\documentstyle[fullpage,doublespace]{article}
\title{On the Cox/Wyden Amendment}
\author{Greg Hudson}
\begin{document}
\maketitle

I would ``vote for'' the Cox/Wyden amendment; that is, if I were on
the conference committee I would favor the Cox/Wyden amendment over
the Exon/Coats amendment to the Senate version of the bill.  It's one
of the few Internet-related legislative acts I approve of (although I
found nothing to object to in the proposed update to the CFAA in
S.982).  I find it encouraging that the House recognizes that the
FCC's original purpose (to regulate the limited bandwidth of the
airwaves) does not give it a mandate to regulate content on the
Internet.

One case this amendment would have affected is the pre-trial decision
to allow Prodigy to be sued for libel because Prodigy filters content.
(That case isn't in the course archives.)  By removing disincentives
to ``provide blocking and screening technologies'' for online
services, the Cox/Wyden amendment would presumably allow Prodigy to
filter content without achieving the unwanted status of publisher with
regard to libel laws.  I don't see how this amendment directly affects
any of the cases in the course archives, since none of those cases
seem to involve FCC regulation of the Internet.  The general climate
might have been different in Operation Sun Devil (especially the Steve
Jackson raids) if online services were treated as having strong First
Amendment protections, and this may be a step in that direction.

\end{document}

