I voted against the Communications Decency Act, which was included in the telecommunications bill, because it was an outrageous disregard by this body of our duty to protect constitutional rights, specifically the first amendment. Now we have had a ringing thoughtful denunciation of that unconstitutional act by a 3-judge court in Pennsylvania. I commend particularly to Members the opinion by Judge Dalzell, where he points out how unwise it is to try to sensor the Internet. We have a problem. We began years ago, with regard to broadcasting, the notion that if speech was electronically communicated it got less first amendment protection than other speech. That was based on some technological factors involving the limitations of the spectrum. Today, as increasingly people communicate with each other through electronic means, we have carried over this notion that electronically communicated speech gets less first amendment protection than other speech. If we do not reverse that trend, if we do not recognize the wisdom of that 3-judge court, we will find ourselves in future years less protected by that precious right of free speech.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the Communications Decency Act and its implications for free speech rights.
Share
More from Barney Frank
This bill--and I will differ specifically with Mr. Labrador on this--empowers people to take my tax money and use it to do things and then exclude me and Jim from its benefit.
I know people in my district who have gone to jail for writing bad checks for $1,000 and yet these people are still walking around.
No one doubts that if a change in administration comes and the new President disagrees with the existing Director, he or she can be removed.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may not exercise any rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, or any other authority including any authority to order assessments over a motor vehicle dealer that is predominantly engaged in the sale…





