SCREEN-L Archives

July 1995, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Jeremy Butler <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 27 Jul 1995 18:53:50 CST
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (171 lines)
Since the issue of pornography has been central to recent debates
within film studies on the representation of sexuality, I thought that
these comments from the Electronic Frontier Foundation might be
interesting.
 
--Jeremy
 
----------------------original message------------------------
 
They detail a recent Senate hearing about "Cyberporn."
 
EFFector Online Volume 08 No. 14      July 26, 1995       [log in to unmask]
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation        ISSN 1062-9424
 
* See http://www.eff.org/Alerts/ or ftp.eff.org, /pub/Alerts/ for more
information on current EFF activities and online activism alerts! *
 
Subject: "Cyberporn" Hearing and Exposure of Flaws in Rimm Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
 
A July 24 hearing chaired by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) on the
issues surrounding children's getting access to so-called "indecent"
material
on the Internet, did not go exactly as planned for the Senator.
 
In the absence of Sen. Grassley's planned star witness -- a self-styled
expert on online pornography named Martin Rimm -- ranking minority member
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) effectively controlled the hearing.
 
Grassley's attempt to center his hearing on Rimm's controversial
pornography
study had backfired. Though the Iowa Senator had termed it the "only
comprehensive study  dealing with pornography in cyberspace", now,
thanks to recent articles discussing the motives and ethics of its
undergraduate author, Grassley was forced to disavow it: "Now under
criticism, that study is under review as it should be."
 
EFF lawyer Mike Godwin had taken the lead weeks before in coordinating
efforts to challenge former CMU student Martin Rimm's "study" of
sexually oriented material online and Time magazine's decision to
promote it as the basis of a cover story on "cyberporn." Time has been
widely criticized for promoting the study without allowing any prior
critical review of it by independent experts.
 
Working with EFF interns Beth Noveck and Ben Manevitz, Godwin had arranged
for copies of the study to get into the hands of reporters and academics
across the country. This in turn had generated press coverage that led both
to the discrediting of the Rimm study (which is riddled with methodological
flaws and unsupportable conclusions) and to Time magazine's seemingly
unprecedented disavowal of its own cover story in a followup article
only three weeks later..
 
"The Rimm affair shows the potential of the Net for both political action
and
academic inquiry," Godwin said. "A decade ago, the study and its author
might have been accepted without question for months, continuing to distort
public-policy debates about regulation of the Net." Godwin sought
evaluations of the Rimm study from professors Donna Hoffman of Vanderbilt
and Jim Thomas of Northern Illinois University, as well of from pioneer
Internet researcher Brian Reid of DEC. He also helped ensure that the
first critique of the Rimm study, from EFF Policy Fellow David Post, a
professor at Georgetown University Law Center, was quickly and widely
circulated. In subsequent weeks, Godwin became a clearinghouse of
 
information about the so'called "CMU study" and its controversial author.
 
It is widely believed that the critical response to the Rimm article is
what led to Rimm's removal last week from the witness list for the
July 24 hearing sponsored by Sen. Grassley, who is sponsoring legislation
purportedly aimed at protecting children from so-called "indecent"
content online.
 
At the hearing, Sen. Leahy commented that, "he [Rimm] got disinvited when
the study that everyone embraced as gospel was a little bit less than
that. I would expect any time now to see _Time_ say that even great media
can be conned." In point of fact, _Time_ Senior Editor Philip Elmer-Dewitt
has essentially done so, in public forums on the WELL, the online
service where much of the dirt on the Rimm study was unearthed and examine.
 
"The voice you didn't hear at that hearing," Godwin later said, "was that
of
would-be star witness Martin Rimm, who may have hoped his study would
establish him as the national expert in online pornography."  Once Rimm
and his questionable study were discredited, Godwin said, "the hearing
lost a lot of drama, but it gained a lot of balance."
 
There was still some drama, however.  Two women, one a minor, testified
that they had been stalked online, and anti-porn lobbyists demanded
legislation to "fix" the online porn problem.  Sen. Leahy's questioning,
however, revealed that the problems are already covered by local, state
and federal law. Leahy concluded, of course, that the problem was one of
law enforcement resources, not any imaginary gaping holes in the law
itself.
 
Sen. Leahy was also had critical words for the majority of his
colleagues: "The Senate went in willy-nilly and passed this legislation
[the similar Exon/Gorton Comm. Decency Act]. Most senators who voted
wouldn't
have the foggiest idea of how to get on the Internet."
 
In his turn, journalist Barry Crimmins noted, for whatever reason, that
he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and warned that America Online,
the popular online service, is a den of iniquity: "I am here to tell the
American people that not only are their children unsafe on America
Online, their children are unsafe because of it."  This may have been
just a bit too much for even those Senators ready to believe in Internet
horror stories.  Grassley himself tried to cut Crimmins off to no avail.
 
These antics do not appear to have been enough, fortunately, to turn this
hearing into a media circus, or a censors' feeding frenzy, unlike the
recent hearing on "violent" materials on the Internet.
 
By and large, sensible testimony ruled the day. Jerry Berman, representing
the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Interactive Working
Group (a coaltion of non-profit and industry organizations, including
EFF and many others), delivered solid oral testimony, showing the Grassley
anti-porn bill to be an unconstitutional attempt to ban protected speech.
EFF Staff Counsel Mike Godwin submitted written testimony, which appears
below.
 
Also combatting hysterical testimony from anti-porn group Enough is
Enough were Michael Hart of the Project Gutenberg electronic library, AOL's
general counsel, and the exec. dir. of the Recreational Software Advisory
Council.
 
Several important ideas were aired without serious challenge in the
hearing,
mostly by Sen. Leahy and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin):
 
  * The Exon and Grassley legislation is inconsistent with the current
    Congress' and Administration's expressed goal of "keeping government
    off our backs"
  * The legislation is unlikely to solve the problems they purport to solve
  * The right and responsibility to decide what is and is not appropriate
 
    for a child lies with that child's parents
  * Current law already suffiently covers this area
  * Software tools and special services will enable individuals to "filter"
    online content for themselves and their children.
  * These censorship bills fail to distinguish between obscenity, which
    is illegal (though defined different in different jurisdictions), and
    indecency, which is constitutionally protected and subject to
regulatory
    control only under specific and very narrowly defined circumstances.
  * The legislation would chill speech not only directly, in attacking
    indecency, but indirectly by, in effect, requiring online services
    such as Netcom, the WELL, AOL or local BBSs, to become full-time
    censors, and forcing them to censor anything that *might* conceivably
    be indecent. Otherwise, they would be in grave danger of prosecution.
 
Sen. Exon attempted to rebuff civil libertarians' concerns by claiming
that he is being "viciously attacked", and by repeating tired arguments
that such legislation will "protect children."  However, we think reason
finally prevailed in this debate, and that the time is right to push
forward.  Please see the "What You Can Do" section of this newsletter.
 
[Thanks to Declan McCullagh for comparing his notes from the hearing with
ours.]
 
------------------------------
=====================================================================
 Jeremy Butler   *  [log in to unmask]   *  [log in to unmask]
      SCREENsite -- a Film/TV-studies site on the World Wide Web:
                http://www.sa.ua.edu/TCF/welcome.htm
 Telecommunication & Film Dept. * University of Alabama * Tuscaloosa
=====================================================================
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2