New Telecom Law Challenged Before Ink Dries

President Clinton on Wednesday signed into law a bill expected to revolutionize the nation’s communications industry, but demonstrations and a lawsuit served notice that its new curbs on online computer speech will be hotly disputed.

In a ceremony at the Library of Congress, Clinton declared that “our laws will catch up with our future” as the measure overhauls industry rules that have prevailed for 62 years. The law--one of the most far-reaching enacted in Clinton’s term--removes monopoly protections so that telephone companies, cable and other concerns can compete in one another’s markets.

The bill’s bipartisan advocates have contended that by hastening competition it will spur economic growth. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) pronounced the measure “a jobs bill and a knowledge bill.”

Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), the chief Senate sponsor of the measure, predicted that the signing will set off an explosion of new devices and new investment that will be “like the gun going off in the Oklahoma land rush.”

Critics have contended that the bill’s deregulation could raise phone and cable TV rates--and not just in the short term. And some experts have argued that instead of bringing competition among many firms, the bill might instead allow industry dominance by a small number of huge firms, keeping prices relatively high.

Reaction was also divided on the law’s groundbreaking provision to outlaw transmission of indecent and other sexually explicit materials to minors over computer networks. A coalition of civil liberties, human rights and writers groups filed suit Wednesday in Philadelphia seeking to block the law’s provisions.

They contended that the provisions, by making computer services and others liable for what appears in their format, are already beginning to “chill” free speech. The measure calls for fines of as much as $250,000 and jail terms of as much as five years for anyone who makes indecent material available to children in a public online forum.

“They’ve hidden behind the notion of protecting children, but this is truly a power grab for limiting the free speech of adults,” said Lori Fena, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. The group joined the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, the National Writers Union and the Critical Path AIDS project in filing a lawsuit in federal court in Philadelphia.

Some 1st Amendment experts have predicted that the courts will strike down the restrictions as overly broad because they would limit the speech of all Internet users in their effort to protect children.

The law bans displays in places that are accessible to minors--meaning much of the Internet-- material that is “patently offensive,” as measured by prevailing community standards.

Hundreds of computer users opposed to the restrictions registered their opposition Thursday by switching to black backgrounds on the sites they use on the popular World Wide Web Internet service.

A Justice Department official said the agency will hold off on prosecutions until the courts have clarified how the rules on indecent material will be applied. But he warned that online users will be held accountable from the date of the law’s signing and said that investigations will begin immediately.

Atty. Gen. Janet Reno acknowledged in a session with reporters that enforcement of rulings governing the Internet are a “new challenge for everybody in law enforcement,” adding that “I don’t have all the answers at this point.”

In a related court action, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and several other organizations are asking the court to overturn provisions of the law that apparently would block online dissemination of information related to abortion. Abortion rights activists have contended that the prohibitions here too are overly broad. And some legal experts have agreed with them.

Another hotly contested provision of the law calls for all television manufacturers to include in new sets a so-called V-chip that would enable parents to screen out programs identified as being inappropriate for children.

Clinton, an advocate of the chip, thanked Congress in his remarks “for reducing the chances that the hours spent in church or synagogue or in discussion around the dinner table about right and wrong . . . will not be undone by unthinking hours in front of the television set.”

Clinton also announced that he will meet with entertainment industry executives Feb. 29 to talk about his proposal that they create a voluntary rating system for television programs, much like those used in movies.

Even as Clinton signed the bill, seven lawmakers joined a media watchdog group in calling on network executives to clear the airwaves of adult content during the evening 8 to 9 p.m. time slot.

Times staff writer Ronald J. Ostrow contributed to this report.