Netizens Protection Act of 1997
H.R. 1748
Introduced by Representative Christopher H. Smith on May 22, 1997
105th Congress
1st SESSIONH.R. 1748
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr Smith of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.
A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ban the transmission of unsolicited advertisements by electronic mail, and to require that sender identification information be included with electronic mail messages.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This act may be cited as the "Netizens Protection Act of 1997".
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSMISSION OF UNSOLICITED ADVERTISEMENTS BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Section 227(b)(1) of the Communications act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking "or" at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:
"(D) to use any computer or other electronic device to send an unsolicited advertisement to an electronic mail address of an individual with whom such person lacks a preexisting and ongoing business or personal relationship unless said individual provides express invitation or consent/permission; or".
SEC. 3. ELECTRONIC MAIL SENDER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED.
Section 227(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking "or" at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) by stiking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting "; and" and
(3) by inserting at the end the following new subparagraph:
"(C) to use a computer or other electronic device to send an unsolicited advertisement to an electronic mail address unless such person clearly provides, at the beginning of such unsolicited advertisement, the date and time the message was sent, the identity of the business, other entity, or individual sending the message, and the return electronic mail address of such business, other entity, or individual."
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS (House of Representatives - May 22, 1997)
[Page: H3203]
* * *
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey:
H.R. 1748. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ban the transmission of unsolicited advertisements by electronic mail, and to require that sender identification information be included with electronic mail messages; to the Committee on Commerce.
* * *
BAN UNSOLICITED JUNK ELECTRONIC MAIL
[Page: E1014]
---
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1997
- Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Netizens Protection Act of 1997. My legislation is aimed at protecting the internet user from the unseemly practices of the junk e-mailer. The internet user, or Netizen, is in a vulnerable position in the new medium and we in Congress cannot stand idly by as law-abiding citizens have their privacy invaded on an almost regular basis. And no one should have to pay for any such intrusion.
- This is a bill that has moved, as Justin Newton of the Internet Service Provider Consortium so succinctly stated, from the community to the legislature, not one that was produced by the legislature and then forced upon the community. We are empowering the consumer and the individual to take action against an egregious breach of consumer and individual rights.
- As increasing numbers of Americans go on-line and become passengers on the information superhighway, consumers' rights must not be eroded, abridged, or mitigated along the way.
- The Internet--and e-mail--are becoming part of our everyday lives. And no one--from the consumer to the small businesses who run servers--should be forced to pay for unsolicited advertisements. This is not a question of curbing speech. I believe in the first amendment as much as anyone else. However, the idea of shifting the financial burden of speech on to an unwilling audience is one that needs to be addressed.
- From the netizen who may incur costs in the form of charges spent online reading and disposing of the messages--there are still millions of internet users who pay in increments of time spent online--to users who assume the costs of both accessing and storing mail they did not want, consumers should not be unwilling, and paying, recipients.
- Furthermore, junk e-mailers occupy time and space on an Internet Service Provider's ISP servers and forces the ISP to make technical improvements. The cost of these improvements are passed on to the consumer--you and me. In effect, the consumer is paying to have their privacy breached and invaded.
- And no one remains unaffected by these intrusions. The business owner or ISP with their own server often unwittingly distributes unsolicited advertisements by acting as an exploder site or mail relay site. Not only is this trespassing on another person's property, but it is an outright theft of another person's resources.
- Even more disturbing is the fact that a large portion of the unsolicited junk e-mail comes in the form of fraudulent get rich quick schemes, unproven medical remedies, and other unsavory solicitations.
- Let me reiterate that my legislation is targeted at unsolicited commercial e-mail. The paths of communications between friends and acquaintances and businesses and their customers remains wide open. As a matter of fact, this legislation still offers the opportunity for legitimate direct marketers to do business. Certainly, the traditional avenues of direct marketing which do not shift the burden of cost to the recipient, such as postal mail, remain unchanged; and individuals will have the right to opt-in and be reached by legitimate direct marketers via e-mail. And let us not forget that we will still be exposed to electronic billboard and banner advertising on the Internet.
- My legislation will make unsolicited advertisements unlawful by amending the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 which banned unsolicited junk faxes. The banning of junk e-mails is a natural extension of existing law. Based on a Ninth Circuit Court decision in Destination Ventures v. FCC (1995), there is substantial Government interest in protecting consumers from having to bear the costs of third-party advertising. In addition, the court also held that advertisers have no right to turn consumers into a 'captive audience' that is 'incapable of declining to receive a message.'
- I believe I have crafted a bill--although it is just the beginning of a process which includes hearings and committee work--that is acceptable to most parties involved. It allows people to 'opt in' and receive unsolicited advertisements if they give their consent, but it does not put the onus on the individual to stop the unsolicited advertisers as an 'opt out' plan would do. Today, at a press conference Ray Everett, a representative of the proconsumer group Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, and Justin Newton, a representative from the pro-business Internet Service Providers Consortium--each coming at the issue from different sides--both came to the same conclusion--this legislation would be an effective way to put a stop to unsolicited advertisements.