today the Interactive Working Group is releasing its report describing 
some of the technology available today to help parents supervise their 
children's activities on the Internet and protect them from 
objectionable online material. Some of this technology was demonstrated 
last week in a meeting hosted by Representative Cox, who will testify 
here today.

We are finding that software entrepreneurs and the vibrant forces of the 
free market are providing tools that can empower parents' to restrict 
their children's access to offensive material. We can address the 
problem of online pornography by empowering parents, and not the 
government, to screen children's computer activities. This is the best 
way to police the Internet without unduly restricting free speech or 
squelching the growth of this fantastic new communications medium. 

It is parents, not the government, who should decide what restrictions 
to place on their children's access to that which they consider 
objectionable: whether it is beer advertising, or fantastic card games 
that some parents believe promotes interest in the occult. Available 
blocking technology can make pornographic Usenet news groups or World 
Wide Web sites off-limits to children. Other commercially available 
products limit children's access to chat rooms, where they might be 
solicited, and limit children's ability to receive pornographic pictures 
through electronic mail. Yet other products allow parents to monitor 
their children's usage of the Internet. Interested organizations, like 
the Christian Coalition or Mothers against Drunk Driving, could provide 
parents that use blocking technology with lists of sites these groups 
consider inappropriate for children. 

On the other hand, government regulation will stifle this new industry. 
The Internet has been growing at an exponential rate and new uses for it 
are devised daily. Overly restrictive bans against indecency on the 
Internet will prove not only unconstitutional but will also hamper the 
growth of this new communications medium. 

The Internet does not function like a broadcast or a newspaper where a 
station manager or editor chooses which images or stories to send out in 
public. The Internet is like a combination of a great library and town 
square, where people can make available vast amounts of information or 
take part in free and open discussions on any topic. 

It has provided great opportunities for our disabled citizens and has 
enabled our children the ability to discuss issues with some of 
society's greatest minds. With this technology, I conduct electronic 
town meetings with Vermonters, post information about legislative 
activities, and hear back from Vermonters about what they think. 

To impose the government regulation of broadcasters to the Internet is 
inappropriate. Anyone with a computer and a modem can send something out 
on the Internet, but unlike a broadcaster, potential listeners must seek 
out this information and download it. 

Any legislative approach must take into consideration online users' 
privacy and free speech interests. If we grant too much power to online 
providers to screen for indecent material, public discourse and online 
content in cyberspace will be controlled by the providers and not the 
users of this fantastic resource. On the other hand, we want our laws 
should encourage and not discourage online providers from creating a 
safe environment for children.

Even worse would be discouraging online providers from allowing children 
onto their services altogether. If online providers are liable for any 
exposure of indecent material to children, people under the age of 
eighteen will be shut out of this technology or relegated by the 
government to sanitized "kids only" services that contain only a tiny 
fraction of the entire Internet. That would be the equivalent of 
limiting today's students to the childhood section of the library or 
locking them out completely. This is not how this country should face 
the increasingly competitive global marketplace of the 21st century. 

What are we doing if we discourage the Project Gutenberg from placing 
online the works of Charles Dickens, Geoffrey Chaucer or D.H. Lawrence 
for fear of prosecution because someone, somewhere on the Internet, 
might find the works indecent? Would the Internet still be the great 
electronic library and setting for open discussion it now promises? 

Parents know their children better than any government official, and are 
in the best position to know the sort of online material to which their 
children may be exposed.

Finally, we must recognize that existing laws and what they provide by 
way of protection. Our criminal laws already prohibit the sale or 
distribution over computer networks of obscene material. We already 
impose criminal liability for transmitting any threatening message over 
computer networks. We already proscribe the solicitation of minors over 
computers for any sexual activity, and illegal luring of minors into 
sexual activity through computer conversations. Indeed, a only a few 
months ago under Senator Grassley's leadership we increased the 
penalties for many of these offenses. We need to work with law 
enforcement to make sure they have the resources and training to track 
down computer criminals. 

I look forward to working with all members of the Committee as we move 
forward on these important matters.