ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, December 2, 1995 TAG: 9512040039
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: BOSTON
SOURCE: CAROLYN THOMPSON ASSOCIATED PRESS
EFFORT TO PROTECT subscribers from porn upset cancer survivor groups.
The four-letter words and the racial epithets were easy. There was wide agreement that America Online should ban them from cyberspace.
But the word ``breast''? That, too, got axed in the effort to clean up the net, until the country's largest on-line commercial computer service reversed itself, having never considered the word a key to vital discussions of cancer among women.
America Online began purging the word breast last week in accordance with regulations prohibiting ``use of obscene or vulgar language.''
But in a statement Friday, the company said the ban was an error. The company said its service agreement doesn't specify what words are considered vulgar, but ``body parts that might be named in medical diagnoses do not fall under the category of offensive on-line communication.''
With a debate flaring in Congress over whether to hold on-line services responsible for knowingly transmitting pornography to children or allowing their systems to be used as a conduit for pornographic material, some in the industry say the AOL ``breast'' controversy may be a harbinger of things to come as services rush to censor themselves, hoping that Congress thus won't see a need to do it.
With such fears of harsh congressional censorship in the air, The New York Times reported in today's editions that some civil liberties groups and on-line services have agreed to support a proposal to jail people who transmit smut by computer.
The proposal is being drafted by Rep. Rick White, R-Wash., as a compromise to a telecommunication bill that has passed the Senate but not the House, the Times said.
White's proposal would impose prison sentences and fines on people who transmit pornography that is deemed harmful to children and without redeeming literary or social value. However, it would also offer added protection to on-line services that make good-faith efforts to keep pornography out of the reach of children.
On-line service providers have not met formally to vote on the proposal, but there is a general consensus among them to support it, the Times said.
If legislation like that passed by the Senate becomes law, people can expect more such instances as the breast controversy, said Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Electronics Frontier Foundation, an Internet civil liberties group.
``It won't just be breast cancer survivors who are being censored, it'll be people who've suffered sexual abuse, maybe AIDS patients, people engaged in legitimate sex education discussions, people discussing sexual content in art and literature.''
AOL's breast ban touched off several days of on-line protests by breast cancer patients.
``This is outrageous and potentially life-threatening,'' wrote a woman on AOL's breast cancer bulletin board.
``Give us a break! Must we have `hooter cancer survivors?''' wrote Mary Marvin, according to a report in The Boston Globe. Another woman wondered ``if they've purged the penile cancer files, too.''
``I don't have any problem with AOL trying to keep dirty words off their service,'' said Barbara LeStage, a member of the American Cancer Society's executive committee. ``But I don't consider `breast' to be a dirty word. If you have people who see it as dirty, for whatever reason, rather than as an everyday term, then this is going to continue to happen.''
Although America Online would not discuss the issue beyond the statement, an attorney for the company said in March that AOL had dozens of ``cybercops'' who monitor its public chat rooms.
The company also said it offers free technology to let parents block indecent material.
Another on-line service, Prodigy, has used a scanner programmed with 30 to 50 objectionable words since 1992 to weed out indecent material.
The scanner returns notes containing any of the racial slurs and other foul words to the sender without ever having been read by another person.
Prodigy spokesman Brian Ek said that of all the media children can get today, including adult magazines in supermarkets and R-rated movies, on-line services in the home are among the easiest for parents to monitor.
``If the approach that is taken by Congress is one that makes the on-line operators liable even if they are pass-throughs ... the smaller operators will be forced out of business,'' he said.
Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington public-interest group, pointed out a recent CompuServe dilemma.
The service restricted the use of proper names out of concern for libel or slander. That left coin traders unable to offer such things as Roosevelt dimes. The word Roosevelt was removed.
``It's impossible to please everyone,'' he said.
,.hAmerica Online Reverses Ban On Use Of Word `Breast'|
Eds: SUBS 8th graf, ``But if legislation ... '' with 5 new grafs to UPDATE with on-line services reportedly agreeing to compromise legislation to restrict pornography. Pick up 9th pvs, ``I think ... ''| |By CAROLYN THOMPSON| |Associated Press Writer| BOSTON (AP) - The four-letter words and the racial epithets were easy. There was wide agreement that America Online should ban them from cyberspace.
But the word ``breast?'' That, too, got axed in the effort to clean up the net, until the country's largest on-line commercial computer service reversed itself, having never considered the word a key to vital discussions of cancer among women.
America Online began purging the word breast last week in accordance with regulations prohibiting ``use of obscene or vulgar language.''
But in a statement Friday, the company said the ban was an error. The company said its service agreement doesn't specify what words are considered vulgar, but ``body parts that might be named in medical diagnoses do not fall under the category of offensive on-line communication.''
With a debate flaring in Congress over whether to hold on-line services responsible for knowingly transmitting pornography to children or allowing their systems to be used as a conduit for pornographic material, some in the industry say the AOL ``breast'' controversy may be a harbinger of things to come as services rush to censor themselves hoping that Congress thus won't see a need to do it.
``I think they're doing it out of fear,'' said Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Electronics Frontier Foundation, formed five years ago as an Internet civil liberties group.
``There are a lot of congressmen who think that America Online and other on-line systems are hotbeds of immoral behavior,'' he said.
With such fears of harsh congressional censorship in the air, The New York Times reported in Saturday editions that some civil liberties groups and on-line services have agreed to support a proposal to jail people who transmit smut by computer.
The proposal is being drafted by Rep. Rick White, R-Wash., as a compromise to a telecommunications bill that has already passed the Senate but not the House of Representatives, the Times said.
White's proposal would impose prison sentences and fines on people who transmit pornography that is deemed harmful to children and without redeeming literary or social value. However, it would also offer added protection to on-line services that make good-faith efforts to keep pornography out of the reach of children.
On-line service providers have not met formally to vote on the proposal but there is a general consensus among them to support it, the Times said.
If legislation like that passed by the Senate becomes law, Godwin said people can expect more such instances as the breast controversy.
``I think this incident illustrates precisely what kinds of things will happen,'' Godwin said.
``It won't just be breast cancer survivors who are being censored, it'll be people who've suffered sexual abuse, maybe AIDS patients, people engaged in legitimate sex education discussions, people discussing sexual content in art and literature. They'll all be censored because the on-line service providers will be compelled to impose these overbroad content restrictions,'' he said.
AOL's breast ban touched off several days of on-line protests by breast cancer patients.
``This is outrageous and potentially life-threatening,'' wrote a woman who uses the screen name Renna S. to fellow users of AOL's breast cancer bulletin board.
``Give us a break! Must we have `hooter cancer survivors?''' wrote Mary Marvin, according to a report in The Boston Globe. Another woman wondered ``if they've purged the penile cancer files, too.''
``I don't have any problem with AOL trying to keep dirty words off their service,'' said Barbara LeStage, a member of the American Cancer Society's executive committee.
``But I don't consider `breast' to be a dirty word. If you have people who see it as dirty, for whatever reason, rather than as an everyday term, then this is going to continue to happen,'' she said.
Although America Online would not discuss the issue beyond the statement, an attorney for the company testified against the telecommunications legislation in March, saying AOL had dozens of ``cybercops'' who monitor its public chat rooms.
The company also said it offers free technology to let parents block indecent material.
Another on-line service, Prodigy, also favors self-regulation over government regulation. Spokeswoman Carol Wallace said it has used a scanner programmed with 30 to 50 objectionable words since 1992 to weed out indecent material.
The scanner returns notes containing any of the racial slurs and other foul words to the sender without ever having been read by another person, Wallace said.
Prodigy spokesman Brian Ek said that of all the media children can get today, including adult magazines in supermarkets and R-rated movies, on-line services in the home are among the easiest for parents to monitor.
``If the approach that is taken by Congress is one that makes the on-line operators liable even if they are pass-throughs ... the smaller operators will be forced out of business,'' he said.
Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington public-interest group, pointed out a recent CompuServe dilemma.
The service restricted the use of proper names out of concern for libel or slander. That left coin traders unable to offer such things as Roosevelt dimes. The word Roosevelt was removed.
``It's impossible to please everyone,'' he said.
LENGTH: Long : 181 linesby CNB