Sources:
(#1) S.652 Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President)), TITLE V--OBSCENITY AND VIOLENCE, Subtitle A--Obscene, Harassing, and Wrongful Utilization of Telecommunications Facilities, SEC. 507. CLARIFICATION OF CURRENT LAWS REGARDING COMMUNICATION OF OBSCENE MATERIALS THROUGH THE USE OF COMPUTERS, 104th Congress, Second Session.
(#2) Press Release from the American Civil Liberties Union:
"Lawsuit Challenging Internet Indecency'
Provisions To be Filed As Soon As Clinton Signs Legislation;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 7, 1996
. . . Several plaintiffs, including the ACLU and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, are also seeking relief from the electronic "gag rule" version of the Comstock Law. The turn-of-the-century law, still on the books today in slightly modified form, penalizes anyone who uses the U.S. mails, telephone/fax lines -- and now, the Internet -- to receive or disseminate information on how to obtain or provide an abortion. Penalties include up to five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 for a first offense, increased by Congress in 1994 from $5,000."
(Click here for the full text of the above press release.)
(#3) Congressional Record,
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 652, TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
(House of Representatives - February 01, 1996), page H1157:
"MRS. LOWEY (Representative from New York):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the committee, and other members of the conference in
bringing this very important conference report to the floor today. However, I would
like to bring to your attention one section that is very troubling to me.
Section 507 amends the preexisting section of the Criminal Code (18 U.S.C. 1462) and applies it to the Internet. Now, it was my understanding that your intent behind adopting this provision was to place reasonable restrictions on obscenity and indecency on the Internet. I support this goal.
However, a section of this act may be construed to curb discussions about abortion. It seems to me this provision would certainly be unconstitutional."
After Mr. Hyde made remarks expressing that "discussion about abortion, both pro-life and pro-abortion rights, is protected by the first amendment guarantee of free speech," and "nothing in title V should be interpreted to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion," Mrs. Lowey went on to express her support for the bill ("Mr. Speaker, with that assurance, I feel comfortable supporting this bill, and I hope that my colleagues who were also concerned about this provision will now feel comfortable supporting this bill. I thank the gentleman for clarifying this point and for his hard work on this bill."), but her observation remains, nevertheless.