Each Forum consists of a message database with attached files. There are eight basic levels of user access: Zero, Read, Download, Write, Upload, Co-Op, Forum-Op, and Sysop. "Read" access means that you can read messages only; "Download" access means you can also download files; "Write" access allows you to write (or post) messages; "Upload" access means that you can also upload attachments, but that the Forum-Op must approve them for download; "Co-Op" uploads are "pre-approved". You have "Sysop" access to this Forum. Your Forum-Op is "Sysop". Please note: your account is charged 60 credits for each minute you spend in this Forum. In addition, you are given 300 credits each time you write a message, given 300 credits for each file uploaded, and not charged for each file downloaded. If a file you upload is approved for download, the Forum-Op might arrange for you to receive a bonus. All messages posted to this Forum are preserved indefinitely, until erased by the Forum-Op. Welcome, Sysop, to FreeSpeech: Help Preserve Freedom in the USA Date: Friday, June 16, 1995 5:51pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Sysop Msg#: 606648 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Do you care about Freedom in this country? The US Senate has taken the first step to do away with Freedom of Speech in this country. The Exon bill, The Communications "Decency" Act, has been in the Senate for some time now. Basically, the bill says that the government can control the content of speech online, and hold online services responsible. There has been tremendous objection to this bill from the online community, but our representatives have ignored the wishes of the citizens of this country and have pressed ahead. In order to insure passage of this act, it was attached to the Telecommunications Deregulation Act. Yesterday, the Senate passed this bill. From here, it goes to the House of Representatives. It is urgent that everyone make their objections known to their local congressman. There are also several Internet groups who are closely tracking this, and there are even online petitions that will be forwarded to the government, so please check the appropriate WEB pages and cast your vote (?). There is one thing that may help though. It seems the Clinton administration is vehemently against the Decontrol Act (I don't know how they stand on the "Decency" Act), and Clinton probably will not sign it. But this is no guarantee since Congress may be able to override a veto. Following are some messages about the "Decency" Act, and some general information about how to get involved in this fight. Please voice your support for Freedom by posting in this forum, and if you have any new information, please post it right away!! We will attempt to post new items as they become available, but those with Internet access will probably get the news first, so please capture everything you can and upload it here. There is also a file in this forum which shows how all of the Senators voted, and telephone number so you can call them. Please note that in New York, Moynihan voted against the bill, but D'Amato voted for it. Make sure you call his office and tell him what you think (be polite). Ed & Deb Date: Tuesday, June 27, 1995 6:17am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 609993 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: More from the net File: FREELINE.TXT (2 replies) I am going to try that upload which I previously tried last night at about 3 AM. Hopefully, this time it will work. As was the case with my last attempt, I will not be able to edit the message. So slug through the intro crap, assuming that I get it here in the first place. Date: Sunday, July 2, 1995 1:54am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Kali Msg#: 611322 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: How to Keep Your Rights (2 replies) Hi gang! After a long hiatus, I've returned, and I was thrilled to see this new Forum on After Hours... freedom of speech for the online community has become one of my biggest causes. For those of you who've joined since my last tenure on After Hours, My real name is Lori, and I work in the computer press. I used to write a column about online issues for a pair of magazines called COMPUTER BUYER'S GUIDE and LAPTOP BUYER'S GUIDE; I no longer work for those pubs, but I'm still out here spouting. The answer to this question--how to keep the rights you already have--is a simple one. VOTE. With your mouth, with letters, with faxes and phone calls, with your wallet... call the senators and representatives who oppose the Communications Decency Act and support them. Send letters. Organize petitions. Speak up, loud, often, and with as many others as you can manage. To quote the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This does not say, "Except for the Internet, or cyberspace." This does not say, "Unless we find the content of said communications immoral or repugnant." It is pretty well-defined with the words "Congress shall make NO law..." These are the rights Americans have fought for and died for for 219 years. These are the rights that all of our ancestors wanted for their children when they moved to this country. These rights are framed in the very foundations of this country. The government of this country is neither fair nor benevolent, (and hisotircally, has been neither of these things), as we've seen in their treatment of Native Americans, blacks, women, homosexuals, and just about anyone who is not a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male. Neither are they stupid. Those in power know that public sentiment keeps them there. An apathetic populace gets what it deserves. Don't be apathetic. It's only fitting that this fourth of July weekend should be a good time to speak up. Send telegrams, faxes, letters. Make phone calls. Speak up. Say it LOUD! ------+ Kali +------ Date: Monday, July 10, 1995 10:09am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Lady Oh Msg#: 614147 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Flag (9 replies) This may be an interesting topic for this forum...what do most of you believe in when it comes to Flag burning in the U.S.A.? Date: Saturday, July 15, 1995 11:23am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Kali Msg#: 615952 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: AOL President's Letter on Censorship (3 replies) [Only the relevant portion of this letter has been used. It has not been edited.] A LETTER FROM STEVE CASE, PRESIDENT & CEO OF AMERICA ONLINE July 1, 1995 Dear Members: When we started America Online, Inc. a decade ago, we dreamed of the day when tens of millions of people would be connected to online services, and it would change the way people obtained information, communicated with other people, shopped for products and services, and learned new things. Over the past decade, the online industry has made great strides. By the end of this year, 10% of U.S. households will subscribe to an online service (versus less than 1% ten years ago). Online services are becoming more mainstream -- even the people not using them are often talking about them. As online services grow, they become more visible -- and therefore become the subject of discussion and debate. This is a healthy process, as we should all play a role in shaping this emerging medium, so it can reach its full potential. One of the most challenging issues involves making cyberspace a safe and hospitable place -- particularly for kids. This issue has moved into the limelight recently; this past week alone, there was a cover story in Time and a feature on Nightline. And the Senate recently passed a bill that attempts to regulate online content. Given the visibility and sensitivity of this issue, I wanted to share our views with you. However well-intentioned, we think government-imposed censorship is not the right approach. Given the interactive and participatory nature of this medium, and given the global reach of the Internet (and the seeming impossibility of reaching a global consensus on community standards for cyberspace), we believe attempts to monitor and censor all of the data sent throughout the world is impractical. Instead, we agree with a congressman who recently said "Parents and families are better suited to guard the portals of cyberspace than are government bureaucrats." He went on to say that sexual material online is a growing problem, but one that can be solved by systems providing screening and filtering technology that parents can use to prevent their children from accessing selected features. This strikes us as a sound approach. We take this issue of a "safe cyberspace" seriously. We want AOL to be a friendly place for everyone, and a particularly safe place for kids. To that end, we have taken proactive steps to make sure our members have the proper tools to ensure a safe online environment for themselves and their children. AOL has established a series of ground rules for proper online conduct. You can review our Terms of Service by using Keyword TOS. This is one part of "self-regulating" our community that we feel is important. The other belongs within the community itself. All parents should take a minute and visit our Parental Controls area (Keyword PARENTAL CONTROLS). This area provides information and tools on how to ensure a safe experience for your kids online, by enabling you to block access to certain features. These filtering technologies go a long way to making AOL a safe place. But I'd also encourage you to explore AOL together with your child, and help guide them to areas that they might enjoy. For example, we have a whole area of the service -- called Kids Only -- dedicated to kids (Keyword KIDS). There, kids can meet other kids, share hobbies and interests, learn from perusing the updated electronic encyclopedia, check in with their favorite cartoon characters, and even get help with their homework. In essence, I encourage you to actively participate with your children as they explore AOL and the Internet -- much like you probably would with any other medium, such as television. We think the combination of parental interest (showing you care) and parental controls (using technology as a filtering tool) is the right approach -- and a much better approach to dealing with this problem than some of the other alternatives being discussed. Date: Thursday, July 20, 1995 2:49am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 617266 To: Lady Oh *EXEMPT* Re: Preliminary report on DC (Reply to #615395, Reply to #614965, Reply to #613858, R*) (1 reply) LO>You know something...I do believe they have been organizing for LO>generations and I do believe our silly government could be overthrown LO>some day. LO> The entire idea behind the United States as a federal system was that it WAS SUPPOSED TO BE overthrown at such time as similar impositions as those posed by 18th century foreign monarchies reared their heads. Taxation without representation, remember that from the fourth grade? This place was born of the idea that certain oppressed people from other lands had that if they made it to Here the asshole KIng or Queen could not fuck with them anymore. It is the simplest thing in the world, the desire to not be fucked with, and we have an entire country that we or some of us at least are almost begging to lose, and that is the saddest goddamn thing I can imagine, there is one place in the world where people can say what they mean and its almost over and lots of the people who actually live in this place are welcoming that specific loss. And I cannot yet make it to another planet to get away from these monocellular television dependent irresponsible assholes Date: Tuesday, July 25, 1995 3:27pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Rpm Msg#: 619052 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Free Speech in Cyberspace (2 replies) Well, here's a little something I got from the net. Perhaps it will give someone pause while we all consider Senator Exon and his supporters on this BBS. _____________________________________________________________ First they came for the hackers. But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the pornographers. But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the anonymous remailers. But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the encryption users. But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me. And by that time there was no one left to speak up. Alara Rogers, Aleph Press ________________________________________________________ --- ώ SLMR 2.0 ώ R. Paul Martin Date: Saturday, July 29, 1995 8:09am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Rpm Msg#: 620137 To: Cory Danger *EXEMPT* Re: Preliminary report on DC (Reply to #619398, Reply to #618206, Reply to #615593, R*) (4 replies) CD>Raising other people's kids is everyone's problem...if it isn't now, it CD>will definitely be later... Well, let's look at your premise here. If I agree with your statement what am I supposed to do to raise someone else's kid? Am I to go to their home and volunteer to baby sit the kids? Am I to hand them money, above and beyond what I'm taxed, so they can hire a baby sitter? Am I supposed to go into their home and announce that I'm there to impart my bisexual, atheist value system to their darlings? Or am I just supposed to accede to their demands that I give up my rights to say things they wouldn't want their kids to see, a not totally explicated list I will point out, and let the government keep a tight watch on me? --- ώ SLMR 2.0 ώ R. Paul Martin Date: Saturday, July 29, 1995 5:03pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Rpm Msg#: 620363 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Parents,Kids & Cyberspace (2 replies) Here's something from CompuServe on an issue which seems to have suffered some drift in this sig. Reprinted with permission. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fm: Bob Bales [NCSA] 74774,1326 To: ALL Porn, Parents and Cyberspace by Robert C. Bales, Executive Director, NCSA Copyright 1995 NCSA Much has been written recently about pornography in CyberSpace. Freedom of expression versus freedom from smut. We have comprehensive studies; we have expert opinions. And we have parents groups making demands for legislative action. In my opinion, what we really have are lazy parents! I am not here to debate the issue of whether pornography is good or bad. I will leave that question for individuals and communities to decide based upon their own local standards. This is how the Supreme Court has said it should be. My real point is that we should not approach CyberSpace differently from RealSpace. Like it or not, CyberSpace is a reflection of RealSpace. If a particular act is legal in RealSpace, then it should not be illegal in CyberSpace. On the other hand, if an act is illegal in RealSpace then it should also be illegal in CyberSpace. The notion that CyberSpace is somehow different has lead to a generation of hackers who think it is OK to poke around in other peoples computers, because I aint hurting nothing. What we need is for people to take responsibility for their actions. In the absence of laws, common sense should prevail! And in the case of children, what we need is parental leadership. Parenting is a contact sport. Parents who wish to watch from the sidelines are abdicating their responsibility. Asking the legislature to do their job for them is a copout. I have heard it said that, as parents, we are outgunned with all of the technology that surrounds our children today. Bunk! I can accept that a parent does not _undertand_ what their children are up to when they use their computers. However, to be _ignorant_ of what they are doing is inexcusable. What is the difference? Caring enough to ask a lot of questions! If you enter your teenagers room and he is on the bed with his girlfriend and they have their clothes off, you probably _understand_ what is going on. If you dont understand, you will probably ask a few questions to get to the bottom of it. The same approach works in CyberSpace. If you come into your childs room, and his computer monitor is full of naked women and barnyard animals, perhaps you should provide some parental counseling. This is not a job you can delegate to Congress or to the local police department. This is not to minimize the risks and temptations our children face "out there". There are child molesters and pedophiles (in RealSpace _and_ CyberSpace) and we should do everything in our power to keep them away from our children. We need to provide parents with tools they can use to enforce their parental wishes. Browsers with built-in exclusion lists, or on-line services which provide parents the ability to "lockout" unsuitable material, are steps in the right direction. However, without parental involvement, these measures are useless. Anyone who has a teenager knows how hard it is to talk with them. About anything. It is particularly difficult if the subject is one the parent knows little about. To help parents bridge this gap, NCSA has developed a document called Ten Questions Parents Should Ask Their Children. This paper provides a basis for parents to explore how their children are _using_ computers. It also provides questions that help parents and children discuss the issues of right and wrong as it pertains to computers. In short, it helps parents educate their children about making responsible choices in their encounters with a variety of temptations they will face in CyberSpace. Things like privacy and plagarism and piracy. And yes, pornorgraphy. "Ten Questions" can be obtained on-line from NCSAs forum on CompuServe (GO NCSAFORUM) by downloading the file PARENTS.TXT from Library 3 (Privacy/Ethics). The document can also be obtained by sending an EMail request to: parents@ncsa.com. If you are one of those parents not yet "plugged in", and would like a hard copy of this document mailed to you, send a self-addressed stamped envelope and three dollars to: NCSA Ten Questions Document 10 S Courthouse Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 NCSA is the registered trademark for the National Computer Security Association. The National Computer Security Association (NCSA) is the premier provider of security, reliability, and ethics information and services. Copyright 1995 NCSA --- ώ SLMR 2.0 ώ R. Paul Martin Date: Saturday, August 19, 1995 11:22pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 626358 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Shere Hite on Talking Feminist (2 replies) There is an interesting article by Shere Hite in the current issue of "On The Issues" which I would like to share with folks here to ponder. So I am again offering my own, Vida edited version of a previously published piece. The original piece appears in "On The Issues", vol.4,#4, Fall 1995, page 26-28. It is entitled "Write What You Want....As Long As it's About Sex". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- "Oh! Did you paint freckles on your face? How do you do that?" After 22 years as a researcher, I've arrived at a key interview to persent 400 pages of new research to the perss and this was the first question. What would you make of it? Or of an article in a perstigious newspaper about an anthology of my work which states "At age 50, Shere Hite tottered down the stairs on remarkably high heels." This was followed by a discussion of whether or not a woman of "my age" has the right to "still" wear anything other than "practical clothing". Is it harmless? Could the journalist who askied--and kept asking--about my freckles really detect anyting significiant in my work, if her mind was geared to concentrate on my looks? I am not the only woman to experience this by any means. The twentieth century feminists Germaine Greer, Erica Jong or any woman who speaks out are called "colorful", "dramatic". Details of our appearances are hashed in the press while we write and speak, hoping to be heard. Yet this trivialization, lamentable as it is, is not censorship. Censorship is policial discirimination of those who have certain veiws unfavorable to the "establishment". But wait. This is not intentional censorhsip--but it operates just as surely to stop ideas form reaching people. And this repression can be worse than official censorship because it is invisible. It is not glorified by the noble matrydom attached to the word "censorship". The censorship of trivialization is also evident in some of the editing of my work over the years, influencing which books I have been "allowed" to write, ie, those for which I have obtained contracts. Sexist denial that women have anything importnat to say is inherent in some editors' viewpionts, sexism I am sure that they do not recognize. By excising my comments, they would effectively silence me. Men are called "geniuses" and women are not. This is not to say that I am anxious for the "genius" label. But consider that I have traveresed the same route as Freud and mapped a completely different territory. I wonder whether people will be able to hear my conclusions or will they insist on locating me within the confines of "sex and women's topics" while Frued is considered a profound commentary about the nature of human reality. The very attitudes about women and wen which I confront in my work also confound my ability to speak and write freely. The media and publishing houses converge to form an invisible net of entrapment and ghettoization. Many women authors descirbe being unable to get or renew publishing contracts. They lament that they are told that they do not make big enough profits for the company to be published. I say that a fininanical explantion is not sufficient. After all, every day hundreds of books on obscure topics are published each day. Feminist projects are having trouble for political reasons in this reactionary climate. The agenda of many large publishing conglomerates in not only finanical but also political. These politics range from "don't upset anybody, publish only safe books" to publishing a partiuclar political philosophy. Finanical decisions are also political. Even if a book has a chance of selling well, if it espresses radical policitical opinions its publication may be hampered. But not overtly. Censorship today is not a man in a suit with a big red pen. There is no formal bullentin on the six o'clock news that says, "Your news is now being censored" so that those watching can decide if they are prepared to do something about it. It just creeps around you, a vaguely unpleasant feeling. You have to be alert to see what it is before its mists engulf you. Censorship happens in small ways, gradually. Only eventually does it amount to a big problem, a stifling way of life. How serious a problem is in now in the West? We have our own "disappeared" here--authors and political dissidents disappearing from public sight, going down for the third time with only a gurgle or two. For those who take a stand, questions of "is it worth it?" and "how long can I carry on?" surface daily. In fact, it is hard to recognize censorship or suppression when you see it--hard to know if it is really happening or just some kind of bizzare mistake. Within the publishing houses, decisions are often made by committes, with unanimous agreement required: If even one person on the editorial board strongly disagrees with taking on a books another editor wants, it cannot be published. Censorhisp today is increased by the consoliation of publishing, magazines, film and television into a few hands. The term "free" market is Orwellian doublespeak when media congolmates buy up book publishing houses not because they are so profitable but because their books are part of the creation of public opionion. Another cause of decreasing diversity in publishing in the United States, the majoirty of bookstores are owned by two chains which control demand by cutting prices to a level with chich the independents can not compete. New publishing does spring up, but small new presses do not have the connections and the financial ties to with the chains that will enable them to reach large numbers of people. Finally, the last step of contemporary publishing can be the most censorious of all, as every author knows. Whether the media indulges in harassment and misinformation or simply ignores a book, it can be devasting. Modern democracy is closely linked to medai politics. The fist action in military in military coups in foreign governments is usually to take over the radio and television stations by force. Was it a coup in the West when the finincial interests bought up the media during the 1980's? They didn't need guns. An aura of spreading censorship is hanging in the air, but the word, its name, is not spoken. People change the subject, feeling unsafe, nervous. Despite the seeming pilthora of "information" what is available to the public to read is more and more dictated by media monopolities, not by our own interests and tastes. Diversification of media ownership and programing control is key to keeping democracy running, keeping mass democratic twenty-first century from developing an Orwellian madness--without wit or humor. As in previous centuries, the official canon of hisotry will again make women invisible, except in decorative ways. Perhaps women need to buy their own stations or to control programing for half of the hours of the day. Then perhaps our women thinkers and authors will be remembered for more than wearing high heels at an advanced age. Date: Sunday, August 27, 1995 4:21pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Big John Msg#: 628239 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Free Speech and the 1st Amendment (6 replies) Just to start an argument... the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment only was intended to apply to political speech. The broad application that is presently given it is due to corruption by the courts. Date: Tuesday, July 18, 1995 1:14am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Kali Msg#: 635077 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Wham action alert File: USCON.TXT (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #616630, Reply to #615685, R*) (2 replies) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind in /CurrentEvents. Since we're arguing about the Constitution in here, a copy of it might help! ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- 23>Time for a new copy. Its not in any of the amendments. So strike two 23>yourself. We were discussing the First Amendment, correct? HEre's the text: "Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is also a complete and unedited version of the text of the Constitution, complete with Amendments, attaches as USCON.TXT. Sysop, please exempt this for future reference. Date: Monday, September 18, 1995 2:56am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Big John Msg#: 635557 To: Lythande *EXEMPT* Re: Q-Link (Reply to #635312, Reply to #635223, Reply to #635004, R*) (3 replies) I didn't quote here because it would have been too long, but please thread back. EVERYthing you wrote in your previous message was incorrect. You must have learned history only in the schools, which by the way, lie to the students on purpose to make it easy to teach to them. Quite to the contrary of your claim that America was founded by criminals and the uneducated, America was founded by the UPPERCLASS ARISTOCRACY. Virtually everyone in America was wealthy until the Irish masses arrived in the 1840's. You, and others, can pretend all you want, but diversity, even if it is a good thing, is in no way responsible for the success of America. The success of America is the result (the direct result) of the fact that it was founded by the wealthiest, most educated, enlightened, and freest people in the world: The Founding Fathers. That's right, no women were involved. The Founding Fathers: Catholic haters, Jew haters, all non Anglo Saxon people haters, and they were the most enlightened people of their time. Diversity, responsible for the greatness of America? One need only think about this proposition for a few minutes to realize that it is nonsense. Has become better in the last 30 years. Do you think that the more scum we let into this country the better it will be? America was the greatest country when it was still 95% WASP. Diversity, the kind of which you speak, can only be a bad thing. Diversity of ideas is a good thing, and we had more of that when the Constitution was written, and those men were all WASPs. Nowadays, because we have racial diversity, intellectual diversity is not tolerated because some special interest group will complain. America, a nation of immigrants? ALL nations are nations of immigrants, EVERY SINGLE ONE. What makes America different, the fact that all the world's scum wants to come here and exploit us and we're only too happy to let them. If we keep allowing immigration, Americans, and I do not use that term loosely, will go the way of the Indians (who, by the way are not Native Americans). The immigrants will do to us what we did to the Indians. Poetic justice, wouldn't you say? The only difference is that the Indians had no choice, they were brave and they stood and fought like men do. Americans, on the otherhand, like the spoiled wimps that we are, are just going to role over and die. As John Adams knew, and as Abraham Lincoln knew: there is only one way for a nation of free men to die, BY SUICIDE. And so shall it be. I only wish that America could be Euthanized, so that I don't have to witness the thing I love most in this world die the slow painful death of which it is now in the throws. Just a thought for you: If America were perfectly diverse all 260,000,000 people would be speaking a different language. Date: Wednesday, October 11, 1995 3:34am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Big John Msg#: 641826 To: Quincy *EXEMPT* Re: Messages (Reply to #640428, Reply to #639693, Reply to #638102, R*) (2 replies) QU>BJ>VI>I don't believe in absoultes. But I would argue the converse. As a QU> >VI>general rule, the Democrats have been on the side of progress and thus QU> >VI>have been on the correct side. Likewise, as a general rule, the QU> >VI>Republicans have been on the side of maintaining the advantages of the QU> >VI>vested interests and thus have been on the incorrect side. QU>BJ>From an historical prospective this is quite incorrect. The Democrats QU> >have been on the side of the vested interests. If they weren't they QU> >would never be elected. QU>BJ>By the way, your use of the word progress really just means change for QU> >change sake. That is rarely progress. It is usually destruction. QU>Oh, I see. You are a victorian and you beleive nothing should ever QU>change because change is bad? QU>--- QU> ώ SLMR 2.0 ώ "...and I'll even Hari Kari if you show me how..." -B.F. I hope, unlike most of the people here, that not all of your exercise is from jumping to conclusions. Why is representing the vested interests necessarily wrong? The Democrats supporting progress? This is laughable. The Democrats supproting civil rights? There isn't a Democrat in the U.S. that even knows what civil rights is. Until WWII, for the most part, it was the Republicans that were the liberals, and the Democrats the Conservatives, by the way. Democrats are fascists. Democrats are constantly trying to force people to do what the Democrats think is best for society. Even if the Democrats knew what was best for society, forcing people to do it would be wrong. Liberals think that they know better than everyone about everything, but I have not even heard of a liberal who was even rational. By the way, YES, I AM THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF WHAT IS AND ISN'T RATIONAL. Unlike almost all the people I have ever met, I have the complete abiltiy to separate my intellect from my emotions. Until this is done, a person cannot be completely rational. Date: Sunday, October 22, 1995 12:14pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 645684 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Banned Books On-Line (3 replies) Ok, as requested by Lythande I have briefly surfed the net for info on banned books. I think a good place to start, for those of you that have access to the world wide web, is the Banned Books On-Line. This link contains a list of books that have been banned, plus links to other lists of banned books. The URL is http://www.cs.cmu.edu:80/Web/People/spok/banned-books.html. Unfortunately, I can NOT download an entire web page from the WWW. I didn't think I could do that, however. Date: Wednesday, October 25, 1995 6:58am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 647058 To: Lady Oh *EXEMPT* Re: Banned Books online (2 replies) The Banned Books online web page lists the following books as being banned by various legal authorities: Ulysses, by James Joyce--barred by US Customs from 1918-1930 Candidade by Voltaire--seized by US Customs in 1930 Lady Chatterley's Lover by DH Lawrence-subject of numersous obsenity trials in the US through the 1960's. Additionally: Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn by Twain were pulled from the children's section of the BROOKLYN Public Library system because of alleged racism. Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" was pulled from the classrooms in Midland, Michigian because of alleged anti-semestism. There is also a link to a multi-media web page at http://www.banned books.com:80. However, you need netscape and real audio to use this web page--both of which I don't have yet. (I am working on it! They just upgraded my dial in internet account to allow me to install these toys.) Date: Tuesday, November 7, 1995 6:30am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 650359 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: More censorship on the net? File: CENSOR.TXT Ok, folks. I just tried to do a direct file transfer from the net of this message. It didn't work. I don't even know what the hell got posted. I think the problem may have been that the message which I tried to transfer may have been too long. I have noticed in the past that when I try to transfer files that are too long that the transfer process gets all screwed up. Anyway, now I am going to try to do a file attachment. I don't like this option as much because you won't be able to read the attachment till the sysop approves it for download. But such is life in the fast lane! :) Date: Wednesday, November 8, 1995 9:54pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 650532 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Free Speech From the cypherpunks mailing list... ------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 08:57:57 -0800 To: cypherpunks@toad.com From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: So much for free speech... At 1:34 PM 11/6/95, s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote: >On Mon, 6 Nov 1995, Dr. Frederick B. Cohen wrote: > >> In the United States, we have the right to express whatever view we >> wish, so long as it doesn't endanger others (e.g., insight to riot, >> scream "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, etc.). >> Everyone has an inherent right to question why a person seeks moments of >> anonymity or privacy. > >You're forgetting our good friends the libel laws. Another reason to go anon. >You have the right to say whatever you please, but you'll have to be able >to defend it in court if it damages someone's reputation. It can also get >you fired. (or shot if you're MLK) Sadly, the tradition of "free speech" is under assault. On many fronts. The new "civil rights" laws are just one avenue for the suppression of what was once considered free speech. Submitted for your disapproval: "13-year-old student arrested for racial slurs" (Santa Cruz Sentinel, p. 1, 3 November 1995) by Michael Green, Redding Record Searchlight "REDDING -- When a 13-year-old Redding student was arrested for allegedly making racial slurs, police and school administrators said it was necessary to maintain order and send a strong message against racism. "But some legal experts take a dimmer view of the boy's arrest, saying that calling someone names, even offensive ones, is not a crime and in fact is constitutionally protected. ... "The Redding-area boy, who is white, allegedly made racial insults toward a 12-year-old Hispanic student before being arrested last Thursday. ... "Police Chief Bob Blankeship said he would encourage officers to use the civil rights laws to stop racial harassment if prosecutors determine it is appropriate. ... "The boy was arrested on suspicion of violating the Hispanic student's civil rights. Penal Code section 422.6 makes it a misdemeanor to interfere with another person's rights or harm their property because of their race, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation." ----- Wow! "Verbal abuse." Throw away the key. "Freedom does not mean the freedom to think bad thoughts," as Big Bro once said. If they don't get you for illegally using random numbers, they'll get you for uttering incorrect words. [Editor: This is a reference to the ongoing battle regarding use of strong cryptography by the general public. The goverment is agin it.] Back to reality. No word on whether prosecution will take place (I doubt it...this will likely be dropped, now that the message has been sent to the students, and now that civil rights folks are getting interested). Children are usually not accorded full constitutional protections, especially not in public schools, but this does not mean the police should arrest those who utter the wrong words! (Maybe suspending the student, though I certainly wouldn't do that.) This is the "safe and secure" world we are in, where bad thoughts and bad words are punished. Or threatened with lawsuits. Anarchy seems infinitely preferable to me.  --- ώ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 ώ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Monday, November 13, 1995 3:46am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 652013 To: Lythande *EXEMPT* Re: Wham action alert (Reply to #651347, Reply to #649041, Reply to #648782, R*) (2 replies) LY>That's the whole problem. Some people will want to control porn. Some LY>will want to control varying religions, political ideas, etc. The only LY>way that the me's can say what we want is by having no censorship. LY>There's someone out there who won't like what we're saying no matter LY>what we're saying. Like I said, I am me. I can control me. I have no desire to control others and have enough vision and intelligence to be able to see a bit about the human nature involved in the control fetish. I laughed for years, no shit, years, whenever I thought of chickenshit inbreeds like the fella who ran the PTL Club and yowled over my old television about the awful effects of loose sinful attractions merely to fall under the influence of conning millions from stupid hopeful people who sent in cash to get good with god, and then to get caught in some really silly incident concerning blowjobs in motels conned out of some moron who later after the infamy and resultant media exposure was able to afford breast implants and have her own teevee show and 900 line. I forget the names, they dont really matter, you know who I am talking about. Ah, Jim Bakker. I still forget who blew him in the motel and got the 900 line. The name is Legion. Bakker couldnt manage to control himself and he sought to manage others. My point. This asshole managed to present himself as some paragon of moral truth for a few years before the shit hit the fan. I would really hate it if this feral scumbag who runs the Congress was able to con the country into buying his fear vision before his motel blowjobs or glasstable coprophila or underage boys or whatever his routine is gets burned across the television screens of america... at a loss of over 200 years of essential freedom. And yes freedom unfettered by chickenshit seatbelt law restrictions is freedom, and includes freedom to fuck up, freedom to realize the error, and freedom to attempt to start again somewhat fresh. Freedom is freedom, it is not a thing that can be named the same if quantitative restrictions are superimposed on the concept to satisfy the useless whip dog control schemes of people who merely can con a large number of easily conned morons. --- * SLMR 2.0 * so cold its hot so fine everything fire and me still dead Date: Sunday, December 10, 1995 10:23am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Walts Msg#: 657233 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Important Reaction to Congress - Long Post (Copy by Lythande) (1 reply) [A ...along post follows REgards, WaltS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 00:33:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" To: vtw-announce@VTW.ORG Subject: (ALERT) INTERNET DAY OF PROTEST TUESDAY DECEMBER 12, 1995 ======================================================================== CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE NET CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS On Tuesday December 12, 1995, Join With Hundreds of Thousands Of Your Fellow Internet Users In A NATIONAL INTERNET DAY OF PROTEST PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL December 20, 1995 ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS Internet Day of Protest: Tuesday December 12, 1995 What You Must Do On Tuesday December 12, 1995 List of Participating Organizations Where Can I Learn More? ________________________________________________________________________ INTERNET DAY OF PROTEST: TUESDAY DECEMBER 12, 1995 Outrageous proposals to censor the Internet demand that the Internet Community take swift and immediate action. We must stand up and let Congress know that we will not tolerate their attempts to destroy this medium! Please join hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens in a National Day of Protest on Tuesday December 12, 1995. As you know, on Wednesday December 6, 1995, the House Conference Committee on Telecommunications Reform voted to impose far reaching and unconstitutional "indecency" restrictions on the Internet and other interactive media, including large commercial online services (such as America Online, Compuserve, and Prodigy) and smaller Internet Service Providers such as Panix, the Well, Echo, and Mindvox. These restrictions threaten the very existence of the Internet and interactive media as a viable medium for free expression, education, commerce. If enacted, the Internet as we know it will never be the same. Libraries will not be able to put any books online that might offend a child somewhere. No "Catcher in the Rye" or "Ulysses" on the net. Internet Service Providers could face criminal penalties for allowing children to subscribe to their Internet Services, forcing many small companies to simply refuse to sell their services to anyone under 18. Worst of all, everything you say and publish on the net will have to be "dumbed down" to that which is acceptable to a child. As Internet users, we simply must not allow this assault against the Internet and our most basic freedoms to go unchallenged. On Tuesday December 12, the organizations below are urging you to join us in a NATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST. The goal is to flood key membersof the House and Senate with phone calls, faxes and email with the message that the Internet community WILL NOT TOLERATE Congressional attempts to destroy the Internet, limit our freedoms and trample on our rights. Below are the phone, fax, and email address of several key members of Congress on this issue and instructions on what you can do to join the National Day of Protest to save the Net. ______________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU MUST DO ON TUESDAY DECEMBER 12, 1995 1. Throughout the day Tuesday December 12, please contact as many members of Congress on the list below as you can. If you are only able to make one call, contact House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Finally, if the Senator or Representative from your state is on the list below, be sure to contact him or her also. 2. Urge each Member of Congress to "stop the madness". Tell them that they are about to pass legislation that will destroy the Internet as an educational and commercial medium. If you are at a loss for words, try the following sample communique: Sample phone call: Both the House and Senate bills designed to protect children from objectionable material on the Internet will actually destroy the Internet as an medium for education, commerce, and political discourse. There are other, less restrictive ways to address this issue. I urge you to oppose both measures being proposed in the conference committee. This is an important election issue to me. Sample letter (fax or email): The Senate conferees are considering ways to protect children from inappropriate material on the Internet. A vote for either the House or Senate proposals will result in the destruction of the Internet as a viable medium for free expression, education, commerce. Libraries will not be able to put their entire book collections online. Everyday people like me will risk massive fines and prison sentences for public discussions someone s somewhere might consider "indecent". There are other, less restrictive ways to protect children from objectionable material online. This is an important election issue to me. 3. If you're in San Francisco, or near enough to get there, go to the Rally Against Censorship from Ground Zero of the Digital Revolution: WHEN: Monday, December 11, 1995 12:00 - 1:00 PM WHERE: South Park (between 2nd and 3rd, Bryant and Brannon) San Francisco. SPEAKERS: To be announced BRING: Attention-grabbing posters, signs, and banners that demonstrate your committment to free speech and expression, and your feelings about Congress. FOR UPDATED INFORMATION (including rain info): http://www.hotwired.com/staff/digaman/ ### THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT ### [A 4. Mail a note to protest@vtw.org to let us know you did your part. Although you will not receive a reply due to the number of anticipated responses, we'll be counting up the number of people that participated in the day of protest. P ST Name and Address Phone Fax = == ======================== ============== ============== R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044 R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-602-952-8702 senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747 R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-228-1245 D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046 wendell_ford@ford.senate.gov R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213 D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293 senator@hollings.senate.gov R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259 larry_pressler@pressler.senate.gov R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393 senator_gorton@gorton.senate.gov D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 n.a. senator@rockefeller.senate.gov Dist ST Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax ==== == ======================== ============== ============== 6 GA Gingrich, Newt (R) 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656 2428 RHOB georgia6@hr.house.gov 14 MI Conyers Jr., John (D) 1-202-225-5126 1-202-225-0072 2426 RHOB jconyers@hr.house.gov 1 CO Schroeder, Patricia (D) 1-202-225-4431 1-202-225-5842 2307 RHOB 18 TX Jackson-Lee, Sheila (D) 1-202-225-3816 1-202-225-3317 1520 LHOB 6 TN Gordon, Bart (D) 1-202-225-4231 1-202-225-6887 2201 RHOB 4. Forward this alert to all of your wired friends. ________________________________________________________________________ WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE? At this moment, there are several organizations with WWW sites that now have, or will have, information about the net censorship legislation and the National Day Of Protest: American Civil Liberties Union (ftp://ftp.aclu.org/aclu/) Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org/) Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/) Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org/) Wired Magazine (http://www.hotwired.com/special/indecent/) Voters Telecommunications Watch (http://www.vtw.org/) ======================================================================= Date: Thursday, December 14, 1995 1:25am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 658126 To: Lythande *EXEMPT* Re: Wham action alert (Reply to #657113, Reply to #654582, Reply to #653946, R*) (1 reply) LY>DT> I havent done anything really stupid yet, and I have the legal LY>DT>ability to do real genuine nightmare if I wanted to choose so. I can LY>DT>control me. Who the fuck else has that job? You? Person Y? If person Y LY>DT>is detailed to control me, then I have to accept that I am an infant LY>DT>with no ability to control me. I am me. This applies to everyone LY>DT>everywhere equally. I control the fact that I have not sired progeny LY>DT>altho I have had sex with women. I control the fact that I have not LY>DT>loosely lit up the idiot before me in the checkout line. I control the LY>DT>fact that I have not aimed across the double yellow line on the highway LY>DT>into a stationwagon full of someone elses family. Do I think about these LY>DT>things? Obviosly, I write about worse shit without even contemplating LY>DT>all that much. Do I act? no, of course not, such actions would be wrong. LY>That's the difference between you and I and people who want to eliminate LY>freedom. Either we're adults in this country or we're children. Adults LY>can make decisions and be responsible for the outcome. Children need to LY>be told what to do and what not to do. LY>Too bad everyone doesn't think the American people are capable of LY>behaving as adults. Its a proper thing to read this one tonight, as you know, right about now, today, tomorrow, this nightmare of essentially unenforceable locally generated Internet censorship is at critical mass in Congress. There are 800 numbers helpfully set up by the Christian Coalition that give a free call direct to Congress that can be transferred to ones actual congressperson. Of course, I dont remember it right now, perhaps BAI will repeat it before I get done typing. I assume you already heard about the AOL story from a couple days ago? This is a related story, it is an illustration of the effect that allowing paranoid acephalics to dictate our freedom of expression can and does have on events in the real world. The powers that be on AOL decided to implement censorship on the data that exists on their systems. While that is their right as AOL is private property wholly owned and controlled as a profit enterprise, the act of censorship implementation they ran lead to unintentioned results: The word "breast" was one of the terms put on the AOL shitlist. Yeh, breasts can have sexual connotations, sure. The term also has other internal meanings and references as well. You can imagine the consternation among the participants of the breast cancer forums on AOL that resulted from this sledgehammer approach to protecting people from their own fear of human sexuality. --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Friday, January 12, 1996 7:50am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 665547 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Cypber Liberties File: LIBERTY.TXT (1 reply) This was posted to one of my e mail discussion groups. It is a long post, which I tried to upload directly into a message but it is too long to be able to do so directly. So I will attach it as a file. This is an analysis by the ACLU of threats to civil liberties on the net. I do not agree with everything that the ACLU says or does, but it certainly contains food for thought. At the end of the post there is information on yet another mailing list--and yes folks I have signed up for this one. I think I need help for my mailing list obsession. :) Date: Saturday, January 20, 1996 3:10pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 668676 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Privacy (1 reply) CDT Policy Post No.34 - Victory for Zimmermann, Fundamental Privacy Issues Remain ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ****** ******** ************** ******** ********* ************** ** ** ** *** POLICY POST ** ** ** *** ** ** ** *** January 12, 1996 ** ** ** *** Number 34 ******** ********* *** ****** ******** *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CDT POLICY POST Number 34 January 12, 1996 CONTENTS: (1) A Victory for Phil Zimmermann, Fundamental Privacy Issues Remain (2) Press Release Announcing DOJ's Decision to Drop Case (3) Subscription Information (4) About CDT, Contacting Us This document may be re-distributed freely provided it remains in its entirety. Excerpts may be re-posted by permission (editor@cdt.org) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) VICTORY FOR ZIMMERMANN, FUNDAMENTAL PRIVACY ISSUES REMAIN After 3 years of investigation, the United States Department of Justice Thursday (1/11) announced that it would not seek an indictment of Phil Zimmermann, the author of the widely popular encryption program known as Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). While this development is obviously good news for Zimmermann, who was the undeserved target of a long and arduous investigation, criminal threates against those who seek to protect their privacy remain in place. The Justice Department had been investigating Zimmermann for possible violations of Arms Control Regulations of after PGP was posted to Usenet newsgroups and subsequently distributed through the worldwide Internet in the spring of 1991. CDT wishes to extend heartfelt congratulations to Phil, who has demonstrated remarkable patience and perseverance in the face of harassment and intimidation by the Federal Government. Instead of laying low and waiting for the outcome of the investigation, Phil took the offensive and became the leading figure in the effort to provide easy to use, strong cryptographic applications to the masses. CDT hopes that Phil will remain active in the fight to encourage the relaxation of export restrictions and access to strong cryptography. FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES REMAIN -- EXPORT OF STRONG CRYPTOGRAPHY STILL PROHIBITED, FUTURE PROSECUTIONS OF CRYPTOGRAPHERS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STILL POSSIBLE Although the announcement by the Justice Department is a tremendous personal victory for Phil Zimmermann, government restrictions on encryption exports remain firmly in place. As such, the current Administration policy is a major roadblock to privacy and security, as well as the future of commerce, on the Internet. The Clinton Administration continues to push for a national cryptography policy based on key-escrow and limited key lengths. In addition, the Administration's current policy proposal seeks to use export controls as a means to influence the domestic marketplace for cryptographic applications. The decision to drop the case against Zimmermann also leaves unresolved the question of whether posting materials on the Internet could result in the violation of export control regulations. Although Zimmermann's defense was based in part on the argument that the First Amendment protects such postings, that question remains undressed. As a result, developers of strong cryptographic applications who make their programs available on the Internet may in the future face harassment and indictments from the Federal Government. This issue is currently pending before Federal Judges in the Karn and Bernstein cases. BACKGROUND ON THE DISPUTE The export of cryptographic applications with key lengths above 40 bits is currently illegal under the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The Government maintains that these restrictions are necessary in order to protect national security, and has successfully fought efforts to repeal or relax the export controls (including efforts by fmr. Rep. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) in 1994). Privacy advocates and the computer hardware and software industry argue that the export controls stifle the development of strong cryptography both domestically and internationally, undermining privacy and security on the global information infrastructure. When Zimmermann published PGP in 1990, it was among the first widely available and relatively easy to use cryptographic applications, and for the first time provided the average citizen with the ability to protect sensitive information on the relatively insecure Internet. In the eyes of the Government however, PGP represented a threat to national security and law enforcement. Although the government has announced that it will not prosecute Zimmerman, government efforts to restrict the distribution of strong cryptography will no dobut continue. As privacy advocates, we must not allow Zimmermann's victory to conceal the larger issues. Privacy, security, and commerce on the Internet remain hostage to export restrictions, the National Security Agency, and Clinton Administration efforts to impose an unworkable key-escrow regime. For more information on the Administration's current cryptography policy initiative and what CDT is doing to fight it, visit CDT's cryptography issues web page. URL:http://www.cdt.org/crypto.html For More Information Contact: Daniel J Weitzner, Deputy Director Center For Democracy and Technology +1.202.637.9800 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) DOJ PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING THE DECISION TO DROP THE ZIMMERMANN CASE United States Attorney Northern District of California ______________________________________________________________________ San Jose Office (408) 535-5061 280 South First Street, Suite 371 San Jose, California 95113 FAX: (408) 535-5066 PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 11, 1995 Michael J. Yamaguchi, United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, announced today that his office has declined prosecution of any individuals in connection with the posting to USENET in June 1991 of the encryption program known as "Pretty Good Privacy." The investigation has been closed. No further comment will be made by the U.S. Attorney's office on the reasons for declination. Assistant U.S. Attorney William P. Keane of the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Jose at (408) 535-5053 oversaw the government's investigation of the case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION CDT Policy Posts, which is what you have just finished reading, are the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology. CDT Policy Posts are designed to keep you informed on developments in public policy issues affecting civil liberties online. In order to subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to policy-posts-request@cdt.org with a subject: subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance constitutional civil liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info@cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1001 G Street NW * Suite 500 East * Washington, DC 20001 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post No. 34 1/12/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday, January 25, 1996 6:36am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 670060 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: 202-637-9800. CDT is on the WWW at http://www.cdt (2 replies) Found this on the net regarding the proposed NY law regulating kiddie porn in cyberspace. From digitals@webcom.com Wed Jan 24 22:56 EST 1996 Received: from mail.webcom.com (mail.webcom.com [206.2.192.68]) by mail.nyc.pipeline.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA00848 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 22:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by mail.webcom.com with SMTP (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA107992258; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:57:39 -0800 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:57:38 -0800 Message-Id: <199601250352.TAA04484@netcom19.netcom.com> X-Sender: profile@netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: ny-digitals@mail.webcom.com From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" (by way of Charlie Gallie ) Subject: ALERT: Stop New York State Internet bill Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 17598 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE NEW YORK STATE INTERNET CENSORSHIP BILL! (A3967/S210) Email: vtw@vtw.org URL: http://www.vtw.org/ January 24, 1996 Coalition members of this campaign include: Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) Redistribute this message freely but do not remove this banner. This alert was authored by the Voters Telecommunications Watch. ________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS What's Happening: New York State Legislature Passess Bill to Hold Online Services Liable For Content What You Can Do Now Letter from NY Internet businesses; sign your business on! Text of A3967/S210 Press Contact Information ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT'S HAPPENING The New York State Assembly and Senate have passed a bill that would make online service providers (including commercial services such as America Online and Prodigy and direct Internet Service Providers such as Panix, MindVox, and Echo) liable for the content on their networks. =20 The bill would prohibit the knowing "dissemination" of material that depicts "actual or simulated nudity,[or] sexual conduct", that is "harmful to= minors" and is communicated to a minor through a "computer communications system". If Gov. Pataki signs this bill into law it could impose significant burdens upon Internet Access businesses to screen the Internet for their users, drive Internet content businesses from New York state, and chill free speech. Here is a short list of the problems with this bill: CONTAINS VAGUE AND OVERBROAD LANGUAGE IMPLYING LIABILITY FOR ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS The bill penalizes those who "knowingly" disseminates material that depicts "actual or simulated nudity". The term "knowingly" is not clearly defined. Everyone knows there is a small amount of material that may not be suitable for consumption by minors. Moreover, the term "disseminates" could be understood to apply to *both* individual subscribers *and* service providers who operate online networks SERVICE PROVIDERS MAY BE FORCED TO SCREEN ONLINE CONTENT In order to avoid liability under this legislation, an online service provider may be compelled to pre-screen all material on their networks to which minors have access. From a practical standpoint, such pre-screening is simply impossible due to the literally millions of pages of information which flow over online services every day. Holding service providers liable for the content on their networks also creates tremendous free speech and privacy problems. If service providers are forced to pre-screen the material on their networks in order to avoid liability, no message will be private. Privacy and the free flow of information online will be severely impaired. DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EXISTING PARENTAL CONTROLS The law does not take into account the fact that parents and teachers have extensive tools to control children's access to the Internet already, and that these will be far more effective than state laws that cannot stop people outside the NY from making such information available. PUTS VAGUE AND OVERBROAD RESPONSIBILITIES ON CONTENT PROVIDERS If you are a content provider, you will be responsible under this bill to ensure that nothing you publish contains "actual or simulated nudity" or "sexual conduct" and is "harmful to minors". If you are unsure, you will be required to take measures to ensure that minors cannot access your information. However what measures those might be are not made clear. Even if asking for an age was the requirement, this is not an insignificant amount of work for those with sites with hundreds of pages.=20 This is especially dangerous for those who have WWW pages, mailing lists, or newsgroups which republish submissions from others. On the net, everyone is a publisher, so you will be just as liable under this bill as the largest publishing company in the world. While the intent of the drafters of this legislation is noble, the New York "Cyberporn" bill could force many New York based online service providers and content providers to violate the free speech and privacy rights of their users and in some cases to go out of business, or, worse yet, leave New York for other states which do not impose liability on them if this is signed into law. There is one last chance to stop this proposal. Follow the instructions below and ask the sponsors of this bill to halt this proposal. Please also ask New York Governor Pataki to veto any bill without these changes. Children can be protected online and criminals can be punished without forcing online service providers to violate their users privacy and free speech rights. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW 1. If you're a business owner or partner, email vtw@vtw.org right away to signon to the business letter. There is no time to waste! 2. Call or fax the sponsors of the bill and ask them to revise the bill so it does not infringe on the First Amendment. Explain to them it is poorly worded and does not clearly exempt online services or clearly define what it is trying to accomplish. Here is a list of the people you should call or fax using the sample communique below. Assembly memberTelephoneFax ---------------------- ------------ ------------ Speaker Sheldon Silver212 385-6680212 385-6799 Assemblywoman Destito518 455-5454 518 455-5928 Senate memberTelephoneFax ---------------------- ------------ ------------ Majority Leader Joseph Bruno518-455-3191518-455-2448 Minority Leader Martin Connor518-455-2701518-432-8832 William Sears518-455-3334518-426-6964 3. Call or fax Governor Pataki and ask him not to sign the bill in its current form because of the negative impact it will have on businesses and free speech. It is very important that you make sure you mention that you are a business owner if you are. You can reach the Governor at: Telephone: (518) 474-8390 or (518) 474-1041 Fax: (518) 474-0888 or (518) 474-2344 Sample Communique GOV: Executive Chamber, yes? You: Hi, I'd like to urge the governor to veto S210/A3967, as it will be very harmful to my Internet business. My business is: Joe's Internet Provider New York, NY 11201 212 555 1212 Thank you! or try: GOV: Executive Chamber, yes? You: Hi, I'd like the governor to veto the Internet censorship bill S210/A3967, as it will be harmful to Internet free speech. I'm a New York resident at: 212 Exon St. NY NY, 11111 Thank you! Please be *very* polite. This person will be taking a lot of calls. 4. Send a letter to vtw@vtw.org and let us know that you called. $ Mail vtw@vtw.org Subject: called gov pataki I called Pataki's office and asked him to veto the bill. I'm a business owner and can be reached at 212 555 1212. =20 or I called Pataki's office and asked him to veto the bill. I'm a New Yorker! ^D Sent! ________________________________________________________________________ LETTER FROM NY INTERNET BUSINESSES; SIGN YOUR BUSINESS ON! [The following letter is designed to be sent to Gov. Pataki in regards to the NYS "Internet censorship" bill A3967/S210.] We need to send this letter asap. Please respond in the affirmative if you wish to signon. To signon your ISP, web business, consulting business, or Internet cafe, send vtw@vtw.org an email with: Your name Your business name Your title Work phone number Email address for you Infobot email address if you have one A one or two sentence description of your company The number of employees you have (1 to however many) -Shabbir] Dear Governor, The Internet censorship bill S210/A3967 would significantly hamper, if not drive away, businesses who provide Internet services and content in NY. For businesses to continue to survive in New York, you must veto it. The bill attempts to regulate the Internet in such a way as to burden businesses with the responsibilities of parents by implying that Internet access and content providers screen such information. n addition, this bill would chill free speech and force businesses to screen what their subscribers read, and does little to protect the interests of children who can obtain access to material outside New York and the US anyway. Thousands of people use local New York businesses everyday as their onramp to the global Internet. They download millions of pages of information every day through these services. There is no feasible way for these businesses to screen what users want to look at, nor is it possible to ascertain the age of the person browsing the material. Such a responsibility belongs with the consumers of such information. Many of our businesses have fewer than thirty employees. The staff required to screen all such information would easily have to be twice that size. Finally, contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not an unregulated frontier. Current laws that criminalize the distribution of obscene material, child pornography, and the solicitation of minors for sex are illegal if they're done through computers, just as they are illegal if done on a street corner. Law enforcement has gone after those who commit these crimes already, and will continue to do so with the strength and force of existing statutes; no new laws are needed. In closing, let us reiterate that this sort of legislation is likely to make other states besides New York with more rational approaches to the Internet more attractive to businesses. Please veto the Internet censorship legislation before you. Our livelihoods, and the livelihoods of many New Yorkers, depends on it. [The undersigned New York businesses] ________________________________________________________________________ TEXT OF A3967/S210 S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K = ________________________________________________________________________ 3967--B 1995-1996 Regular Sessions I N A S S E M B L Y (PREFILED) January 4, 1995 ___________ Introduced by M. of A. DESTITO, ROBACH, CONNELLY, GROMACK,= CANESTRARI, PORDUM, SCHIMMINGER -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BUTLER, = CHRIS- TENSEN, ENGLEBRIGHT, GALEF, GANTT, GREENE, HARENBERG, HIKIND,= KAUFMAN, KEANE, KLEIN, LAFAYETTE, ORTIZ, PERRY, PHEFFER, PRETLOW,= SWEENEY, TOCCI, TOKASZ, TONKO -- read once and referred to the Committee = on Codes -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted= as amended and recommitted to said committee -- again reported from = said committee with amendments, ordered reprinted as amended and= recommit- ted to said committee AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to disseminating= indecent material to minors through any computer communication system THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND = ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 1 Section 1. The section heading and subdivision 1 of section 235.15= of 2 the penal law, as amended by chapter 1031 of the laws of 1971, = is 3 amended to read as follows: 4 Obscenity OR DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS IN THE= SECOND 5 DEGREE; defense. 6 1. In any prosecution for obscenity, OR DISSEMINATING INDECENT= MATERI- 7 AL TO MINORS IN THE SECOND DEGREE IN VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION THREE = OF 8 SECTION 235.21, it is an affirmative defense that the persons to= whom 9 allegedly obscene OR INDECENT material was disseminated, or the = audi- 10 ence to an allegedly obscene performance, consisted of persons or= insti- 11 tutions having scientific, educational, governmental or other= similar 12 justification for possessing, DISSEMINATING or viewing the same. 13 =A7 2. The opening paragraph of section 235.20 of the penal law, = as 14 added by chapter 791 of the laws of 1967, is amended to read as= follows: 15 The following definitions are applicable to sections 235.21= [and], 16 235.22 AND 235.23: 17 =A7 3. The section heading and the closing paragraph of section = 235.21 18 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 582 of the laws of 1969,= are 19 amended to read as follows: 20 Disseminating indecent material to minors IN THE SECOND DEGREE. PAGE-2 1 Disseminating indecent material to minors IN THE SECOND DEGREE is = a 2 class E felony. 3 =A7 4. Paragraph (c) of subdivision 2 of section 235.21 of the= penal 4 law, as amended by chapter 582 of the laws of 1969, is amended and a= new 5 subdivision 3 is added to read as follows: 6 (c) Admits a minor for a monetary consideration to premises = whereon 7 there is exhibited or to be exhibited such motion picture show or= other 8 presentation[.]; OR 9 3. KNOWING THE CHARACTER AND CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION WHICH, = IN 10 WHOLE OR IN PART, DEPICTS ACTUAL OR SIMULATED NUDITY, SEXUAL CONDUCT= OR 11 SADO-MASOCHISTIC ABUSE, AND WHICH IS HARMFUL TO MINORS, HE= INTENTIONALLY 12 INITIATES OR ENGAGES IN SUCH COMMUNICATION WITH A MINOR THROUGH = ANY 13 COMPUTER COMMUNICATION SYSTEM ALLOWING THE INPUT, OUTPUT, EXAMINATION= OR 14 TRANSFER, OF COMPUTER DATA OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS FROM ONE COMPUTER= TO 15 ANOTHER. 16 =A7 5. Section 235.22 of the penal law is renumbered section 235.23 = and 17 a new section 235.22 is added to read as follows: 18 =A7 235.22 DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS IN THE FIRST= DEGREE. 19 A PERSON IS GUILTY OF DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS IN= THE 20 FIRST DEGREE WHEN: 21 1. KNOWING THE CHARACTER AND CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION WHICH,= IN 22 WHOLE OR IN PART, DEPICTS ACTUAL OR SIMULATED SEXUAL CONDUCT OR= SADO-MA- 23 SOCHISTIC ABUSE WHICH IS HARMFUL TO MINORS, HE INTENTIONALLY = INITIATES 24 OR ENGAGES IN SUCH COMMUNICATION WITH A MINOR THROUGH ANY= COMPUTER 25 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM ALLOWING THE INPUT, OUTPUT, EXAMINATION OR Date: Monday, January 29, 1996 1:49pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 671084 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: NYS Internet purity act 1/3 (1 reply) From files@vtw.orgMon Jan 29 13:27:07 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:24:13 -0500 (EST) From: VTW file archive To: jgostl@panix.com -------- *** This file is from the Voters Telecommunications Watch archives *** *** They are also available via the WWW at URL:http://www.vtw.org/ *** *** or through gopher at gopher.panix.com or by sending mail to *** *** files@vtw.org with "help" in the subject line *** Voters Telecommunications Watch * Watching out for your civil liberties _______________________________________________________________________ >Subject: (ALERT) NYS Internet bill could make Internet providers liable >From: shabbir@vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar) >Distribution:ny >Newsgroups:ny.general >Followup-To:ny.politics >Organization: Voters Telecommunications Watch (email vtw@vtw.org) > > >======================================================================= > > CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE NEW YORK STATE INTERNET CENSORSHIP BILL! > (A3967/S210) > Email: vtw@vtw.org > URL: http://www.vtw.org/ > January 24, 1996 > > Coalition members of this campaign include: > > Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) > New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) > Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) > > Redistribute this message freely but do not remove this banner. > This alert was authored by the Voters Telecommunications Watch. >________________________________________________________________________ >TABLE OF CONTENTS > > What's Happening: New York State Legislature Passess Bill to > Hold Online Services Liable For Content > What You Can Do Now > Letter from NY Internet businesses; sign your business on! > Text of A3967/S210 > Press Contact Information > >________________________________________________________________________ >WHAT'S HAPPENING > >The New York State Assembly and Senate have passed a bill that would >make online service providers (including commercial services such as >America Online and Prodigy and direct Internet Service Providers such as >Panix, MindVox, and Echo) liable for the content on their networks. > >The bill would prohibit the knowing "dissemination" of material that depicts >"actual or simulated nudity,[or] sexual conduct", that is "harmful to minors" >and is communicated to a minor through a "computer communications system". > >If Gov. Pataki signs this bill into law it could impose significant >burdens upon Internet Access businesses to screen the Internet for their >users, drive Internet content businesses from New York state, and chill free >speech. Here is a short list of the problems with this bill: > > >CONTAINS VAGUE AND OVERBROAD LANGUAGE IMPLYING LIABILITY FOR ONLINE >SERVICE PROVIDERS >The bill penalizes those who "knowingly" disseminates material that >depicts "actual or simulated nudity". The term "knowingly" is not >clearly defined. Everyone knows there is a small amount of material >that may not be suitable for consumption by minors. Moreover, the term >"disseminates" could be understood to apply to *both* individual >subscribers *and* service providers who operate online networks > > >SERVICE PROVIDERS MAY BE FORCED TO SCREEN ONLINE CONTENT >In order to avoid liability under this legislation, an online service >provider may be compelled to pre-screen all material on their networks >to which minors have access. From a practical standpoint, such >pre-screening is simply impossible due to the literally millions of >pages of information which flow over online services every day. > >Holding service providers liable for the content on their networks also >creates tremendous free speech and privacy problems. If service >providers are forced to pre-screen the material on their networks in >order to avoid liability, no message will be private. Privacy and the >free flow of information online will be severely impaired. > > >DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EXISTING PARENTAL CONTROLS >The law does not take into account the fact that parents and teachers >have extensive tools to control children's access to the Internet >already, and that these will be far more effective than state laws that >cannot stop people outside the NY from making such information >available. > > >PUTS VAGUE AND OVERBROAD RESPONSIBILITIES ON CONTENT PROVIDERS >If you are a content provider, you will be responsible under >this bill to ensure that nothing you publish contains "actual or >simulated nudity" or "sexual conduct" and is "harmful to minors". >If you are unsure, you will be required to take measures to ensure that >minors cannot access your information. However what measures those might >be are not made clear. Even if asking for an age was the requirement, this >is not an insignificant amount of work for those with sites with hundreds >of pages. > >This is especially dangerous for those who have WWW pages, mailing lists, or >newsgroups which republish submissions from others. > >On the net, everyone is a publisher, so you will be just as liable under >this bill as the largest publishing company in the world. > > >While the intent of the drafters of this legislation is noble, the New >York "Cyberporn" bill could force many New York based online service >providers and content providers to violate the free speech and privacy >rights of their users and in some cases to go out of business, or, >worse yet, leave New York for other states which do not impose >liability on them if this is signed into law. > >There is one last chance to stop this proposal. Follow the >instructions below and ask the sponsors of this bill to halt this >proposal. Please also ask New York Governor Pataki to veto any bill >without these changes. Children can be protected online and criminals >can be punished without forcing online service providers to violate >their users privacy and free speech rights. > >________________________________________________________________________ Date: Monday, January 29, 1996 1:49pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 671085 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: NYS Internet purity act 2/3 >________________________________________________________________________ >WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW > > >1. If you're a business owner or partner, email vtw@vtw.org right > away to signon to the business letter. There is no time to waste! > >2. Call or fax the sponsors of the bill and ask them to revise the bill > so it does not infringe on the First Amendment. Explain to them it > is poorly worded and does not clearly exempt online services or clearly > define what it is trying to accomplish. > > Here is a list of the people you should call or fax using the sample > communique below. > > > Assembly member Telephone Fax > ---------------------- ------------ ------------ > Speaker Sheldon Silver 212 385-6680 212 385-6799 > Assemblywoman Destito 518 455-5454 518 455-5928 > > Senate member Telephone Fax > ---------------------- ------------ ------------ > Majority Leader Joseph Bruno 518-455-3191 518-455-2448 > Minority Leader Martin Connor 518-455-2701 518-432-8832 > William Sears 518-455-3334 518-426-6964 > >3. Call or fax Governor Pataki and ask him not to sign the bill in its > current form because of the negative impact it will have on businesses > and free speech. It is very important that you make sure you mention > that you are a business owner if you are. > > You can reach the Governor at: > > Telephone: (518) 474-8390 or (518) 474-1041 > Fax: (518) 474-0888 or (518) 474-2344 > > Sample Communique > > > GOV: Executive Chamber, yes? > You: Hi, I'd like to urge the governor to veto S210/A3967, as it > will be very harmful to my Internet business. My business > is: > Joe's Internet Provider > New York, NY 11201 > 212 555 1212 > > Thank you! > or try: > > GOV: Executive Chamber, yes? > You: Hi, I'd like the governor to veto the Internet censorship > bill S210/A3967, as it will be harmful to Internet free speech. > I'm a New York resident at: > 212 Exon St. > NY NY, 11111 > > Thank you! > > Please be *very* polite. This person will be taking a lot of calls. > >4. Send a letter to vtw@vtw.org and let us know that you called. > > $ Mail vtw@vtw.org > Subject: called gov pataki > > I called Pataki's office and asked him to veto the bill. I'm a business > owner and can be reached at 212 555 1212. > > or > > I called Pataki's office and asked him to veto the bill. I'm a New > Yorker! > > ^D > Sent! > >________________________________________________________________________ >LETTER FROM NY INTERNET BUSINESSES; SIGN YOUR BUSINESS ON! > >[The following letter is designed to be sent to Gov. Pataki in regards to > the NYS "Internet censorship" bill A3967/S210.] > > We need to send this letter asap. Please respond in the affirmative if > you wish to signon. To signon your ISP, web business, consulting business, > or Internet cafe, send vtw@vtw.org an email with: > > Your name > Your business name > Your title > Work phone number > Email address for you > Infobot email address if you have one > A one or two sentence description of your company > The number of employees you have (1 to however many) > > -Shabbir] > >Dear Governor, > >The Internet censorship bill S210/A3967 would significantly hamper, if not >drive away, businesses who provide Internet services and content in NY. >For businesses to continue to survive in New York, you must veto it. > >The bill attempts to regulate the Internet in such a way as to burden >businesses with the responsibilities of parents by implying that >Internet access and content providers screen such information. > >In addition, this bill would chill free speech and force businesses to >screen what their subscribers read, and does little to protect >the interests of children who can obtain access to material outside >New York and the US anyway. > >Thousands of people use local New York businesses everyday as their >onramp to the global Internet. They download millions of pages of >information every day through these services. There is no feasible >way for these businesses to screen what users want to look at, nor is >it possible to ascertain the age of the person browsing the material. > >Such a responsibility belongs with the consumers of such information. >Many of our businesses have fewer than thirty employees. The staff >required to screen all such information would easily have to be twice >that size. > >Finally, contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not an unregulated >frontier. Current laws that criminalize the distribution of obscene >material, child pornography, and the solicitation of minors for sex >are illegal if they're done through computers, just as they are illegal >if done on a street corner. Law enforcement has gone after those who >commit these crimes already, and will continue to do so with the strength >and force of existing statutes; no new laws are needed. > >In closing, let us reiterate that this sort of legislation is likely to >make other states besides New York with more rational approaches to the >Internet more attractive to businesses. > >Please veto the Internet censorship legislation before you. Our >livelihoods, and the livelihoods of many New Yorkers, depends on it. > >[The undersigned New York businesses] > >________________________________________________________________________ Date: Monday, January 29, 1996 1:50pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 671087 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: NYS Internet purity act 3/3 (1 reply) >TEXT OF A3967/S210 > > > S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K > ________________________________________________________________________ > 3967--B > 1995-1996 Regular Sessions > I N A S S E M B L Y > (PREFILED) > January 4, 1995 > ___________ > Introduced by M. of A. DESTITO, ROBACH, CONNELLY, GROMACK, CANESTRARI, > PORDUM, SCHIMMINGER -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BUTLER, CHRIS- > TENSEN, ENGLEBRIGHT, GALEF, GANTT, GREENE, HARENBERG, HIKIND, KAUFMAN, > KEANE, KLEIN, LAFAYETTE, ORTIZ, PERRY, PHEFFER, PRETLOW, SWEENEY, > TOCCI, TOKASZ, TONKO -- read once and referred to the Committee on > Codes -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as > amended and recommitted to said committee -- again reported from said > committee with amendments, ordered reprinted as amended and recommit- > ted to said committee > AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to disseminating indecent > material to minors through any computer communication system > THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- > BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: > 1 Section 1. The section heading and subdivision 1 of section 235.15 of > 2 the penal law, as amended by chapter 1031 of the laws of 1971, is > 3 amended to read as follows: > 4 Obscenity OR DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS IN THE SECOND > 5 DEGREE; defense. > 6 1. In any prosecution for obscenity, OR DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERI- > 7 AL TO MINORS IN THE SECOND DEGREE IN VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION THREE OF > 8 SECTION 235.21, it is an affirmative defense that the persons to whom > 9 allegedly obscene OR INDECENT material was disseminated, or the audi- > 10 ence to an allegedly obscene performance, consisted of persons or insti- > 11 tutions having scientific, educational, governmental or other similar > 12 justification for possessing, DISSEMINATING or viewing the same. > 13 ' 2. The opening paragraph of section 235.20 of the penal law, as > 14 added by chapter 791 of the laws of 1967, is amended to read as follows: > 15 The following definitions are applicable to sections 235.21 [and], > 16 235.22 AND 235.23: > 17 ' 3. The section heading and the closing paragraph of section 235.21 > 18 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 582 of the laws of 1969, are > 19 amended to read as follows: > 20 Disseminating indecent material to minors IN THE SECOND DEGREE. > PAGE-2 > 1 Disseminating indecent material to minors IN THE SECOND DEGREE is a > 2 class E felony. > 3 ' 4. Paragraph (c) of subdivision 2 of section 235.21 of the penal > 4 law, as amended by chapter 582 of the laws of 1969, is amended and a new > 5 subdivision 3 is added to read as follows: > 6 (c) Admits a minor for a monetary consideration to premises whereon > 7 there is exhibited or to be exhibited such motion picture show or other > 8 presentation[.]; OR > 9 3. KNOWING THE CHARACTER AND CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION WHICH, IN > 10 WHOLE OR IN PART, DEPICTS ACTUAL OR SIMULATED NUDITY, SEXUAL CONDUCT OR > 11 SADO-MASOCHISTIC ABUSE, AND WHICH IS HARMFUL TO MINORS, HE INTENTIONALLY > 12 INITIATES OR ENGAGES IN SUCH COMMUNICATION WITH A MINOR THROUGH ANY > 13 COMPUTER COMMUNICATION SYSTEM ALLOWING THE INPUT, OUTPUT, EXAMINATION OR > 14 TRANSFER, OF COMPUTER DATA OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS FROM ONE COMPUTER TO > 15 ANOTHER. > 16 ' 5. Section 235.22 of the penal law is renumbered section 235.23 and > 17 a new section 235.22 is added to read as follows: > 18 ' 235.22 DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS IN THE FIRST DEGREE. > 19 A PERSON IS GUILTY OF DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS IN THE > 20 FIRST DEGREE WHEN: > 21 1. KNOWING THE CHARACTER AND CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION WHICH, IN > 22 WHOLE OR IN PART, DEPICTS ACTUAL OR SIMULATED SEXUAL CONDUCT OR SADO-MA- > 23 SOCHISTIC ABUSE WHICH IS HARMFUL TO MINORS, HE INTENTIONALLY INITIATES > 24 OR ENGAGES IN SUCH COMMUNICATION WITH A MINOR THROUGH ANY COMPUTER > 25 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM ALLOWING THE INPUT, OUTPUT, EXAMINATION OR TRANS- > 26 FER, OF COMPUTER DATA OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS FROM ONE COMPUTER TO ANOTHER; > 27 AND > 28 2. BY MEANS OF SUCH COMMUNICATION HE IMPORTUNES, INVITES OR INDUCES A > 29 MINOR TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, OR > 30 SEXUAL CONTACT WITH HIM, OR TO ENGAGE IN A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE, OBSCENE > 31 SEXUAL PERFORMANCE, SEXUAL CONDUCT, OR PERFORMANCE FOR HIS BENEFIT. > 32 DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS A > 33 CLASS D FELONY. > 34 ' 6. The penal law is amended by adding a new section 235.24 to read > 35 as follows: > 36 ' 235.24 DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS; DEFENSE. > 37 IN ANY PROSECUTION FOR DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS IN > 38 THE SECOND DEGREE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION THREE OF SECTION 235.21 OF > 39 THIS ARTICLE OR DISSEMINATING INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS IN THE FIRST > 40 DEGREE PURSUANT TO SECTION 235.22 OF THIS ARTICLE, IT SHALL BE AN AFFIR- > 41 MATIVE DEFENSE THAT: > 42 1. THE DEFENDANT MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE AGE OF > 43 THE MINOR; AND > 44 2. THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO DO SO AS A RESULT OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY > 45 THE MINOR; AND > 46 3. THE DEFENDANT MADE NO ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL HIS TRUE AGE OR IDENTITY. > 47 ' 7. This act shall take effect on the first day of November next > 48 succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law. > >________________________________________________________________________ >PRESS CONTACT INFORMATION > >The Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) is the premier grass-roots >civil liberties watchdog group on the Internet. You can reach VTW >via email at vtw@vtw.org (please put "PRESS DEADLINE" in the subject) >or via telephone at 718-596-2851. Our WWW site is at http://www.vtw.org/ > >The NYCLU is the NY State affiliate of the ACLU. Our defense of the >First Amendment and the New York State Constitution's guarantee of >freedom of expression is in the forefront of our efforts. You can >Beth Haroules at NYCLU at 212-382-0557. NYCLU is on the WWW at >http://www.aclu.org/. > >The Center For Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest >organization based in Washington DC. The Center's mission is to >develop and advocate public policies that advance constitutional civil >liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications >technologies. You can reach Jonah Seiger or Danny Weitzner at CDT >at 202-637-9800. CDT is on the WWW at http://www.cdt.org/ > >======================================================================= Date: Monday, January 29, 1996 3:42am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 671186 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: hey. (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #669522, Reply to #668920, R*) (1 reply) LY>What questions would we put in the questionnaire? You write it, we'll LY>post it..... Okay here it is: React to these words, choosing the closest possible answer: Holy fucking shit a> coprophilia in the vatican b> thats nasty, stop it c> what? you okay? d> DONT MOVE Jesus Fucking Christ a> impossible, gotta fuck the ghost or god, this is a trinity remember? b> stop this or you gonna goto Heck c> O shut the fuck up and have a beer d> yeh well what the hell... 10319822.GIF: She all sweaty with oil and welts, nice a> worth the time to filesteal? b> my goodness theres frontal nudity and contusions not nice for Junior to see c> live beats pix any day, HELLO? d> got it already and it was not sharp enough Newt Gingrich a> where in the fuck did I leave my rifle? b> now there is a man who I would like to have make up my mind for me c> didnt he dump his wife once she got sick and a bother? d> whatcha expect from someone named after swampdwelling amphibian America a> the only place on earth where it is legal to be me b> God's Country and lets keep it that way c> can be funny, considering the kinda people we let run it d> an unfinished experiment still even at this late date the Internet a> too big to fuck with in one day you bet b> a subversive construct designed to recruit youth into the sex trade c> bigger since AOL etc started getting preinstalled on consumer devices d> got plenty lotsa stuff on it if you know the maps to get there Fuck Me a> ah shit I saw this one a week late b> err err no we aint married yaaa stop this thought NOW c> fuck you? why do I hafta do all the work here? d> christ, I know whatcha mean, jesus fuck my eyes Slaves a> stuff someone else has b> it never really happened here, all the books lie c> coffee and a blowjob to wake me up, what a wonderful world d> feel like one sometimes but they didnt get paid for it so its different Young Black Men a> yeh, and? this ones incomplete b> genetically reverted to feral predator state so I live in the woods now where its safe c> lets deal with this topic one person at a time d> some of them have tasty looking sisters ahem And there ya go, nine questions to jam into a poll format and see what happens later on. Nine is a fine shiny number, thats why I didnt fuck with typing out a tenth one. I will be happy to answer these and any others you create once they make it into the P&Q feature. Now, here is a public advisory: DO NOT ANSWER THIS POST HERE, DO NOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS NOW This is only a submission, only a submission, submission, sub mission, sub mission, going down down under the ground: submission, I cant tell ya what I found Thank you for your inconvenience. >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * The Object to be Murdered Need not be One Yard Long Date: Thursday, February 1, 1996 11:26pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Sysop Msg#: 672644 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: grave marker (5 replies) AMERICA home of the free 1776 - 1996 R I P . Date: Tuesday, February 6, 1996 6:52am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 674454 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Statement of Library (1 reply) This is a statement from the Library Association about the importance of freedom of speech in computer communications. From owner-leftnews@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU Mon Feb 5 09:51 EST 1996 From: Nathan Newman Subject: Computer policy from American Library Association (fwd) Why libraries will be the key defense of knowledge in the next few years. Cool statement by the American Library Association-- NN ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 20:24:04 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre To: rre@weber.ucsd.edu Subject: Computer policy from American Library Association Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 14:37:13 EST From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V8#011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jan 1996 13:40:05 -0800 From: "Carl M. Kadie" Subject: Computer policy from American Library Association From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: NEW: Computer policy from American Library Association Date: 30 Jan 1996 11:57:56 -0800 According to a mailing list posting, the American Library Association (ALA) just approved the enclosed statement on applying the Library Bill of Rights to computers and networks. The ALA is the largest and oldest library organization. It has has a century's experience with intellectual freedom issues. The ALA's web site is http://www.ala.org. I've archived the statement at ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/computer.ala. Also See http://www.eff.org/CAF. - Carl (not even an ALA member) ======================================================== Access to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks: an Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS INTRODUCTION The world is in the midst of an electronic communications revolution. Based on its constitutional, ethical, and historical heritage, American librarianship is uniquely positioned to address the broad range of information issues being raised in this revolution. In particular, librarians address intellectual freedom >from a strong ethical base and an abiding commitment to the preservation of the individual's rights. Freedom of expression is an inalienable human right and the foundation for self-government. Freedom of expression encompasses the freedom of speech and the corollary right to receive information. These rights extend to minors as well as adults. Libraries and librarians exist to facilitate the exercise of these rights by selecting, producing, providing access to, identifying, retrieving, organizing, providing instruction in the use of, and preserving recorded expression regardless of the format or technology. The American Library Association expresses these basic principles of librarianship in its CODE OF ETHICS and in the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS and its Interpretations. These serve to guide librarians and library governing bodies in addressing issues of intellectual freedom that arise when the library provides access to electronic information, services, and networks. Issues arising from the still-developing technology of computer-mediated information generation, distribution, and retrieval need to be approached and regularly reviewed from a context of constitutional principles and ALA policies so that fundamental and traditional tenets of librarianship are not swept away. Electronic information flows across boundaries and barriers despite attempts by individuals, governments, and private entities to channel or control it. Even so, many people, for reasons of technology, infrastructure, or socio-economic status do not have access to electronic information. In making decisions about how to offer access to electronic information, each library should consider its mission, goals, objectives, cooperative agreements, and the needs of the entire community it serves. The Rights of Users All library system and network policies, procedures or regulations relating to electronic resources and services should be scrutinized for potential violation of user rights. User policies should be developed according to the policies and guidelines established by the American Library Association, including GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING ACCESS TO LIBRARY MATERIALS, SERVICES AND FACILITIES. Users should not be restricted or denied access for expressing or receiving constitutionally protected speech. Users' access should not be changed without due process, including, but not limited to, formal notice and a means of appeal. Although electronic systems may include distinct property rights and security concerns, such elements may not be employed as a subterfuge to deny users' access to information. Users have the right to be free of unreasonable limitations or conditions set by libraries, librarians, system administrators, vendors, network service providers, or others. Contracts, agreements, and licenses entered into by libraries on behalf of their users should not violate this right. Users also have a right to information, training and assistance necessary to operate the hardware and software provided by the library. Users have both the right of confidentiality and the right of privacy. The library should uphold these rights by policy, procedure, and practice. Users should be advised, however, that because security is technically difficult to achieve, electronic transactions and files could become public. he rights of users who are minors shall in no way be abridged. (See: FREE ACCESS TO LIBRARIES FOR MINORS: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS; ACCESS TO RESOURCES AND SERVICES IN THE SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA PROGRAM; and ACCESS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE TO VIDEOTAPES AND OTHER NONPRINT FORMATS. EQUITY OF ACCESS Electronic information, services, and networks provided directly or indirectly by the library should be equally, readily and equitably accessible to all library users. American Library Association policies oppose the charging of user fees for the provision of information services by all libraries and information services that receive their major support from public funds (50.3; 53.1.14; 60.1; 61.1). It should be the goal of all libraries to develop policies concerning access to electronic resources in light of ECONOMIC BARRIERS TO INFORMATION ACCESS: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS and GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING ACCESS TO LIBRARY MATERIALS, SERVICES AND FACILITIES. INFORMATION RESOURCES AND ACCESS Providing connections to global information, services, and networks is not the same as selecting and purchasing material for a library collection. Determining the accuracy or authenticity of electronic information may present special problems. Some information accessed electronically may not meet a library's selection or collection development policy. It is, therefore, left to each user to determine what is appropriate. Parents and legal guardians who are concerned about their children's use of electronic resources should provide guidance to their own children. Libraries and librarians should not deny or limit access to information available via electronic resources because of its allegedly controversial content or because of the librarian's personal beliefs or fear of confrontation. Information retrieved or utilized electronically should be considered constitutionally protected unless determined otherwise by a court with appropriate jurisdiction. Libraries, acting within their mission and objectives, must support access to information on all subjects that serve the needs or interests of each user, regardless of the user's age or the content of the material. Libraries have an obligation to provide access to government information available in electronic format. Libraries and librarians should not deny access to information solely on the grounds that it is perceived to lack value. In order to prevent the loss of information, and to preserve the cultural record, libraries may need to expand their selection or collection development policies to ensure preservation, in appropriate formats, of information obtained electronically. Electronic resources provide unprecedented opportunities to expand the scope of information available to users. Libraries and librarians should provide access to information presenting all points of view. The provision of access does not imply sponsorship or endorsement. These principles pertain to electronic resources no less than they do to the more traditional sources of information in libraries. (See: Diversity in Collection Development: an Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights) Adopted by the ALA Council, January 24, 1996. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V8 #011 ****************************** Date: Tuesday, February 6, 1996 7:41am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 674466 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Alert on Internet Bill (1 reply) Here's an alert on the internet bill. From owner-abigails-l@netcom.com Tue Feb 6 03:06 EST 1996 From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" Subject: ALERT: 48 Hours of Protest: turn your WWW pages black (2/4/96) ======================================================================== JOIN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER INTERNET USERS IN * 48 HOURS OF PROTEST * AFTER PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNS THE BILL THAT WILL CENSOR THE INTERNET Update: -Latest News: Congress passed the net censorship language on 2/1/96. -What You Can Do Now: Help demonstrate the extent of the impact of the Internet Censorship legislation. Join Hundreds of thousands of Internet Users in an International protest for 48 hours after Clinton Signs the bill. CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Feb 3, 1996 (expires Feb 29, 1996) PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT This alert and coalition coordinated by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org) ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now Chronology of the CDA For More Information List Of Participating Organizations ________________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS Last week Congress approved sweeping restrictions on online speech and conduct, imposing fines of $250,000 and jail sentences of 2 years for anyone who makes "indecent" material available in a public forum online. This legislation threatens the very existence of the Internet as a viable means of free expression, education, and political discourse. Despite loud objections from civil liberties groups and the public, the measure is part of a massive telecommunications bill that President Clinton has already pledged to sign. Although you should feel free to continue to express your objections directly to the President, there are other ways to express our outrage for this legislation. The President is expected to sign this bill into law during the week of Feb 5-9, 1996. For 48 hours after Clinton signs the Telecommunications Reform bill into law, join hundreds of thousands of I will have on all Internet users. TURN YOUR WORLD WIDE WEB PAGES BLACK with white lettering to demonstrate that the Internet will not accept this kind of second class treatment from the United States Government. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW 1. For 48 hours after Clinton signs the net censorship language in the Telecomm bill into law, TURN YOUR WORLD WIDE WEB PAGES BLACK with white lettering. To know when the bill is signed, check these sources: Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-disob Email:vtw-announce@vtw.org (watch for mail on this list) WWW:http://www.vtw.org/ Finger:vtw@panix.com You can also just watch CNN; they'll announce the signing of the bill. To turn your pages black with white lettering, simply add the following tag to your World Wide Web pages: Put this right after your tags, and before any tags. To explain to people who may be confused by the color change, temporarily add the following link to your page: My World Wide Web Pages are black for 48 hours to protest second-class treatment from the US Government for free speech. Read about it at this WWW page. The Center for Democracy and Technology has also agreed to mirror a similar page at URL:http://www.cdt.org/speech.html If your pages get lots of hits from services that cache their pages like America Online, you may wish to start turning your pages black early. Please try and wait though until Clinton signs the bill, for maximum effect. Also, urge your Internet Provider and any Internet WWW pages you frequent to turn their pages black. Send us interesting sites that comply to vtw@vtw.org. $ Mail vtw@vtw.org Subject: ZTV.COM is turning their pages black! I'm the head of the ZTV Website and I've decided to turn our pages black. Thought you'd like to know. ^D Mail sent! 2. Don't forget to send Clinton a message, contact him at: Email:president@whitehouse.gov Telephone:202-456-1111 Fax:202-456-2461 Sample communique: You're about to sign a bill into law that imposes a terrible set of speech restrictions on the Internet that belong in the broadcast medium, not the interactive one. I'm turning my World Wide Web pages BLACK for 48 hours after you sign the bill as a symbol of protest to show how many people will be affected by this bill. It is unlikely that he will veto the bill. 3. Make a commitment become involved! There will be several court cases coming up to challenge the Internet censorship legislation, as well as an election that will put every single member of the House, and 1/3rd of the Senate (most of whom voted for this legislation) onto the ballot. Don't let them get away with this. Make this a campaign issue, and keep an eye out for legal defense funds for those challenging these laws in court. ________________________________________________________________________ CHRONOLOGY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Feb 1, '96 The House and Senate pass the Telecomm Bill (S652/HR1555) 414-16 and 91-5. Jan 31, '96 The House and Senate prepare to signoff on the conference report for the Telecomm bill and rush a vote to the floor. Dec 7, '95 The House half of the Telecomm conference committee votes the "indecency" standard for online speech into the Telecomm Deregulation bill. Sep 26, '95 Sen. Russ Feingold urges committee members to drop Managers Amendment and the CDA from the Telecommunications Deregulation bill Aug 4, '95 House passes HR1555 which goes into conference with S652. Aug 4, '95 House votes to attach Managers Amendment (which contains new criminal penalties for speech online) to Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555). Aug 4, '95 House votes 421-4 to attach HR1978 to Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555). Jun 30, '95 Cox and Wyden introduce the "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act" (HR 1978) as an alternative to the CDA. Jun 21, '95 Several prominent House members publicly announce their opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Jun 14, '95 The Senate passes the CDA as attached to the Telecomm reform bill (S 652) by a vote of 84-16. The Leahy bill (S 714) is not passed, but is supported by 16 Senators who understand the Internet. May 24, '95 The House Telecomm Reform bill (HR 1555) leaves committee in the House with the Leahy alternative attached to it, thanks to Rep. Ron Klink of (D-PA). The Communications Decency Act is not attached to it. Apr 7, '95 Sen. Leahy (D-VT) introduces S.714, an alternative to the Exon/Gorton bill, which commissions the Dept. of Justice to study the problem to see if additional legislation (such as the CDA) is necessary. Mar 23, '95 S314 amended and attached to the telecommunications reform bill by Sen. Gorton (R-WA). Language provides some provider protection, but continues to infringe upon email privacy and free speech. Feb 21, '95 HR1004 referred to the House Commerce and Judiciary committees Feb 21, '95 HR1004 introduced by Rep. Johnson (D-SD) Feb 1, '95 S314 referred to the Senate Commerce committee Feb 1, '95 S314 introduced by Sen. Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA). ________________________________________________________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATION Web Sites (roughly in alphabetical order) URL:http://www.vtw.org/ URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html URL:http://www.cpsr.org/ URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/ URL:http://epic.org/ Email: cda-info@cdt.org (General CDA information) cda-stat@cdt.org (Current status of the CDA) ________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the Communications Decency Act. Because the list is so long, we've been forced to omit many fine organizations. See the VTW Free Speech Web Page at URL:http://www.vtw.org/speech/ for the whole list. Public Interest Organizations Businesses Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) | ECHO (www.echonyc.com) | Hotwired (www.hotwired.com) Center For Democracy And Technology (CDT) | Mindvox (www.phantom.com) Center for Public Representation (CPR) | Panix (www.panix.com) Computer Professionals for | The WELL (www.well.com) Social Responsibility (CPSR) | Wired (www.wired.com) Cyber-Rights Campaign +------------------------- Electronic Fronter Foundation (EFF), and independent regional Electronic Frontier organizations Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Feminists for Free Expression Hands! Off The Net Internet Users Consortium (IUC) Joint Artists' and Music The Libertarian Party (LP) Promotions Political Action National Campaign for Freedom of Expression Committee (JAMPAC) National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) National Gay and Lesbian National Writers Union (NWU) Task Force (NGLTF) People for the American Way (PFAW) Republican Liberty Caucus ________________________________________________________________________ End Alert ======================================================================== Date: Tuesday, February 6, 1996 7:45am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 674467 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Update on internet bill More news regarding the Proposed internet bill which I gathered from the net. From owner-abigails-l@netcom.com Tue Feb 6 02:08 EST 1996 Subject: Policy Post 2.5 - CDA Passes, Clinton Expected to Sign, CDT Plans Court Challenge >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > _____ _____ _______ > / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ > | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ > | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ > | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ > \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ > The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 5 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 5 February 1, 1996 > > CONTENTS: (1) Congress Passes Online Indecency Bill, Clinton Expected to Sign, > CDT Plans Court Challenge > (2) Subscription Information > (3) About CDT, contacting us > >This document may be redistributed freely provided it remains in its entirety > ** Excerpts may be re-posted by permission (editor@cdt.org) ** >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >(1) Congress Passes Online Indecency Bill, Clinton Expected to Sign, > CDT Plans Court Challenge > >By overwhelming margins in both the House and Senate, Congress today (2/1) >approved legislation to dramatically restrict the First Amendment rights of >Internet users. With this act of Congress, the very same materials which >are legally available today in book stores and libraries would be illegal >if posted on World Wide Web sites or usenet newsgroups. If signed by >President Clinton as expected, this bill will transform the Internet >overnight from the freest communications medium to the most heavily >regulated medium in the United States. > >CDT believes this legislation is unconstitutional. We are committed to >challenging it in the courts at the earliest possible opportunity. > >Despite the sustained effort over the past 12 months by Senators Leahy >(D-VT), Feingold (D-WI), and Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA), Rick White >(R-WA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) to defeat the bill, the House passed the >measure on a vote of 414 - 16, while the Senate concurred a few hours later >on a vote of 91 - 5. Ironically, the vote comes exactly one year to the day >that Senator Exon (D-NE) originally introduced the proposal (2/1/95). > >CONGRESS MAKES CRIMINALS OF MOST INTERNET USERS > >The Communications Decency Act, enacted as part of a massive >telecommunications reform legislation, will impose $250,000 fines and >prison terms for anyone who posts "indecent" material, including the "7 >dirty words", the text of classic works of fiction such as The Catcher In >The Rye or Ulysses, artwork containing images of nudes, or rap lyrics, in a >public forum. > >CDT strongly opposes this legislation. We believe the bill threatens the >very existence of the Internet as a means for free expression, education, >and political discourse. The bill is an unwarranted, unconstitutional >intrusion by the Federal government into the private lives of all >Americans. > >Although the free speech rights of Internet users and the free flow of >information online received a major setback today, the battle is far from >over. President Clinton is expected to sign the legislation in the coming >days. Several civil liberties and public interest advocacy groups, >including CDT, People for the American Way, EFF, and the ACLU are already >preparing to challenge these new restrictions in court. Other affected >entities, including commercial content providers, Internet Service >Providers, and the commercial online services industries, are also expected >to mount court challenges to this legislation. CDT is confident that the >courts will find the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional and reject >it outright. > >INTERNET COMMUNITY ACTIVISM MADE A CRITICAL DIFFERENCE > >Although the CDA passed by Congress today represents a significant threat >to the viability of the Internet and the free speech rights of individual >users, the efforts of the Internet.community to mobilize against the bill >kept it from being a lot worse. > >The Christian Coalition, with the support of House Judiciary Committee >Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL), fought hard to hold online service providers >criminally liable for materials generated by their subscribers. >Fortunately, these efforts were not successful. Holding providers liable >would have forced them to pre-screen all material on their networks, or, >worse yet, shut down entire parts of their services for fear of massive >fines and prison sentences. The Christian Coalition was also unsuccessful >in their efforts to remove provisions encouraging the development and >deployment of parental control applications. > >Due to the efforts of the 115,000 Internet users who signed the petition >against the CDA, the more than 20,000 users who in one day flooded Congress >with phone calls, faxes, and email messages, and those who throughout 1995 >regularly called their Congresspeople to express concerns about the various >proposals, the Internet community showed itself to be a true political >force with real influence over the legislative process. Although we did >not accomplish all of our most important objectives, we have become a >powerful force. This is not the last time Congress will consider issues >vital to the interests of Internet users across the United States. We must >never loose sight of the fact that, despite the apparent defeat today, >there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done. > >SEVERAL KEY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FOUGHT FOR THE RIGHTS OF INTERNET USERS > >Although a majority of Congress today demonstrated a complete lack of >understanding of the Internet and the implications of the Communications >Decency Act, several members deserve credit for standing up for freedom of >speech and the free flow of information online. > >During the course of the debate over the last year on the CDA, Senators >Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), along with Representatives >Chris Cox (R-CA), Rick White (R-WA), Michael Oxley (R-OH), Ron Wyden >(D-OR), and Ed Markey (D-MA), showed courage and conviction by working to >support enlightened alternatives to government content restrictions. These >members have shown themselves to be friends of the Internet, and we look >forward to working with them on other issues which lie ahead. > >ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT PASSED TODAY > >The legislation approved today was not changed from a previous version >released December 21, 1995 (See CDT Policy Post No. 33). Briefly, the >proposal contains several troubling elements. Among other things, the >bill: > >* Relies on the vague and blatantly unconstitutional "indecency" > standard (Sec 502 (a) - (c)) > >* Prohibits sending "indecent" material directly to a minor or making > indecent material available for display in a manner available to a > minor (including World Wide Web pages, ftp sites, or usenet > newsgroups) (Sec 502 (d)). > >* No longer contains the provision of the Cox/Wyden/White bill > prohibiting the FCC from imposing content or other regulations on the > Internet or other interactive media. > >* Would allow states to impose additional restrictions on non-commercial > activities such as free-nets, BBS's, and non-profit content providers > (Sec 502 (h)). > >* Creates a new crime for the solicitation of minors using a computer, > the US mail, or any other means of interstate or foreign commerce (Sec > 508). > >The full text of the bill, along with other relevant background information >(including final vote tallies when available) can be found at CDT's >Internet Censorship Issues Web Page (http://www.cdt.org/cda.html). > >As CDT prepares to fight this issue in court, we will continue to update >you on our progress as information becomes available. > >For More Information Contact: > >Jerry Berman, Executive Director >Daniel Weitzner, Deputy Director > >+1.202.637.9800 > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >(3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION > >Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil >liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post >news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the >Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by more than 9,000 Internet >users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the >leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy >issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. > >To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to > > policy-posts-request@cdt.org > >with a subject: > > subscribe policy-posts > >If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the >above address with a subject of: > > unsubscribe policy-posts > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >(3) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US > >The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest >organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop >and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and >constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications >technologies. > >Contacting us: > >General information: info@cdt.org >World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ >FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ > >Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology > 1001 G Street NW * Suite 500 East * Washington, DC 20001 > (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >End Policy Post 2.5 2/1/96 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Date: Wednesday, February 7, 1996 8:24pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 674715 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: ACLU update Here is the ACLU news re: the internet indecency bill and more. From owner-news-outgoing@newmedium.com Wed Feb 7 17:14 EST 1996 Subject: ACLU News 02-07-96: Telecom Bill and ACLU Web Site ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Releases Direct to YOU ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THIS ISSUE: * ACLU to Seek Order Against Indecency Provisions of Telcom Bill * ACLU Launches 'Freedom Network' Web Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- *ACLU to Seek Order Against Indecency Provisions of Telcom Bill Lawsuit Challenging Internet Indecency' Provisions To be Filed As Soon As Clinton Signs Legislation For IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Phil Gutis Wednesday, February 7, 1996 202-675-2312 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Saying that its chilling effects would be immediately felt throughout the online world, the American Civil Liberties Union today announced plans to seek a temporary restraining order against the "indecency" provisions of the telecommunications legislation immediately after President Clinton approves the measure on Thursday. In court papers that will be filed in federal District Court in Philadelphia, the ACLU will argue that provisions of the Communications Decency Act of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 are unconstitutional because they would criminalize expression that is protected by the First mendment. The legislation would also violate constitutional rights to privacy because it would criminalize certain private e-mail correspondence between individuals. "Nothing less than the future of free expression in the United States is at stake here," said Ira Glasser, ACLU Executive Director. "By passing this legislation, Congress has misunderstood a promising new medium and has, once again, turned its back on the First Amendment." Acting on behalf of 20 individuals and organizations that provide information via the Internet -- including itself -- the ACLU said today that it was moving quickly because it feared that the telecommunications legislation would have an immediate impact on the Internet. In addition to the ACLU, plaintiffs in the case include the Electronic Privacy Information Center; Human Rights Watch; the Institute for Global Communications; the journalist Brock Meeks; the National Writers Union; the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Critical Path AIDS Project. (A complete list of plaintiffs is attached.) 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. Following are other examples of communications that will subject the plaintiffs to fines, imprisonment and censorship once President Clinton signs the bill: -- ACLU: a Web site and America Online forum containing ACLU court briefs in cases involving obscenity, arts censorship and discrimination against gays and lesbians and information on how women can obtain abortions or abortifacient drugs. -- Biblio Bytes: Produces electronic books for sale via credit card over the World Wide Web, including romance novels, erotica, classics, adventure, and horror stories, some of which contain sexually explicit or vulgar language. -- Critical Path AIDS Project: a Web site providing AIDS prevention and treatment information, which reaches youths and adults at risk for AIDS in some of the most underserved communities in the nation. -- Human Rights Watch: a gopher site with resources including a July, 1995 report on slavery in Pakistan detailing tortures such as beating of the genitals and rape that are used to intimidate bonded laborers. -- Institute for Global Communications: a Web site that serves 400 nonprofit groups, including SIECUS (the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States), the Family Violence Prevention Fund, Stop Prisoner Rape, Human Rights Watch, Pacifica Radio, numerous women's rights groups, as well as approximately 500-600 schools. -- Journalism Education Association: The largest national organization of high school journalism teachers and publication advisors of high school journalism, JEA members assist students in conducting online research on a wide variety of issues. -- Planned Parenthood Federation of America: a Web site that provides information on abortions, abortifacient drugs, and safer sex practices. -- WildCat Press: an independent publishing company specializing in classic gay and lesbian literature that promotes its publications by providing free excerpts through a World Wide Web site. ---------------------------------------------------------------- *ACLU Launches Freedom Network' Web Site Brings Civil Liberties Activism To Cyberspace For IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Phil Gutis Wednesday, February 7, 1996 202-675-2312 NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today launched its new World Wide Web site -- the ACLU Freedom Network -- with special features for students, activists and all Americans concerned about protecting and preserving liberty. Opened as political leaders in Washington are poised to end free expression on the Internet, the ACLU's Freedom Network has complete information on the threats to cyber-liberties, including details of the ACLU's upcoming litigation against the Communications Decency Act. Internet users can find the Freedom Network by directing their web browsers to the following address: <>. The ACLU's provocative and informative site contains a comprehensive array of documents, news releases, legal briefs and Congressional memos on all aspects of the ongoing struggle to protect civil liberties. Among the special features are extensive looks at 15 issues, including: Church and State Criminal Justice Cyber-Liberties Death Penalty Free Speech HIV/AIDS Immigrant's Rights Lesbian and Gay Rights National Security Racial Equality Reproductive Rights Student's Rights Voting Rights Women's Rights Workplace Rights Each issue area contains internal links to ACLU press releases, publications, and other resources -- including links to other Web sites -- allowing users to stay on top of the latest developments in their areas of interest. Activists, journalists, and many others will want to sign up for e-mail delivery of ACLU News Releases, Legislative Alerts, Scheduled ACLU events on AOL, and the biweekly newsletter, ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert. Another Freedom Hall feature allows internet users to fax or e-mail a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, urging her to refrain from prosecuting any indecency cases until the courts rule on the Constitutionality of the indecency provisions of the telecommunications bill. The Freedom Network's "In the Courts" and "In Congress" sections provide further primary source material, such as the text of Supreme Court decisions and summaries of current Congressional bills, as well as unique ACLU information -- including photos and profiles of some ACLU clients. Students and teachers will want to explore our special section devoted to education, and sign-up for our online Students and Faculty databases. Users can even pick up some T-shirts -- or videos, or books, or posters -- in our sophisticated online store. The launch of the Freedom Network marks the third step into cyberspace for the ACLU, which has since 1994 explored the medium's capacity to broaden the nationwide community of civil libertarians, distribute information, teach young people and bring activists together. In addition to Freedom Hall, the ACLU hosts a very active forum -- Constitution Hall -- on America Online, the nation's largest commercial online service. (Keyword ACLU). ---------------------------------------------------------------- ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Freedom Network Web Page: http://www.aclu.org. America Online users should check out our live chats, auditorium events, *very* active message boards, and complete news on civil liberties, at keyword ACLU. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Newsfeed American Civil Liberties Union National Office 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 To subscribe to the ACLU Newsfeed, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe News" in the body of the message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe News" in the body of the message. For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to the news Date: Thursday, February 8, 1996 12:01am Forum: FreeSpeech From: 323641 Msg#: 674748 To: Conundrum *EXEMPT* Re: Federal Telecommunications Bill (Reply to #674095, Reply to #673913, Reply to #673706, R*) (1 reply) CO>LY>CO>Agreed -- after all, if the Archbishop had his way, people wouldn't be CO>LY>CO>allowed to fantisize about Lythande in a catholic Schoolgirl uniform! CO>LY>ROTFL! That was years ago! You're too young to be fantasizing about CO>LY>that, you pervert! CO>Yeah, but still rememberd. And thank you for that last:) I don't know about the rest of you but I wouldn't want to live in a country that was so restrictive that we were not allowed to fantisize about Lythande in a Catholic school girl outfit. Date: Saturday, February 10, 1996 6:38pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 675260 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Update from the ACLU I (1 reply) From the net, an update from the ACLU on the New Telecom Law From owner-cyber-liberties-outgoing@newmedium.com Fri Feb 9 16:10 EST Subject: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 02/07/96 February 7, 1996 ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE A bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies at the state and federal level. ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THIS ISSUE: *ACLU to Seek Order Against Indecency Provisions of Telcom Bill *Thanks to All Who Offered Themselves As Plaintiffs, Plus Where You Can Find the Plaintiffs on the Net *Action Alert! Urge Attorney General Janet Reno Not to Enforce the Telecom Bill! *6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Rules in U.S. v. Thomas (Amateur Action BBS Prosecution) *ACLU Launches 'Freedom Network' Web Site, Brings Civil Liberties Activism To Cyberspace ---------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases) ---------------------------------------------------------------- *ACLU to Seek Order Against Indecency Provisions of Telcom Bill Lawsuit Challenging Internet 'Indecency' Provisions To be Filed As Soon As Clinton Signs Legislation For IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, February 7, 1996 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Saying that its chilling effects would be immediately felt throughout the online world, the American Civil Liberties Union today announced plans to seek a temporary restraining order against the "indecency" provisions of the telecommunications legislation immediately after President Clinton approves the measure on Thursday. In court papers that will be filed in federal District Court in Philadelphia, the ACLU will argue that provisions of the Communications Decency Act of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 are unconstitutional because they would criminalize expression that is protected by the First Amendment. The legislation would also violate constitutional rights to privacy because it would criminalize certain private e-mail correspondence between individuals. "Nothing less than the future of free expression in the United States is at stake here," said Ira Glasser, ACLU Executive Director. "By passing this legislation, Congress has misunderstood a promising new medium and has, once again, turned its back on the First Amendment." Acting on behalf of 20 individuals and organizations that provide information via the Internet -- including itself -- the ACLU said today that it was moving quickly because it feared that the telecommunications legislation would have an immediate impact on the Internet. In addition to the ACLU, plaintiffs in the case include the Electronic Privacy Information Center; Human Rights Watch; the Institute for Global Communications; the journalist Brock Meeks; the National Writers Union; the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Critical Path AIDS Project. (A complete list of plaintiffs is attached.) 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. Following are other examples of communications that will subject the plaintiffs to fines, imprisonment and censorship once President Clinton signs the bill: -- ACLU: a Web site and America Online forum containing ACLU court briefs in cases involving obscenity, arts censorship and discrimination against gays and lesbians and information on how women can obtain abortions or abortifacient drugs. -- Biblio Bytes: Produces electronic books for sale via credit card over the World Wide Web, including romance novels, erotica, classics, adventure, and horror stories, some of which contain sexually explicit or vulgar language. -- Critical Path AIDS Project: a Web site providing AIDS prevention and treatment information, which reaches youths and adults at risk for AIDS in some of the most underserved communities in the nation. -- Human Rights Watch: a gopher site with resources including a July, 1995 report on slavery in Pakistan detailing tortures such as beating of the genitals and rape that are used to intimidate bonded laborers. -- Institute for Global Communications: a Web site that serves 400 nonprofit groups, including SIECUS (the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States), the Family Violence Prevention Fund, Stop Prisoner Rape, Human Rights Watch, Pacifica Radio, numerous women's rights groups, as well as approximately 500-600 schools. -- Journalism Education Association: The largest national organization of high school journalism teachers and publication advisors of high school journalism, JEA members assist students in conducting online research on a wide variety of issues. -- Planned Parenthood Federation of America: a Web site that provides information on abortions, abortifacient drugs, and safer sex practices. -- WildCat Press: an independent publishing company specializing in classic ay and lesbian literature that promotes its publications by providing free excerpts through a World Wide Web site. ------------------------------- *Thanks to All Who Offered Themselves As Plaintiffs, Plus Where You Can Find the Plaintiffs on the Net After much deliberation between literally hundreds of potential plaintiffs, the litigation coalition has settled on a final group of twenty plaintiffs thought to make the best case for a constitutional challenge. Many factors went into the decision, with a primary concern the selection of a diverse group in terms of content and type of online communication (e.g., listservs, web sites, bbs's, Usenet, etc.). Thanks to all the groups and individuals who expressed interest and made themselves available as plaintiffs. We hope you will continue to support the challenge to this blatantly unconstitutionl law, and we remain inspired by all the wonderful netizens who stand up for free speech on the Net. The ACLU expects to go into federal court immediately after President Clinton signs the Telecom Bill to request a temporary restraining order. The case is expected to be titled ACLU v. Reno. The plaintiffs can be found at (links from the ACLU web site will be up shortly): AIDS Education Global Information Service online site: BBS at 714-248-2836 American Civil Liberties Union online sites: http://www.aclu.org America Online at keyword ACLU BiblioBytes online site: http://www.bb.com ClariNet Communications Corp. online site: http://www.clari.net rec.humor.funny (Usenet) Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility online site: http://www.cpsr.org Critical Path AIDS Project online sites: http://www.critpath.org 215-463-7160 BBS Electronic Frontier Foundation online site: http://www.eff.org Electronic Privacy Information Center online site:http://www.epic.org Human Rights Watch gopher site: gopher://gopher.humanrights.org:5000 The Institute for Global Communications online site: http://www.igc.apc.org Journalism Education Association (high school journalism teachers who instruct students in online research) Declan McCullagh dba Justice on Campus online site: http://joc.mit.edu Brock Meeks dba CyberWire Dispatch online site: http://cyberwerks.com:80/cyberwire National Writers Union online site:http://www.nwu.org/nwu Planned Parenthood Federation of America online site: http://www.ppfa.org/ppfa Queer Resources Directory online site: http://www.qrd.org/QRD Stop Prisoner Rape online site: http://www.igc.apc.org/spr/ John Troyer dba Safer Sex Page online site: http://www.cmpharm.ucsf.edu/~troyer/ Jonathan Wallace dba The Ethical Spectacle online site: http://www.spectacle.org Wildcat Press online site: http://www.gaywired.com/~unity/wildcat/wildcat.htm YouthArts Project of Wildcat Press online site: http://spidey.usc.edu/qf/yap ------------------------------- *Action Alert! Urge Attorney General Janet Reno Not to Enforce the Telecom Bill! ACTION NEEDED: President Clinton has announced his support of this bill and is expected to sign the bill this week. The ACLU has announced its plans to challenge the "indecency" provisions and prohibition on communications concerning abortion contained in the Act. The Department of Justice, headed by Attorney General Janet Reno, is responsible for enforcing the Act. You can write or call the Attorney General's office to tell the agency why it should not prosecute on the basis of these provisions. Call the Attorney General's office at 202-514-2001. Fax the Attorney General's office at 202-514-4371 E-mail the Attorney General's office at web@usdoj.gov or visit the Department of Justice web site at: http://www.usdoj.gov. For more details, see the ACLU web page or AOL forum. The web site has an automated e-mail and fax message to send to the Attorney General's office. ------------------------------- *6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Rules in U.S. v. Thomas (Amateur Action BBS Prosecution) The January 29, 1996 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirms the decision of the lower Federal District Court. The ACLU's amicus brief for the Court of Appeals and the decision is available on the ACLU Website and AOL forum. The 6th Circuit's decision largely ignores the issues raised in the ACLU's amicus brief, and in particular overlooks the problem for online providers of adult content in ascertaining the age and location of prospective customers. Not only must online providers of adult material ascertain the community standards of the customer's hometown (a factor for which there is no guideline other than past prosecutions), but they must rely on a payment method such as a credit card billing address to determine whether a customer is reporting their hometown accurately. And even having made that determination, the provider has no certain way of assuring that a customer is not accessing their offerings from locations other than their hometown. This problem, unique to the online medium, is among the many that plague the prosecution of Robert and Carleen Thomas, operators of an adult bulletin board service, by the U.S. Postal Inspector. ------------------------------- *ACLU Launches 'Freedom Network' Web Site, Brings Civil Liberties Activism To Cyberspace For IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, February 7, 1996 NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today launched its new World Wide Web site -- the ACLU Freedom Network -- with special features for students, activists and all Americans concerned about protecting and preserving liberty. Opened as political leaders in Washington are poised to end free expression on the Internet, the ACLU's Freedom Network has complete information on the threats to cyber-liberties, including details of the ACLU's upcoming litigation against the Communications Decency Act. Internet users can find the Freedom Network by directing their web browsers to the following address: <>. The ACLU's provocative and informative site contains a comprehensive array of documents, news releases, legal briefs and Congressional memos on all aspects of the ongoing struggle to protect civil liberties. Among the special features are extensive looks at 15 issues, including: Church and State Criminal Justice Cyber-Liberties Death Penalty Free Speech HIV/AIDS Immigrant's Rights Lesbian and Gay Rights National Security Racial Equality Reproductive Rights Student's Rights Voting Rights Women's Rights Workplace Rights Each issue area contains internal links to ACLU press releases, publications, and other resources -- including links to other Web sites -- allowing users to stay on top of the latest developments in their areas of interest. Activists, journalists, and many others will want to sign up for e-mail delivery of ACLU News Releases, Legislative Alerts, Scheduled ACLU events on AOL, and the biweekly newsletter, ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert. Subscription instructions are available at faq@aclu.org. Another Freedom Hall feature allows internet users to fax or e-mail a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, urging her to refrain from prosecuting any indecency cases until the courts rule on the Constitutionality of the indecency provisions of the telecommunications bill. The Freedom Network's "In the Courts" and "In Congress" sections provide further primary source material, such as the text of Supreme Court decisions and summaries of current Congressional bills, as well as unique ACLU information -- including photos and profiles of some ACLU clients. Students and teachers will want to explore our special section devoted to education, and sign-up for our online Students and Faculty databases. Users can even pick up some T-shirts -- or videos, or books, or posters -- in our sophisticated online store. The launch of the Freedom Network marks the third step into cyberspace for the ACLU, which has since 1994 explored the medium's capacity to broaden the nationwide community of civil libertarians, distribute information, teach young people and bring activists together. In addition to Freedom Hall, the ACLU hosts a very active forum -- Constitution Hall -- on America Online, the nation's largest commercial online service. (Keyword ACLU). ---------------------------------------------------------------- ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Freedom Network Web Site: http://www.aclu.org. America Online users should check out our live chats, auditorium events, *very* active message boards, and complete news on civil liberties, at keyword ACLU. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor: Ann Beeson (beeson@aclu.org) American Civil Liberties Union National Office 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of the message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of the message. For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- | stephen love | | new media publishing | | slove@newmedium.com | ----------------------- This Message was sent to cyber-liberties Date: Saturday, February 10, 1996 6:44pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 675262 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Yet another Update on Telecom (1 reply) Yet another update from the net on the Telecom Law, this one not from the ACLU! :) From owner-abigails-l@netcom.com Sat Feb 10 00:31 EST 1996 Subject: Policy Post 2.6 - Pres. Clinton Signs CDA, The Protest Begin Sender: owner-abigails-l@netcom.com _____ _____ _______ / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 6 February 8, 1996 CONTENTS: (1) President Clinton Signs CDA, Protest Begins (2) Subscription Information (3) About CDT, contacting us This document may be redistributed freely provided it remains in its entirety ** Excerpts may be re-posted by permission (editor@cdt.org) ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNS CDA, WORLD WIDE WEB GOES BLACK President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Reform Bill, CDA and all, into law this morning. In response, and in overwhelming numbers, people around the world are making their web pages black (with white text) to illustrate the far reaching effect of the new online 'indecency' restrictions included in the "Communications Decency Act". Over 1500 sites have indicated their support for the protest, including: * Sen. Patrick Leahy - ftp://ftp.senate.gov/member/vt/leahy/general/pjl.html * Rep. Jerrold Nadler - http://www.house.gov/nadler/welcome.html * Yahoo - http://www.yahoo.com/ * SurfWatch Software - http://www.surfwatch.com/ * Netcom - http://www.netcom.com/ * And many others. A complete listing is available at http://www.cdt.org/speech.html The story about the protest, and the concerns of the entire Internet community over the new, sweeping restrictions on constitutional speech enacted today, are finally getting the attention they deserve in the National media. In addition, we've seen an amazing outpouring of support around the country and around the world for this effort, and hope you all feel a part of something larger than all of us put together. We certainly do. CDT, along with other prominent public interest civil liberties organizations, individuals, community groups, and businesses which would be effected by the CDA, are preparing a law suit against the provisions to be filed in Federal Court very soon. Details will be announced on this list and posted on CDT's web site as they become available. 48 HOUR PROTEST INFORMATION - DARKENING THE WEB If you have joined the protest, please continue to keep your web page backgrounds black until Saturday, noon. Thank you for participating in the Internet's most visible Internet demonstration ever. Together, we are demonstrating that the Internet.Community is a growing political force capable of making our concerns felt on a National scale. This truly is an historic moment. More information on the protest, as well as information about the Internet -censorship issue (including the text of the final CDA, analysis, and other relevant materials) are available at CDT's net-censorship web page: CDT's Net-Censorship Issues Page -- http://www.cdt.org/cda.html Information about the Protest -- http://www.cdt.org/speech.html If you do not have world wide web access, send email to one of CDT's autoreply aliases: General Information about the CDA -- cda-info@cdt.org Current Status of the CDA -- cda-stat@cdt.org Information about the Protest -- protest@cdt.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by more than 9,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to policy-posts-request@cdt.org with a subject: subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info@cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1001 G Street NW * Suite 500 East * Washington, DC 20001 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post 2.6 2/8/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, February 13, 1996 6:24am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 676202 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Declaration of Freedom (1 reply) This is a great response to the new restrictions on freedom of speech in the new Telecomm Law. From owner-glb-press@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 12 10:04 EST 1996 Sender: GLBT* Community Press Releases and Announcements From: "Richard A. Kinz" Subject: Cyberspace Declaration of Independence John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Freedom Foundation issued this statement in response to recent government censorship actions (including the passage of the "indecency" ban by the U.S. goverment.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions. You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions. You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different. Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live. We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity. Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are based on matter, There is no matter here. Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose. In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us. You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat. In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media. Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish. These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts. We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before. Davos, Switzerland February 8, 1996 Date: Wednesday, February 14, 1996 2:28am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 676471 To: Lythande *EXEMPT* Re: Simon Wiesenthal on Hate on the Net (Reply to #676050, Reply to #675877, Reply to #675182, R*) (1 reply) LY>The one that ended "and then they came me and there was no one left to LY>protest"? YES! And I can get a bit more of it now, about how when they came for the Jews I shut the fuck up because I wasnt a Jew and when they came for the Gypsies I said nothing and kept my bizniz no Gypsy was I and when they came for the queers I still shut the fuck up possibly because I wasnt really going to admit that one either after all these people were getting sent off to relocation camps and none of them ever even wrote back for chrissakes... --- * SLMR 2.0 * The Object to be Murdered Need not be One Yard Long Date: Sunday, February 18, 1996 12:05pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 677696 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: More from the net Yet another mailing list for the hopelessly addicted, like me! :) From owner-abigails-l@netcom.com Sat Feb 17 16:19 EST 1996 Subject: "CDA96-L" = COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT List REPOSTED by Jeremy H. Griffith *** From Net-Happenings Moderator *** From: "Gary Klein (bear-at-heart)" Subject: "CDA96-L" = COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT of 1996 To: Multiple recipients of list NETTRAIN In light of the recent furor over the airwaves, in the media, and in lawsuits regarding the COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT of 1996 that United States' President Clinton signed into law on February 8, 1996, I have created a forum for people to discuss the concerns raised by this (and similar) pieces of legislation. LISTNAME: CDA96-L FULL TITLE: Communications Decency Act of 1996 Discussion Group FORMAT: Un-moderated, Postings must come from registered subscribers SUBSCRIPTIONS: via LISTPROC software LISTOWNER: Gary M. Klein Management & Business Economics Librarian Hatfield Library Willamette University Salem, Oregon 97301 USA DESCRIPTION: CDA96-L is open to the networkng community. Its primary role is to serve as a means of communication among people who are concerned about the implications of the United States of America's COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT of 1996 (signed into law by President William J. Clinton on February 8, 1996). Its secondary role is to serve as a discussion forum for similar legislation or regulation that may be in the formative or final stages in any other country, or at any local jurisdiction that would restrict, limit or inhibit use of Internet resources based on "decency", "morality", "offensiveness", or based on the age of someone using, operating, or accessing an Internet resource. SUBSCRIBING TO THE "CDA96-L" LIST: Anyone may subscribe to the list by sending a command to For example, if Idi Amin wanted to subscribe, the post would be: mailto: listproc@willamette.edu text: sub cda96-l Idi Amin OTHER LISTPROC COMMANDS: Will be supplied to each subscriber as part of the Welcome Message. (please feel free to cross-post this announcement in appropriate places) GARY M. KLEIN "not your average librarian & indecent communicator" Hatfield Library / Willamette University / Salem, Oregon 97301 USA work 503-370-6743 / gklein@willamette.edu Date: Tuesday, February 27, 1996 5:36am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 680388 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: New update re: Telecomm (1 reply) Another update on the Telecomm Law from the net. From owner-abigails-l@netcom.com Tue Feb 27 04:21 EST 1996 From: red1@pipeline.com (rita haley) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:00:30 -0500 Subject: (Fwd) Policy Post 2.7 - Coalition Challenges CDA, Net Users Join Fight! >----- Forwarded message (editor@cdt.org (Bob Palacios)) -----< ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____ _____ _______ / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 7 February 26, 1996 CONTENTS: (1) Broad Coalition Challenges CDA in Court * Individual Internet Users Invited to Join Landmark Case * Pointers to Additional Information (2) New CDT Sysop/Online Presence (3) Subscription Information (4) About CDT, contacting us ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner in tact ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) BROAD COALITION CHALLENGES INTERNET CENSORSHIP BILL IN COURT A coalition representing a broad spectrum of Internet users, publishers, content providers and access providers filed a lawsuit today (2/26/96) in a Federal Court in Philadelphia, PA seeking to overturn the recently enacted Communications Decency Act. The challenge will argue that the Internet is a unique communications technology which deserves First Amendment protections at least as broad as those enjoyed as by the print medium. The group, known as the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC - pronounced "seek") is coordinated by the Center for Democracy and Technology, America Online, and the American Library Association, and others, including People for the American Way. Its 35 members include libraries, book publishers, newspaper publishers, editors, advertisers, commercial online service providers, ISP's, non-profit groups, and civil liberties advocates. Individual Internet users are also invited to join the CIEC in the fight to protect free speech online (see instructions below). In addition to CIEC, named plaintiffs in the challenge include the American Library Association, America Online, Compuserve, Prodigy, Microsoft, NETCOM, The Commercial Internet eXchange,the National Newspaper Association, the American Booksellers Association, HotWired and Wired Magazine, and others (a complete list of plaintiffs and CIEC members is printed below). EDUCATING THE COURT ON THE NATURE OF THE INTERNET AND ALTERNATIVES TO CENSORSHIP In a 55 page complaint that details the history of the Internet and outlines how the network operates, the CIEC intends to educate the court on how the Internet functions and why the broad content regulations imposed by the CDA threaten the very existence of the Internet as a viable medium for free expression, education, and commerce. Among other things, the CIEC challenge argues that: * The Internet is a unique communications medium which deserves First Amendment protections at least as broad as those afforded to print media. * Individual users and parents, not the Federal Government, should determine for themselves and their children what material comes into their homes based on their own tastes and values. * The CDA will be ineffective at protecting children from "indecent" or "patently" offensive material online. The full text of the CIEC complaint, along with other relevant background information, and information on how you can participate in this landmark case, can be found on the CIEC World Wide Web Page: http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ The CIEC challenge is separate from the case brought by the ACLU, EFF, EPIC, Planned Parenthood, and several other plaintiffs in the same Philadelphia court on February 8, 1996. The ACLU effort has made significant and important headway in the past several weeks. The CIEC case will reinforce the ACLU's efforts while focusing on the unique nature of the Internet and alternatives to government content regulations. ACLU and CIEC attorneys are closely coordinating their efforts, and it is expected that the courts will eventually consolidate the two cases. The outcome of the legal challenges to the CDA will likely determine the legal status of speech on the Internet and the future of the First Amendment in the Information Age. INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO JOIN THE FIGHT CIEC is inviting individual Internet users to join this landmark case to help protect freedom of speech and the future of the Internet as a viable means of free expression, education, and commerce. If you post messages to a public listserv, Usenet newsgroup, participate in an IRC or chat session, or maintain your own World Wide Web page, ftp or gopher archive, you could potentially face $250,000 fines or 2 years in jail if someone, somewhere considers the material you post to be "indecent" or "patently offensive" To find out how you can join the fight to protect free expression and the future of the Internet, please visit the CIEC web page. http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ Individuals have until March 15 to join the CIEC. Unfortunately, due to logistic issues and other considerations, requests to join the coalition by email cannot be processed. CIEC COALITION MEMBERS AND PLAINTIFFS The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition is a large and diverse group of Internet users, businesses, non-profit groups, and civil liberties advocates who share the common goals of protecting the First Amendment and the viability of the Internet as a means of free expression, education, and commerce. CIEC members believe that parents, not the United States Government, are the best and most appropriate judges of what material is appropriate for themselves and their children. NAMED PLAINTIFFS IN THE CHALLENGE American Library Association America Online, Inc. American Booksellers Association American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression American Society of Newspaper Editors Association of American Publishers Association of Publishers, Editors and Writers Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Commercial Internet eXchange Compuserve Information Services, Inc. Families Against Internet Censorship Freedom to Read Foundation HotWired Ventures Ltd. Interactive Digital Software Association Interactive Services Association Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Network NETCOM On-line Communications Services, Inc. Newspaper Association of America Prodigy Services Company, Inc. Society of Professional Journalists Wired Ventures Ltd. OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS INTERNET EMPOWERMENT COALITION. CIEC IS ALSO A NAMED PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE Americans for Tax Reform Association of American University Presses, Inc. Association of National Advertisers Association of Research Librarians Center for Democracy and Technology Coalition for Networked Information Media Access Project Media Institute Microsystems Software, Inc. National Assoc. of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges People for the American Way Recording Industry Association of America Special Libraries Association Surfwatch Software, Inc. University of California Santa Barbara Library And YOU! (see http://www.cdt.org/ciec/) FOR MORE INFORMATION For more information on the CIEC challenge, including the text of the complaint and information on how you can join the CIEC: * CIEC World Wide Web Page: http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ ciec-info@cdt.org * Background Info on the CDA: http://www.cdt.org/cda.html cda-info@cdt.org cda-stat@cdt.org Contacts: Center for Democracy and Technology: (v) +1.202.637.9800 Jerry Berman, Executive Director Daniel Weitzner, Deputy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) NEW CDT SYSOP/ONLINE PRESENCE -- BOB PALACIOS CDT welcomes Bob Palacios, as our new sysop/net-presence. Bob comes to CDT from People for the American Way where he was systems administrator/webmaster. Jonah Seiger, CDT's Policy Analyst, who has been moonlighting as sysop, will be shifting his attention to concentrate full time on policy work. Jonah will continue to maintain a high visibility on the net and will continue to work on online organizing and net.campaigns, but his focus will be on strategic and tactical issues while Bob will handle the technical and day to day details. Bob's immediate role will be to manage and maintain our online presence, maintain our World Wide Web and ftp servers, cultivate new outlets for CDT on the net, develop relationships with other, untapped friendly online organizations and individuals to enhance our online grass roots efforts. Please feel free to drop Bob a note to say hello . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by more than 9,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to policy-posts-request@cdt.org with a subject: subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info@cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post 2.7 2/26/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ***************************** rita haley the radiant redhead at red1@pipeline.com ***************************** Date: Saturday, March 2, 1996 11:16am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 681264 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Poem from the net (1 reply) This is a good statement, based on the famous poem by Pastor Martin Neimoeller, a victim of the Nazis. From owner-leftnews@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU Sat Mar 2 10:21 EST 1996 From: Nathan Newman Subject: A poem that says it all (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list LEFTNEWS ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 20:27:14 +0100 From: Luciano Dondero To: marxism@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: A poem that says it all (fwd) First they came for the hackers. But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the pornographers. But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the anonymous remailers. But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the encryption users. But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me. And by that time there was no one left to speak up. -- Unknown -- --Luciano Dondero-- Date: Monday, March 4, 1996 9:44am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 681885 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Too good to pass up 1/2 The following document is a deliberate and premeditated violation of the Telecommunicatons Decency Act as it stands today, on March 1st, 1996. I am knowingly placing this document, which contains material referring to such topics as incest, rape, violent sexual dismemberment, cannibalism, abortion, coprophagy (the consumption of or defilement with fecal matter), urination, infanticide, bestiality and slavery, publically on the Usenet in groups where everyone, including minors, may have free access to it. Permission is freely granted to reproduce this document so long as the author is credited; crossposting is encouraged. Federal agents, please come and arrest me now for this crime. Fellow outraged Internet users, please forgive the bandwidth I am using for this act of deliberate civil disobedience in protest of the CDA. Quoted from the CDA text, and a legal analysis by Robert Cannon, Esq, cannon@cais.com: The CDA amended 47 USC ' 223, which regulates obscene and harassing telephone calls. Pursuant to the CDA, it is illegal to knowingly use an "interactive computer service" to send to or display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication. Well, I am doing just that. I am deliberately posting this material, which is graphic in its descriptions of functions that have been judged "indecent" by contemporary community standards. This material definitely discusses sexual and excretory activities and organs, as well as other topics that are almost certainly offensive by most community standards. I believe strongly that thinking adult citizens have a right to decide on an individual basis what is good and right for themselves and their children to read or watch or listen to. I also believe that the Federal government has no right to censor free communication between adults, which will be the actual end result of the CDA if it stands as written. To defend these ideals, and the First Amendment of this country, I am willing to commit this act of protest and if need be go to prison. The following "indecent" material, which is now illegal to transmit online, can be found in schools and universities everywhere as well as in many people's homes. A great many parents believe that their children will benefit greatly from reading this particular "indecent" material, and while I do not necessarily agree, I will staunchly defend these parents' rights to allow their children access to this and to other books of their parental choice. The material in question is the Bible. Under the CDA as it stands, it is illegal to maintain a copy of the Bible online where minors can have access to it, because some of the material discussed therein deals with serious adult themes. While I am a follower of a different faith myself, I do not believe that the Federal government may reasonably attempt to regulate any medium of communication to the point that even major works of art and literature in our culture are censored. The decision in these matters belongs to the parents and to the individual, not to the government. This is the freedom we are fighting for, which is no more than our basic right under the Constitution of the United States of America to the freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights is overdue, and I am demanding that it be paid at last. All quotes were taken verbatim (some passages skipped for space and clarity) from the King James translation of the Bible, which is now a "banned book" in cyberspace. If you care about your personal freedom and that of your children, protest the CDA now, before it is too late. Regards, Tanith Tyrr pleasure@netcom.com *******"Indecent" Quotes Of The Bible******** Adultery "Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her." (Description of a punishment to be laid on anyone who fails to observe all of the commandments, Deuteronomy 28:30) Prostitution "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver.... (Deuteronomy 22:28,29) Sexual Mutilation "And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, the king desireth not any dowry, but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies....wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men, and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son-in-law." (Samuel 18:25,27) Exhibitionism And Public Sexual Intercourse "Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the sun. For thou didst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun." (II Samuel 12:11,12) "And Ahithophel said to Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house, and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father.....so they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." (II Samuel 16:21,22) Defloration And Impotence "...Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin; and let her stand before the kind, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, so that my lord the king may get heat.....And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him; but the king knew her not." (I Kings 1:2,4) Forced Sexual Slavery "How shall we do for wives for them that remain?..... And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the woman and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do. Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying by any male; and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of thw women of Jabesh-gilead." (Judges 21:7,12) "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And thou seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and has a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife, Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails....and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife." (Deuteronomy 21:11,13) Some Words on Bestiality "And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:16) Rape And Gruesome Sex Killing "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, there is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you; but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him; so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them, and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning, and when the day began to spring, they let her go....and her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the dorrs of the house, and went out to go his way, and behold the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold....and when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel." (Judges 19:22,29) Date: Monday, March 4, 1996 9:45am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 681886 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Too good to pass up 2/2 (1 reply) Whoredom "Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother, and they committed whoredoms in Egypt, they committed whoredoms in their youth; there were the breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity....Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt; for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her....And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms....And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them....so she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness....for she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses." (Ezekiel 23:2,20) The Sexually Aggressive Woman "And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph, and she said, Lie with me....And she caught him by his garment, saying Lie with me, and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out." (Genesis 39:7,12) Incestuous Rape "...Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar, and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and Amnon thought it hard for him to do any thing to her...and when [his sister] had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me.....howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice, but being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her." (II Samuel I 3:1,14) Rape My Daughters, Please! "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye unto them as is good in your eyes, only unto these men do nothing." (Lot speaking to an angry mob, Genesis 19:8) Drunken Incest "Come let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he percieved not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father, let us make him drink wine this night also, and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose, and lay with him, and he percieved not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Genesis 19:31,36) Multiple Sex Partners "But king Solomon loved many strange women together with the daughter of Pharoah, woman of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians and Hittites....and he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines...." (Kings 11:1,3) Bathroom Assertations "Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (Isaiah 36:12) "So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave all that pertain to him by morning light any that pisseth against the wall." (I Samuel 25:22) "...surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall." (I Samuel 25:34) "Therefore, behold; I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall....and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it all be gone." (I Kings 14:10) "....he slew all the house of Baasha; he left him not one that pisseth against a wall...." (I Kings 16:11) "Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall...." (I Kings 21:21) "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread....Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare they bread forthwith." (Ezekiel 4:12,13) "And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto My name, saith the Lord of Hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings, yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts, and one shall take you away with it." (Malachi 2:1,3) Song Of Solomon "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for thy love is better than wine...a bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night twixt my breasts....His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me....My beloved is mine, and I am his; he feedeth among the lilies.....They two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies....his left hand should be under my head, and his right hand should embrace me." Infanticide and Abortion "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:16) "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women..." (Ezekiel 9:6) "O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:8,9) "Thus saith the Lord; For three transgessions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof, because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border." (Amos 1:13) "Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah; because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it, and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." (II Kings 15:16) Cannibalism "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." (Leviticus 26:29) "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of they daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee." (Deutoronomy 28:53) Masturbation and Coitus Interruptus "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his, and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother." (Genesis 38:9) Even So, Try To Enjoy Yourself, If You Can.... "Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink and to be merry." (Ecclesiastes 8:15) "Let thy fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times, and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?" (Proverbs 5:18,20) Date: Tuesday, March 5, 1996 7:52pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 682377 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: More on Telecomm from the net (2 replies) Yet another update on Telecomm from the net. From owner-cyber-liberties-outgoing@newmedium.com Tue Mar 5 12:15 EST Subject: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 3/1/96 ---------------------------------------------------------------- March 1, 1996 ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE A bi-weekly (usually) e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies at the state and federal level. ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THIS ISSUE: * CDA Litigation Update -- Hearing in _ACLU v. Reno_ Set for Late March * ACTION ALERT: The Big Chill -- Tell Us Your Story of Speech Chilled by the CDA * Magician "Teller" Reaches Janet Reno on the Phone, Tells Her Not to Enforce the CDA! * Law Students Organize a Nationwide "Silent Protest" Day Against the CDA * Washington State Censorship Bill is DEAD AGAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases) ---------------------------------------------------------------- * CDA Litigation Update -- Hearing in _ACLU v. Reno_ Set for Late March The ACLU's battle for a quick overturn by the courts of the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act is in full force. Thanks to all who continue to inspire and support us during this critical case for free speech in cyberspace! Significant developments and dates in the _ACLU v. Reno_ case are summarized below: 2/8 Clinton signs Telecommunications Bill; ACLU immediately files suit in federal court in Philadelphia on behalf of twenty plaintiffs to challenge the constitutionality of the "indecency" and "patently offensive" provisions of the CDA. Electronic Privacy Information Center and Electronic Frontier Foundation are co-counsel and plaintiffs in the case. The other plaintiffs include a broad coalition of individuals, organizations, and membership associations who represent hundreds of thousands of online users. They include the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Journalism Education Association, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, National Writers Union, ClariNet Communications, Institute for Global Communication, Stop Prisoner Rape, AIDS Education Global Information Service, BiblioBytes, Queer Resources Directory, Critical Path AIDS Project, Wildcat Press, Declan McCullagh dba Justice on Campus, Brock Meeks dba CyberWire Dispatch, John Troyer dba The Safer Sex Web Page, Jonathan Wallace dba The Ethical Spectacle, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 2/15 Judge Buckwalter, a federal judge in Philadelphia, issues a Temporary Restraining Order against enforcement of the "indecency" provisions of the CDA. He denies a TRO against the "patently offensive" and the abortion speech provisions of the CDA. 2/25 ACLU and Department of Justice (DOJ) file a written stipulation with the Court in which DOJ agrees not to prosecute under either the "patently offensive" or the "indecency" provisions until the Court hears and determines the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction. The agreement protects _all_ online users (not just the plaintiffs in the case). 2/25 A second lawsuit is filed in Philadelphia to challenge the CDA. The lawsuit (_American Library Assoc. v. DOJ_) includes an impressive list of plaintiffs, including the American Library Association, American Booksellers Association, America Online, Microsoft, Apple Computer, and Prodigy. Lead counsel in the case is Bruce Ennis, of Jenner and Block in Washington, DC, and formerly Legal Director of the ACLU. 2/27 _ALA v. DOJ_ is formally consolidated with _ACLU v. Reno_. 3/21-3/22 An evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction motions will be held before a three-judge court in Philadelphia consisting of Judge Dolores Sloviter (Chief Judge, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals), Judge Stewart Dalzell (Federal District Court, Eastern District of PA), and Judge Ronald Buckwalter (Federal District Court, Eastern District of PA). The Court has reserved the following days, if necessary, for conclusion of the hearing: 4/1, 4/11, and 4/12. **The Court's decision on the preliminary injunction motion can be directly appealed by either side to the Supreme Court.** For complete details on _ACLU v. Reno_, including legal documents, press releases, and information and links for all the plaintiffs, visit the ACLU web page at http://www.aclu.org. ---------------------------------------------------------------- * ACTION ALERT: The Big Chill -- Tell Us Your Story of Speech Chilled by the CDA While the government has agreed not to prosecute under the CDA until the Court determines the constitutional challenge, the Big Chill is already on. Since passage of the Act on 2/8/96, the ACLU has received reports of 17-year-olds being kicked off MUCKs because of "dirty" words, new access requirements and age verifications for newsgroups and mailing lists, and complete shutdown of some sites. Faced with criminal prosecution, there is no doubt that the vagueness of the CDA has led many to trade their free speech rights for safety. One of the crucial elements of our constitutional challenge to the CDA is educating the courts about these disastrous chilling effects. An easy-to-use form on the ACLU home page lets you report specific instances of the Big Chill. Some of these reports will be used as evidence for the hearing in the _ACLU v. Reno_ case -- so be sure to complete all the information and provide thorough details about the incident. (We will also re-package the reports and make them available through the web site.) "The Big Chill" reporting form will be up and running on Tuesday, 3/5, at http://www.aclu.org. Tell us your story, and help us win the court battle for free speech in cyberspace! ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Magician "Teller" Reaches Janet Reno on the Phone, Tells Her Not to Enforce the CDA! In the 2/9/96 issue of the Cyber-Liberties Update, the ACLU urged netizens to call or fax Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, and tell her not to prosecute under the newly passed CDA. The alert was also posted on the ACLU web page, which provided a form for instant fax -- activists used the form to fax thousands of letters to Reno, and countless others placed calls to Reno. At least one online activist received an extra special award for participating in democracy -- JANET RENO ANSWERED THE PHONE WHEN HE CALLED! The netizen was none other than Teller, of the famous Penn and Teller magic act. On Valentine's Day, spurred by the ACLU action alert, Teller picked up the phone to call Reno's office. After giving an earnest plea against online censorship to an unidentified person on the other end of the line at the Department of Justice, he asked to whom he was speaking. "Janet Reno," came the reply. Surprised and somewhat speechless, Teller said he was sorry, that he didn't know the number was some sort of "inside line." "No need to apologize," said Janet kindly. Teller sent a follow-up letter to Reno, which is reprinted below. Like all the other wonderful letters against the CDA sent by citizens to government officials over the past year, it is a moving testament for free speech. We only hope that if enough folks actually "get through" to Janet, she'll begin to understand why she should never use this draconian law against the online world. ------------ TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO FROM: TELLER Dear Attorney General Reno, I spoke with you this afternoon briefly and not very articulately. It was quite startling to find you in and I'm not great at thinking on my feet. Please, please, I urge you not to stand behind the "decency" provisions of the telecom act. They limit our freedom of speech. That freedom protects us from tyranny. That freedom is a lot more important than keeping kids from visiting Adults Only web sites. Internet providers are now starting to offer services that suit families who wish to limit the kids' browsing. Sure, some kids will still sneak into areas they shouldn't. But I'd much rather have your expertise and energy directed against the guys who rape, kill, and steal; not waste it on mischievous kids reading and writing and looking at pictures. Jefferson would not be pleased to hear you ask our nation to limit our communications to topics suitable for children. He would understand that the Internet is a huge library created by adults for their use. Children have found their way in. If we prefer kids not to see grownup books, let us engineer ways to keep them out. But let us not burn down the library or make it a criminal act to stock anything stronger than Dr. Seuss. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1759. Even if censoring the Internet would actually reduce crime (and you are experienced enough to know in your heart it wouldn't), to do so would betray the men and women who have died for our freedom. Please think about it. You are important. Don't let us down. Respectfully, TELLER ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Law Students Organize a Nationwide "Silent Protest" Day Against the CDA Concerned over the facially unconstitutional provisions of the recently enacted CDA, students from more than a dozen of the nation's leading law schools have organized to protest the legislation. This is the first nationally organized protest in US Law Schools since the Vietnam War. On March 14th, students at law schools nationwide will distribute blue ribbons, and pledge to remain silent from the hours of 10:05 am to 2:05 pm to bring home the effects of censorship. Students at several schools will augment the "silent protest" with discussion groups and teach-ins. More than a dozen of the nation's leading law schools are represented in the protest, including New York University, Harvard, Columbia, University of Washington, Michigan, Penn, William & Mary, Fordham, Boston University, Florida State University and others. The movement was created by a group of students at New York University, which is serving as a national steering committee for the protest. For complete information on the Law Student protest, see the "Law Student Protest" files in the Cyber-Liberties section of the ACLU web site, at http://www.aclu.org. Or contact Charles Glasser, at cjg6159@is.nyu.edu. ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE PAGE (Legislation/Agency/Court Cases) ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Washington State Censorship Bill is DEAD AGAIN A rare bit of good news on cyber-liberties: House Bill 2267, the Washington state legislature's latest attempt to ban a vast range of artistic, educational, scientific, and other expression as "harmful to minors," met an early death in the House Rules Committee. The ACLU and other civil liberties groups were successful in stopping through a gubernatorial vote last year's attempt, Senate Bill 5466, after it made it all the way to his desk. ---------------------------------------------------------------- INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACLU ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor: Ann Beeson (beeson@aclu.org) American Civil Liberties Union National Office 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of the message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of the message. For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. For more information about civil liberties, visit the ACLU Freedom Network at http://www.aclu.org, or the ACLU Constitutional Hall on America Online at keyword ACLU. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________ / stephen love \ / new media publishing \ \ slove@newmedium.com / \____________________/ This Message was sent to cyber-liberties Date: Monday, March 25, 1996 8:54pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 688748 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Another update from the net (1 reply) Yet another update from the ACLU from the net. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 03-22-96 ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Releases Direct to YOU ---------------------------------------------------------------- TODAY'S NEWS: TRIAL UPDATE ACLU: "We Succeeded in Presenting Strong Evidence" FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, March 22, 1996 PHILADELPHIA, PA -- In the first two days of trial in the battle for free speech in cyberspace, a three-judge panel heard testimony from plaintiffs who fear censorship under the new telecommunications law and took a first-ever live courtroom tour of the Internet. The consolidated cases of ACLU v. Reno and American Library Association et al v. U.S. Department of Justice challenge provisions of the law that criminalize making available to minors "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech. "We succeeded in presenting strong evidence on all the major reasons why this law is unconstitutional," said Christopher Hansen, lead counsel for the ACLU. The censorship law, he said, "is technically and economically infeasible to enforce, it blocks speech that has value to a great many people, and it ignores effective alternatives available both to protect children and to protect free speech." Lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice cross-examined witnesses whose direct testimony was submitted by affidavit, according to procedures laid out by the judges. The judges also questioned the witnesses from the bench, and ACLU and ALA coalition lawyers were given an opportunity to redirect, i.e., question their clients in response to the government's cross-examination. ACLU client Patricia Nell Warren was asked by Judge Stewart Dalzell how she would be affected by a ruling that the Internet censorship law was constitutional. Ms. Warren, a best-selling author and publisher who maintains a website featuring samples of classic gay literature, said she feared censorship. "What I'm concerned about is that certain people in this country will perceive the entire area of gay literature to be indecent or patently offensive," she told the judges. Ms. Warren also publishes YouthArts, a free online "e-zine" by and for teenagers which includes many works by gay and lesbian teens. Another ACLU client, Kiyoshi Kuromiya, creator of the Critical Path AIDS Project website, testified that his site provides "lifesaving" information on safer sex practices aimed at reaching teens around the world. Two-thirds of American high school students are sexually active, he said, and many seek out the detailed information his website provides on an anonymous basis. Government lawyers declined to cross-examine Patricia Nell Warren or Kiyoshi Kuromiya. Ann Duvall, president of SurfWatch, was the only witness to offer direct testimony in court to the judges, through a first-ever Internet hook-up that allowed her to "surf" the World Wide Web and give a demonstration of how her company's software blocks access to sites deemed unsuitable for children. On Friday morning, judges heard from Dr. Donna Hoffman, an expert witness on marketing in cyberspace. Dr. Hoffman said that she feared the censorship law would destroy the democratic nature of the Internet. Many "mom & pop" websites might be forced close up shop on the Web because of uncertainty about criminal and financial penalties for so-called indecency under the law, she told the judges, while large corporations with vast legal resources could afford to risk prosecution. Witnesses for the ACLU and ALA coalitions appeared in the following order: Thursday, March 21 1. Scott O. Bradner, senior technical consultant, Information Technology Services, Harvard University (ALA). 2. Ann W. Duvall, president, SurfWatch Inc. (ALA) 3. Patricia Nell Warren, author and publisher, WildCat Press (ACLU) 4. Kiyoshi Kuromiya, director, Critical Path AIDS Project (ACLU) 5. Reverend William R. Stayton, psychologist and Baptist minister Friday, March 22 1. Donna Hoffman, associate professor of management, Owen Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University (ACLU) 2. Robert B. Cronenberger, director, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh (ALA) 3. Scott O. Bradner (returned for redirect by ALA lawyer) Coalition lawyers are scheduled to present their final day of testimony on Monday, April 1. The government is scheduled to present its witnesses for cross-examination on April 12 and 15, 1996 (rescheduled from April 11 and 12). A fourth day of testimony has been set for April 26, to allow the ACLU nd ALA lawyers to present witnesses rebutting the government's testimony. Following these six days of trial, the judges will issue a ruling. Under expedited provisions, any appeal on rulings regarding the new censorship law will be made directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Lawyers for the ACLU appearing before the court were Christoper Hansen, lead counsel, Marjorie Heins, Ann Beeson, and Stefan Presser, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Freedom Network Web Page: http://www.aclu.org. America Online users should check out our live chats, auditorium events, *very* active message boards, and complete news on civil liberties, at keyword ACLU. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Newsfeed American Civil Liberties Union National Office 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 To subscribe to the ACLU Newsfeed, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe News" in the body of the message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe News" in the body of the message. For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to the news Date: Sunday, March 31, 1996 7:12am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Walts Msg#: 690186 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: FLASH - This just in ... (Copy by Lythande) (3 replies) According to a pre-release issue of the AFD mailing list, and in an unprescedented session, Senator Neuman [R-Il] has placed a bill before the senate that will repeal the CDA!!! Apparently, and having taken back a number of favors [??!!], this bill is expected to 1 - pass, 2 - and also be introduced and pass in the House. Apparently Senator Neuman is an old enemy of Buccanhan [spelling], something about Buccanhan worrying to much...about things he should not! More to follow as I get it in... REgards, WaltS Date: Monday, May 20, 1996 2:33pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 704037 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Clothing can be dangerous to your health (1 reply) The T-shirt That Is A Munition What does a sophisticated data encryption technology, munitions, the first amendment, and a t-shirt have in common? They are all under attack by the US government by way of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The ITAR makes it illegal to export specific munitions without permission from the US government. Encryption technology was included in the ITAR, effectively making it a munition, and the restrictions on export were expanded to make it illegal to provide technical data to a non-US citizen even within the United States, thereby abridging the first amendment. (Note, however, that the ITAR does not make it illegal to import encryption technology. This leads to the ridiculous situation of someone obtaining encryption information outside the US, legally importing it, and then being arrested for exporting it when it is later taken out of the US.) So, where's the t-shirt? The Munition T-shirt has an encryption program printed on it. Thus, since encryption is defined as a munition under the ITAR, the t-shirt has become a munition. This means that simply wearing the t-shirt within the United States is technically illegal since any number of people who see it may be foreign nationals or even espionage agents. So what? Isn't it important to protect our national security by preventing the spread of strong encryption? That point is debatable but, in this case, irrelevant. The encryption technology printed on the t- shirt is already freely available anywhere in the world. In fact, one of the inventors of the technology was, and is, a foreign national. Original papers describing the technology was published in journals available worldwide and has been incorporated in many text and reference books on cryptography. Free software implementing the technology has been developed both within the US and outside the US and both have been distributed worldwide. The situation here is comparable to gun control efforts. Encryption, like guns, are freely available almost anywhere. Criminals, since they are criminals and by definition ignore the law, will ignore any laws about encryption, like they ignore laws about guns. The only people effected by laws about encryption, or guns, are law-abiding people. Therefore, we can conclude that the government can have no reasonable expectation that laws controlling encryption, or guns, will significantly impact the criminal use of encryption, or guns. So why is the government trying to pass these laws? It is because encryption, like guns, can be used by ordinary people to hold the government in check when it attempts to usurp our unalienable rights. (George Washington used encryption technology, and guns, against the British. Do you suppose the British made them illegal?) Now, while it is extremely dangerous to openly carry a gun where laws against such open carry have been enacted, it is not so with encryption. It is easy for the government to say, "We had to shoot that guy. He was carrying a gun in open defiance of the law and was obviously dangerous." It's not so easy to say that about someone carrying information about encryption technology, especially if the information is printed on a t- shirt. What is the government going to say? "We had to shoot that guy. He was wearing a t-shirt."? The Munition T-shirt was created so people could openly defy the ITAR without any significant danger of being shot on sight and, if many people are wearing them, without any significant danger of being prosecuted. It is 'safe' civil disobedience. The t-shirt itself is black, symbolizing the 'black' world of data encryption, while the printing is white, symbolizing the open nature of information. On the front is printed the perl program implementing the RSA encryption technology and a machine-readable bar-code of the same program to ensure that it is covered by the ITAR. On the back, the t-shirt carries a warning that the shirt is a munition and the ITAR and US Code citations that make the t-shirt illegal and provide up to $1,000,000 fines for violating the ITAR. Wearing the t-shirt is in the finest traditions of civil disobedience. A young gentleman by the name of Phil Zimmermann, owner of a computer consulting firm called 'Phil's Pretty Good Software', wrote an implementation of the RSA technology which he called 'Pretty Good Privacy' or 'PGP'. He then made the software freely available without cost. This masterstroke made it difficult for the US government to apply the ITAR since the ITAR makes it illegal to export encryption but export is usually understood to mean selling. Since PGP was free, it was not sold and thus, arguably, not exported. Phil gave his software to several of his friends. One of his friends, we are not sure who, uploaded PGP to as many computer bulletin board systems (BBSs) as he could. At some point, someone posted PGP on a computer that had worldwide access via the internet. From there, PGP has become widely available all over the planet and any attempt to suppress it would be laughable. This, however, has not stopped the US government from trying to suppress it. They have made it know to all the larger software companies that they will prevent the export of any software that includes strong encryption technology or even software hooks to make it easy to add encryption later. Since it is expensive to make two versions of software, most companies just opt to not include encryption in their products. So, for example, you will not see encryption technology in any Microsoft products unless it is technology that is easily 'broken'. In this way, general and large-scale distribution of the technology is prevented. The US government also threatened to prosecute Phil Zimmerman for exporting PGP even though Phil did not himself export anything. His case was before a federal Grand Jury for over two years before the government finally decided not to prosecute. As a result of all this, Phil Zimmerman has become something of a folk hero to computer privacy advocates around the world and his program, PGP, has become the defacto standard for public key encryption. It has also become fashionable to poke fun at the ITAR and the US government's attempts to control encryption technology. The Munition T-shirt is one way to do that. If you would like to purchase a Munition T-shirt, you can contact West El Paso Information Network (WEPIN - pronounced 'weapon') in several ways. The easiest way, if you have WWW access, is to point your Web browser to the URL 'http://colossus.net/wepinsto/wshome.html'. From there you can read more information about the t-shirt and order t-shirts on-line, paying with an electronic personal check. (Yes, you can do that on-line.) If you have email, but no WWW access, just send email with the subject 'SHIRT' to 'wepinsto@colossus.net' and info on how to order will be sent to you via return email. Date: Monday, June 10, 1996 11:20pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Conundrum Msg#: 708084 To: Lythande *EXEMPT* Re: FUCK SHIT MOTHERFUCKER COCKSUCKER PISS CUNT TITS (Reply to #707665, Reply to #684537, Reply to #683769, R*) (3 replies) LY>CO>But..Deb, don't you know that society only exists for the good of the LY>CO>children? It's FOR the CHILDREN, after all. LY>I know you're joking, but After Hours is NOT for children. Just as LY>gambling casinos or whatever are adult, so are we. It would be nice if someone developed a better maturity index than pure age (given how effective THAT one is), though. And I suppose a true asshole censor fuckhead could argue that even though no children are present here, the posibility of their seeing stuff over their evil parent's backs means that we shouldn't do anything remotely contraversal (and besides, we must erase this sort of hateful behavior from our very minds and bodies and society, such that our children may be safe. Date: Thursday, June 13, 1996 8:29pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 708616 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: We win round one (1 reply) I am sure that all here have heard the news by now, but just in case here is a post about the court injunction against the Communications Decency Act. Remember folks, this is only round one. This one will be going all the way up to the Supreme Court, of that I have no doubt. The post appears below. Victory for Free Speech on Internet PHILADELPHIA (Reuter) -- In a ground-breaking decision on free-speech rights over the Internet, a special U.S. court panel blocked as unconstitutional a new federal law prohibiting indecency on computer networks. The three-judge panel issued Wednesday a preliminarly injunction blocking enforcement of portions of the Communications Decency Act, signed by President Clinton Feb. 8, which prohibit the distribution to minors of indecent or ''patently offensive'' materials over computer networks. The court let stand prohibitions against obscenity and child pornography, types of speech that are not constitutionally protected and were not challenged by the act's opponents. ``The Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation,'' U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, a member of the panel, said in his opinion accompanying the decision. ``The government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion,'' he said. Also on the panel were U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Buckwalter and Dolores Sloviter, chief justice of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. In its legal conclusion, the court said the blocked portions of the act were unconstitutional on their face. The injunction was issued in response to a lawsuit against the U.S. Justice Department challenging the act. The challenge was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and groups representing libraries, publishers and the computer on-line industry. A Justice Department spokesman said the agency had no immediate comment on the ruling. The ruling sets the stage either for a trial on whether the act should be permanently blocked, or a direct appeal of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court under expedited provisions written into it. ``The court has reaffirmed what our founders 200 years ago bequeathed as our greatest liberty, and that's free speech,'' said Stefan Presser, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, which filed the original suit. Bruce Taylor, chief counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families, which supports the act, said of the ruling, ``I don't consider this a setback.'' The act has already heightened awareness of content unsuitable for minors on the Internet, and prompted development of technology that will make it possible to screen and block material for suitability for minors, he said. Such technology will undermine arguments by the act's opponents that it is impossible to enforce, he said. In addition, he said, state laws already on the books can also be used. ``The states can do what this ruling said the federal government can't do yet,'' he said. The ACLU immediately posted the court's opinion and order, which total 177 pages, on its World Wide Web site, said Christopher Hansen, attorney for the national ACLU. The address of the site is http://www.aclu.org. In the event of a government appeal, Hansen said, ``We'll certainly defend the conclusion vigorously.'' Date: Tuesday, June 18, 1996 10:41pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dna Msg#: 709548 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Patently Offensive (Copy by Lythande) (2 replies) By now, everybody is aware that the Federal Courts have struck down the main section of the Communications Decency Act, in large part because its prohibition on transmitting "patently offensive" content was unconstitutional broad and in obvious violation of the First amendment. Well, I for one, am looking forward to the return of patently offensive content... Date: Wednesday, June 26, 1996 10:34pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Don Msg#: 710786 To: Lythande *EXEMPT* Re: Simon Wiesenthal on Hate on the Net (Reply to #707649, Reply to #684315, Reply to #683764, R*) ³LL> Well, yeah. It IS illegal to say fuck online where kiddies might see ³ ³LL> it. Of course it's not nearly as much fun to say fuck here in ³ ³LL> /FreeSpeech since kiddies can't see it, but I'm sure the fucking morons³ ³LL> who have a problem with that word wouldn't like it, so please be sure t³ ³LL> say fuck as often as possible. Thank you. ³ ΤΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΎ fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck Sorry...had to do it. --- ώ MegaMail 2.10 #0:Don't steal. The government hates competition. Date: Saturday, June 29, 1996 1:42pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 711222 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Privacy 1/2 Testimony of Philip R. Zimmermann to the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 26 June 1996 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Philip Zimmermann, and I'm Chairman and Chief Technology Officer for PGP Inc, a newly-formed company that provides cryptographic products. I'm here to talk to you today about S.1726 and the need to change US export control policy for cryptographic software. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here to speak in favor of this bill. I'm the creator of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), a public-key encryption software package for the protection of electronic mail. Since PGP was published domestically as freeware in June of 1991, it has spread organically all over the world, and has since become the de facto worldwide standard for encryption of E-mail, winning numerous industry awards along the way. For three years I was the target of a criminal investigation by the US Customs Service, who assumed that laws were broken when PGP spread outside the US. That investigation was closed without indictment in January 1996. Computers were developed in secret back in World War II mainly to break codes. Ordinary people did not have access to computers, because they were few in number and too expensive. Some people postulated that there would never be a need for more than half a dozen computers in the country, and assumed that ordinary people would never have a need for computers. Some of the government's attitude toward cryptography today were formed in that period, and mirrors the old attitudes toward computers. Why would ordinary people need to have access to good cryptography? In addition to the limited availability of computers, another problem with cryptography in those days was that cryptographic keys had to be distributed over secure channels so that both parties could send encrypted traffic over insecure channels. Governments solved that problem by dispatching key couriers with satchels handcuffed to their wrists. Governments could afford to send guys like these to their embassies overseas. But the great masses of ordinary people would never have access to practical cryptography if keys had to be distributed this way. No matter how cheap and powerful personal computers might someday become, you just can't send the keys electronically without the risk of interception. This widened the feasibility gap between government and personal access to cryptography. Today, we live in a new world that has had two major breakthroughs that have an impact on this state of affairs. The first is the coming of the personal computer and the information age. The second breakthrough is public-key cryptography. With the first breakthrough comes cheap ubiquitous personal computers, modems, FAX machines, the Internet, E-mail, the World- Wide Web, digital cellular phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), wireless digital networks, ISDN, cable TV, and the data superhighway. This information revolution is catalyzing the emergence of a global economy. But this renaissance in electronic digital communication brings with it a disturbing erosion of our privacy. In the past, if the government wanted to violate the privacy of ordinary citizens, it had to expend a certain amount of effort to intercept and steam open and read paper mail, and listen to and possibly transcribe spoken telephone conversation. This is analogous to catching fish with a hook and a line, one fish at a time. Fortunately for freedom and democracy, this kind of labor-intensive monitoring is not practical on a large scale. Today, electronic mail is gradually replacing conventional paper mail, and is soon to be the norm for everyone, not the novelty it is today. Unlike paper mail, E-mail messages are just too easy to intercept and scan for interesting keywords. This can be done easily, routinely, automatically, and undetectably on a grand scale. This is analogous to driftnet fishing-- making a quantitative and qualitative Orwellian difference to the health of democracy. The second breakthrough came in the late 1970s, with the mathematics of public key cryptography. This allows people to communicate securely and conveniently with people they've never met, with no prior exchange of keys over secure channels. No more special key couriers with black bags. This, coupled with the trappings of the information age, means the great masses of people can at last use cryptography. This new technology also provides digital signatures to authenticate transactions and messages, and allows for digital money, with all the implications that has for an electronic digital economy. (See appendix) This convergence of technology-- cheap ubiquitous PCs, modems, FAX, digital phones, information superhighways, et cetera-- is all part of the information revolution. Encryption is just simple arithmetic to all this digital hardware. All these devices will be using encryption. The rest of the world uses it, and they laugh at the US because we are railing against nature, trying to stop it. Trying to stop this is like trying to legislate the tides and the weather. It's like the buggy whip manufacturers trying to stop the cars-- even with the NSA and the FBI on their side, it's still impossible. The information revolution is good for democracy-- good for a free market and trade. It contributed to the fall of the Soviet empire. They couldn't stop it either. Today, every off-the-shelf multimedia PC can become a secure voice telephone, through the use of freely available software such as PGPfone. When you combine that with the strong political will that exists in the American people to have their privacy, it's going to require extreme measures to control this technology. What does this mean for the government's Clipper chip and key escrow systems? Like every new technology, this comes at some cost. Cars pollute the air and cause traffic jams. Cryptography can help criminals hide their activities. People in the law enforcement and intelligence communities are going to look at this only in their own terms. But even with these costs, we still can't stop this from happening in a free market global economy. Most people I talk to outside of government feel that the net result of providing privacy will be positive. Law enforcement and intelligence interests in the government have attempted many times to suppress the availability of strong domestic encryption technology. In 1991, Senate Bill 266 included a non-binding resolution, which if it had become real law, would have forced manufacturers of secure communications equipment to insert special "trap doors" in their products, so that the government could read anyone's encrypted messages. Before that measure was defeated, I wrote and released Pretty Good Privacy. I did it because I wanted cryptography to be made available to the American public before it became illegal to use it. I gave it away for free so that it would achieve wide dispersal, to inoculate the body politic. The 1994 Digital Telephony bill mandated that phone companies install remote wiretapping ports into their central office digital switches, creating a new technology infrastructure for "point-and- click" wiretapping, so that federal agents no longer have to go out and attach alligator clips to phone lines. Now they'll be able to sit in their headquarters in Washington and listen in to your phone calls. Of course, the law still requires a court order for a wiretap. But while technology infrastructures tend to persist for generations, laws and policies can change overnight. Once a communications infrastructure optimized for surveillance becomes entrenched, a shift in political conditions may lead to abuse of this new-found power. Political conditions may shift with the election of a new government, or perhaps more abruptly from the bombing of a Federal building. A year after the 1994 Digital Telephony bill passed, the FBI disclosed plans to require the phone companies to build into their infrastructure the capacity to simultaneously wiretap one percent of all phone calls in all major US cities. This would represent more than a thousandfold increase over previous levels in the number of phones that could be wiretapped. In previous years, there were only about 1000 court-ordered wiretaps in the US per year, at the federal, state, and local levels combined. It's hard to see how the government could even employ enough judges to sign enough wiretap orders to wiretap 1% of all our phone calls, much less hire enough federal agents to sit and listen to all that traffic in real time. The only plausible way of processing that amount of traffic is a massive Orwellian application of automated voice recognition technology to sift through it all, searching for interesting keywords or searching for a particular speaker's voice. If the government doesn't find the target in the first 1% sample, the wiretaps can be shifted over to a different 1% until the target is found, or until everyone's phone line has been checked for subversive traffic. The FBI says they need this capacity to plan for the future. This plan sparked such outrage that it was defeated in Congress, at least this time around, in 1995. But the mere fact that the FBI even asked for these broad powers is revealing of their agenda. And the defeat of this plan isn't so reassuring when you consider that the 1994 Digital Telephony bill was also defeated the first time it was introduced, in 1993. Advances in technology will not permit the maintenance of the status quo, as far as privacy is concerned. The status quo is unstable. If we do nothing, new technologies will give the government new automatic surveillance capabilities that Stalin could never have dreamed of. The only way to hold the line on privacy in the information age is strong cryptography. Cryptography strong enough to keep out major governments. [CONTINUED] Date: Saturday, June 29, 1996 1:43pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 711223 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Privacy 2/2 The government has a track record that does not inspire confidence that they will never abuse our civil liberties. The FBI's COINTELPRO program targeted groups that opposed government policies. They spied on the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement. They wiretapped Martin Luther King's phone. Nixon had his enemies list. And then there was the Watergate mess. The War on Drugs has given America the world's largest per- capita incarceration rate in the world, a distinction formerly held by South Africa, before we surpassed them during the eighties even when apartheid was in full swing. Recently, we've seen the images and sounds of the Rodney King beatings, Detective Mark Fuhrman's tapes boasting of police abuses, and the disturbing events of the Ruby Ridge case. And now Congress and the Clinton administration seem intent on passing laws curtailing our civil liberties on the Internet. At no time in the past century has public distrust of the government been so broadly distributed across the political spectrum, as it is today. The Clinton Administration seems to be attempting to deploy and entrench a communications infrastructure that would deny the citizenry the ability to protect its privacy. This is unsettling because in a democracy, it is possible for bad people to occasionally get elected-- sometimes very bad people. Normally, a well-functioning democracy has ways to remove these people from power. But the wrong technology infrastructure could allow such a future government to watch every move anyone makes to oppose it. It could very well be the last government we ever elect. When making public policy decisions about new technologies for the government, I think one should ask oneself which technologies would best strengthen the hand of a police state. Then, do not allow the government to deploy those technologies. This is simply a matter of good civic hygiene. In addition to the human rights arguments, there are technological reasons why the current export control regime makes no sense anymore. There has been considerable debate about allowing the export of implementations of the full 56-bit Data Encryption Standard (DES). At an academic cryptography conference in 1993, Michael Wiener of Northern Telecom in Ottawa presented a paper on how to crack the DES with a special machine. He has fully designed and tested a chip that guesses DES keys at high speed until it finds the right one. Although he has refrained from building the real chips so far, he can get these chips manufactured for $10.50 each, and can build 57000 of them into a special machine for $1 million that can try every DES key in 7 hours, averaging a solution in 3.5 hours. $1 million can be hidden in the budget of many companies. For $10 million, it takes 21 minutes to crack, and for $100 million, just two minutes. That's full 56-bit DES, cracked in just two minutes. I'm sure the NSA can do it in seconds, with their budget. This means that DES is now effectively dead for purposes of serious data security applications. If Congress acts now to enable the export of full DES products, it will be a day late and a dollar short. Knowledge of cryptography is becoming so widespread, that export controls are no longer effective at controlling the spread of this technology. People everywhere can and do write good cryptographic software, and we import it here but cannot export it, to the detriment of our indigenous software industry. I wrote PGP from information in the open literature, putting it into a convenient package that everyone can use in a desktop or palmtop computer. Then I gave it away for free, for the good of democracy. This could have popped up anywhere, and spread. Other people could have and would have done it. And are doing it. Again and again. All over the planet. This technology belongs to everybody. PGP has spread like a prairie fire, fanned by countless people who fervently want their privacy restored in the information age. Today, human rights organizations are using PGP to protect their people overseas. Amnesty International uses it. The human rights group in the American Association for the Advancement of Science uses it. It is used to protect witnesses who report human rights abuses in the Balkans, in Burma, in Guatemala, in Tibet. Some Americans don't understand why I should be this concerned about the power of government. But talking to people in Eastern Europe, you don't have to explain it to them. They already get it-- and they don't understand why we don't. I want to read you a quote from some E-mail I got in October 1993 from someone in Latvia, on the day that Boris Yeltsin was shelling his Parliament building: "Phil I wish you to know: let it never be, but if dictatorship takes over Russia your PGP is widespread from Baltic to Far East now and will help democratic people if necessary. Thanks." Appendix -- How Public-Key Cryptography Works In conventional cryptosystems, such as the US Federal Data Encryption Standard (DES), a single key is used for both encryption and decryption. This means that a key must be initially transmitted via secure channels so that both parties have it before encrypted messages can be sent over insecure channels. This may be inconvenient. If you have a secure channel for exchanging keys, then why do you need cryptography in the first place? In public key cryptosystems, everyone has two related complementary keys, a publicly revealed key and a secret key. Each key unlocks the code that the other key makes. Knowing the public key does not help you deduce the corresponding secret key. The public key can be published and widely disseminated across a communications network. This protocol provides privacy without the need for the same kind of secure channels that a conventional cryptosystem requires. Anyone can use a recipient's public key to encrypt a message to that person, and that recipient uses her own corresponding secret key to decrypt that message. No one but the recipient can decrypt it, because no one else has access to that secret key. Not even the person who encrypted the message can decrypt it. Message authentication is also provided. The sender's own secret key can be used to encrypt a message, thereby "signing" it. This creates a digital signature of a message, which the recipient (or anyone else) can check by using the sender's public key to decrypt it. This proves that the sender was the true originator of the message, and that the message has not been subsequently altered by anyone else, because the sender alone possesses the secret key that made that signature. Forgery of a signed message is infeasible, and the sender cannot later disavow his signature. These two processes can be combined to provide both privacy and authentication by first signing a message with your own secret key, then encrypting the signed message with the recipient's public key. The recipient reverses these steps by first decrypting the message with her own secret key, then checking the enclosed signature with your public key. These steps are done automatically by the recipient's software. Philip Zimmermann 3021 11th Street Boulder, Colorado 80304 303 541-0140 E-mail: prz@pgp.com Date: Wednesday, June 26, 1996 7:57am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 711329 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: On line resources for activists (Copy by Lythande) I found this announcement on one of my numerous e mail lists. I haven't tried the link yet, so I don't know how good it is. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- On Fri, 21 Jun 1996 06:46:35 -0400 David H. Rothman wrote: How do you write email and snail to catch politicians' attention--whether they're in Washington, the statehouse or city hall? And is email even worth it in the first place when so many biggies are net.dumb? See: http://www.mcp.com/samsnet/activist/cit5.htm e-book, The Electronic Citizen: How to Speak Out and Organize Online (Sams Publishing). Citizen contains a number of other activism tips on topics ranging from the Web to general strategies. It also discusses the work of Jim Warren, Dave Hughes, Jeff "Right Side" Donels, and other well-known activists of different philosophies. I myself have been speaking out online for more than a decade and have appeared in publications ranging from The Nation to the Washington Post and National Review (Bill Buckley liked my Electronic Peace Corps proposal). The Electronic Citizen's Table of Contents is at: http://www.mcp.com/samsnet/activist/citizen.htm You can bet that the "Decency" Act crowd will be at it again on the Hill, no matter what the courts decide. So it's important for the Net to get its act together *now*; you can bet that Citizen discusses the CDA. Suggestions and other feedback appreciated! In fact, I may well reproduce your comments (if you don't mind) and link to them from Citizen's text. After seeing Citizen on the Web, one EFF type, Dan Weinstein (dsw@iglou.com) is doing an essay for me on IRCs. No pay, but credit galore! May Citizen be a useful resource for the Net. Feel free to make printouts for friends and colleagues, especially those now offline. If your local library can get on the Web, see if people there can't bookmark Citizen. David H. Rothman | rothman@clark.net | 703.370.6540 Author, The Electronic Citizen (Foreword by John C. Dvorak) Sams Publishing, Indianapolis http://www.mcp.com/samsnet/activist/citizen.htm [It's okay to spread this around. No permission needed.] Date: Tuesday, September 3, 1996 11:50am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 718180 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: The Net (1 reply) [ In the July 18th edition of Computing Canada, reporting on the recent Internet Society convention in Montreal. ] Ernie Hai, co-ordinator of the Singapore Government Internet Project, explains his government's policy on (lack of) internet access: "It's not to control, but to protect the citizens of Singapore. In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct." --- ώ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 ώ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Sunday, November 3, 1996 11:29am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 722042 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: CDA Update This update was sent to me so I am passing it along. ----------------------------------------------------------------- _______ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ |__ __| (_) | | | _ \ | | | | | (_) | |_ __ _ __ _| | | |_) |_ _| | | ___| |_ _ _ __ | | '__| |/ _` | | | _ <| | | | | |/ _ \ __| | '_ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |_) | |_| | | | __/ |_| | | | | |_|_| |_|\__,_|_| |____/ \__,_|_|_|\___|\__|_|_| |_| Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Update No. 15 October 31, 1996 ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ ciec-info@cdt.org ----------------------------------------------------------------- CIEC UPDATES are intended for members of the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This document may be reposted as long as it remains in its entirety. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ** 55,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. ** * The Fight To Save Free Speech Online * Contents: o Battle For Free Speech in Cyberspace Moves to Supreme Court o What You Can Do - Join the CIEC! o How to Remove Yourself From This List o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and Technology ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BATTLE FOR FREE SPEECH IN CYBERSPACE MOVES TO SUPREME COURT -- CIEC Files Documents in Supreme Court Appeal The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) today filed papers with the Supreme Court in the landmark legal challenge to the Communications Decency Act, formally beginning the next phase in the battle over the future of the First Amendment in Cyberspace. Today's papers were filed response to the government's jurisdictional statement submitted in late September, and represents the first indication of the substantive arguments in the appeal stage of the case. Curiously, in its jurisdictional statement, the Department of Justice has attempted to raise new issues not addressed by the lower court ruling. Such a move by the government to introduce new arguments at the appeal stage is highly unusual, and illustrates that the government intends vigorously defend the Internet censorship law. The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) is a broad coalition of over 50 groups representing the entire breadth of the Internet community, from online service and Internet service providers, libraries, publishers, software companies, public interest organizations, and nearly 55,000 ndividual Internet users. The CIEC legal challenge to the Communications Decency Act, formally known as ALA v. DOJ, was consolidated with a separate challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and 20 other plaintiffs (ACLU vs. Reno). The cases were argued together in Philadelphia, and the legal teams remain in close coordination. The Communications Decency Act (CDA), passed by Congress as part of the telecommunications reform bill in February 1996, would have imposed huge fines and prison terms on anyone who sends or displays "indecent" or "patently offensive" material in a public forum on the Internet. The CIEC and ACLU challenged the law, and in June of 1996 a special three judge panel in Philadelphia ruled the CDA unconstitutional. The papers filed today were filed in response to the government's jurisdictional statement filed on September 29 asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Philadelphia decision. In an unusual move for an appeal, the Government has also asked the Supreme Court to consider new arguments not made during the lower court hearings, including a contention that the CDA should be construed to cover only those who provide so-called "commercial pornography". In essence, the government is asking the Supreme Court to re-write the law -- something that the Court has been reluctant to do in previous cases. Although plaintiffs in Supreme Court appeals traditionally ask the Court to simply affirm the lower court ruling without a hearing, the CIEC recognizes that the challenge to the CDA is a case of first impression on the application of the First Amendment in cyberspace, and fully expects that the Court will consider the case. As such, the CIEC has asked the court to hear the appeal and to carefully consider the detailed factual record created in the Philadelphia case, including: * The Internet is a unique communications medium which deserves first amendment protections AT LEAST as broad as those enjoyed by the print medium. * When it comes to otherwise constitutionally protected speech, individual users -- not the federal government -- are the best and most appropriate judges of what material is and is not appropriate for themselves and for their children. * User control technologies such as SurfWatch, CyberPatrol, and PICS are the only effective and constitutional method of limiting minors access to objectionable material on the Internet. (the full text of the CIEC brief, the Philadelphia ruling, and other relevant background information on the case is available on the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Web Page. http://www.cdt.org/ciec/) WHAT YOU CAN DO -- JOIN THE CITIZENS INTERNET EMPOWERMENT COALITION If you use the Internet to send email, post to usenet newsgroups, maintain your own world wide web page, or participate in online discussion forums, you could face serious prison time and huge fines under the CDA if someone, somewhere, considers the material you put online to be "indecent" or "patently offensive". Since February of 1996, nearly 55,000 individual Internet Users have joined the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition. The large number of individual Internet users is intended to illustrate to the Court, the press, and the public that each and every Internet user is a publisher and cold be liable under the CDA. If you haven't done so already, please take a moment to become a part of this landmark case: Visit the CIEC web site for details -- http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ It's fast, it's free, and it will help us preserve the future of the Internet as a viable means of free expression, education, and commerce. CITIZENS INTERNET EMPOWERMENT COALITION MEMBERSHIP: The 27 plaintiffs in the case include: American Library Association, Inc.; American Online, Inc.; American Booksellers Association, Inc.; American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; American Society of Newspaper Editors; Apple Computer, Inc.; Association of American Publishers, Inc.; Association of Publishers, Editors and Writers; Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition; Commercial Internet eXchange; CompuServe Incorporated.; Families Against Internet Censorship; Freedom to Read Foundation, Inc.; Health Sciences Libraries Consortium; HotWired Ventures LLC; Interactive Digital Software Association; Interactive Services Association; Magazine Publishers of America, Inc.; Microsoft Corporation; Microsoft Network; National Press Photographers Association; NETCOM On-Line Communication Services, Inc.; Newspaper Association of America; Opnet, Inc.; Prodigy Services Company; Wired Ventures, Ltd.; and, the Society of Professional Journalists Ltd. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For More Information For more information on the CIEC challenge, including the text of the original complaint filed in early '96 and other relevant materials: * World Wide Web -- http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ * General Information about CIEC -- ciec-info@cdt.org * Copy of the Original Complaint -- ciec-docs@cdt.org * Specific Questions Regarding the Coalition, including Press Inquiries -- ciec@cdt.org * General information about the Center for Democracy and Technology -- info@cdt.org -- Date: Saturday, November 2, 1996 7:42am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 722197 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Threat to data bases File: THREAT.TXT (Copy by Lythande) Ok, Deb and Ed just sent me an e mail message that I screwed up when I tried to attach a message the other day concerning the threat posed to data bases by corporations trying to enforce copywrite claims. So here it is, I hope. Date: Sunday, November 17, 1996 11:13pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Conundrum Msg#: 723098 To: Vida Re: Another update from the net (Reply to #714791, Reply to #714612, Reply to #714603, R*) VI>I did look it up. And the dictionary I have is pretty authorative. It VI>is the one that my ex SO used in college English classes about five VI>years ago. Try looking in a scientific text. Dictionaries are a minimum of 20 years out of date, so that one starts at 25. Date: Sunday, November 17, 1996 11:23pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Conundrum Msg#: 723099 To: Vida Re: Poem from the net (Reply to #714793, Reply to #714615, Reply to #714608, R*) VI>CO>VI>You and strongly disagree on the idea that it is preferable for the VI>CO>VI>government to take away kids rather than restricting speech!!! I woul VI>CO>VI>find the former much more objectionable than the later---which is not VI>CO>VI>say that conrol of speech is NOT objectionable! VI>CO>Agree to disagree here; I would not object to not being able to raise VI>CO>kids if I was proved incompitent for same by an unbiased test; I would VI>CO>strongly object to my freedom of expression being restricted. Note that VI>CO>parent would have choise of liscensed caregiver, though still abusable VI>CO>such that I would not want such a system without more psychological VI>CO>testing and a better political climate. VI>The way in which the government has gone about taking kids from certain VI>parents could hardly be described as unbiased. But we can certainly VI>agree to disagree on this point. :) Well, yes. I don't agree with the current government, the reasons it uses to take children away from its parents, or, for that matter, the reasons it uses to justify censorship or many other things. On the other hand, this is an ideological discussion -- if we assume the current status quo, I don't think we want the government in control of either our children or our speach. You assume that if goverment is censoring, the "right" people will be in charge, while I assume that if the government restricts the "right to parent", then the right people will be in charge. My view is that if the "right" people are in charge of making sure that people without proper qualifications don't parent (and I freely admit that those right people don't exist now, partially due to the lack of scientific, reliable, psychological techniques), the instituion will be right. If the "Right" people make sure that the wrong things are censored, even if I hate and believe to be evil every single thing they are censoring, it's still wrong. Date: Sunday, November 17, 1996 11:37pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Conundrum Msg#: 723100 To: Dti Re: Another update from the net (Reply to #714885, Reply to #714567, Reply to #713205, R*) DT> So then, which would be easier for someone concerned with eradicating DT>forms of expression that really inspired fear and loathing in them to DT>get rid of? Page, site, server? Directory, several directories, or DT>entire machine? Obviously private property much the same as the system DT>through which I now type these words to you... Depends. They couldn't go after the page. They might go after the entire machine. They might try to monetarily damage either the owners of the machine or the owners of the site. Finally, they might attempt some form of coercion of either the owners of the physical (the server) or the owners of the virtual (the site or page). They could also attempt to get at the conectivity by attempting to coerce (in any of the listed ways) those who give internet service to the owners of the machine. Regardless, the only people who have the power to take the site down are those with access to the hardware or software (and the only way to force access to the software is to grab the hardware). DT>yrs is /~m***e? they are...> >9# /~mneme/. I make no secret of most of my aliasi. But there's nothing in there aside from a link to my resume -- I've been much too lazy lately, and writing web pages for people who were paying me. Date: Sunday, November 17, 1996 11:44pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Conundrum Msg#: 723103 To: Dti Re: Another update from t 2/2 (Reply to #715345, Reply to #714963, Reply to #714881, R*) DT> You dont think that you or I can manage to upload enough HTML coded DT>shit to make a point against censorship and for free human will and DT>whatever the fuck else we or either of us believe in, or that thwere is DT>some kinda special UNIX editing utility that eliminates sites without This is the big deal -- The only difference between advert funded sites and non is that ad-funded sites have a natural income. Anyone who wants to put up a non-ad funded site can do so no sweat, and the cost of putting and keeping one up is unlikely to decrease -- quite the reverse, unless the govmnt decides to tax web sites or something idiotic, since the same costs involved in putting a web site are those incurred in accessing one. DT>ads are just line noise in a way, although they do helpo to support some DT>of the useful hits, like the search engines to name one or five... Not to meantion the Dilbert site. Love that daily Dilbert. Date: Saturday, October 12, 1996 1:21pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Editor Msg#: 724690 To: ** ALL ** Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #720575, Reply to #720542, R*) V >ED>I guess I noticed it because she lives near me. When she was runnin V >ED>VP, she still did her shopping at a local supermarket on Metropolit V >ED>When she showed up to shop, it was a full blown circus, with the Se V >ED>Service closing off streets, etc., etc. V > V >I can just imagine what a media circus it must have been. Although I V >am kinda surprised she did her own shopping. Why not? Probably a pain in the butt... but I'll bet she got a kick out of it. We all have deeply root nest building instincts, expressed different ways, and sometimes we have to let them loose. V >ED>I could say lots more on this topic, but THEY might be listening. V > V >You mean you have any doubts? :) There was a terrific tagline I saw on the net. "Want to have you email filed automatically? Mention Iran or Iraq". --- ώ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 ώ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Friday, November 1, 1996 5:50pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 724829 To: ** ALL ** Re: NY CDA takes effect (Copy by Lythande) I can't believe that NO ONE, including myself has commented on this one. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update > Thursday, October 31, 1996 > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >* NY State CDA Takes Effect > >Tomorrow, November 1, the New York State version of the CDA takes effect. >Much like the CDA, this New York law makes it a felony to transmit >"indecent" material to minors, and does not contain any exception for >materials with serious value, such as information about AIDS, literary >works and a wide range of other materials that are constitutionally >protected. The law contains limited defenses for online service providers, >but would still bar distribution of constitutionally protected information >online. > >To date, at least 11 other states have considered such laws. Last month the >ACLU filed the first challenge to state cyber-censorship in Georgia. >Georgia's reply brief is due on November 7. For more information on state >censorship laws go to http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/stbills.html > >Ann Beeson will be speaking about the NY State bill this Sunday in New York >City at a forum sponsored by VTW and The Netly News. Detailed information >on the location and a real audio broadcast can be found below in the >speakers section. > >The ACLU wants to gather evidence that constitutionally protected speech >will be chilled as a result of the passage of the law. Watch for a form on >our website where you'll be able to tell us your "chilling" examples. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Friday, December 27, 1996 9:36pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Lythande Msg#: 724830 To: ** ALL ** Re: NY CDA takes effect (Fw by Lythande, Reply to #722012, Reply to #721974) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Editor ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- ED>V >> ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update ED>V >> Thursday, October 31, 1996 ED>V >> ED>V >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ED>V >>* NY State CDA Takes Effect ED>I think I posted something about this awhile back. At the height of the ED>frenzy about the Federal Communications Decency Act, this slipped through ED>unnoticed. So, why isn't this getting more press???? Date: Saturday, November 2, 1996 5:13pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 724831 To: ** ALL ** Re: NY CDA takes effect (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #722012, Reply to #721974) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Editor ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- ED>V >I can't believe that NO ONE, including myself has commented on this on ED>V > ED>V > ED>V > ED>V >> ED>V >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ED>V >> ED>V >> ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update ED>V >> Thursday, October 31, 1996 ED>V >> ED>V >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ED>V >>* NY State CDA Takes Effect ED>I think I posted something about this awhile back. At the height of the ED>frenzy about the Federal Communications Decency Act, this slipped through ED>unnoticed. I think the NY law was passed after the Federal Communications Decency Act had been invalidated. I am sure that the ACLU, among others, will challenge this one in court. Date: Monday, November 11, 1996 4:56am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 724897 To: ** ALL ** Re: Wham action list (Fw by Lythande, Reply to #722627, Reply to #716678, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Lythande ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- LY>VI>I understand that. That still does not counter my point. LY>Of course it does! Free Speech allows you to say you're in favor of LY>censorship. It also prohibits you from censoring. But once you say you are in favor of censorship then people almost immediately start waving the First Amendment flag in your face. So in effect, there is censorship of saying you are in favor of censorship. Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 7:37am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 725703 To: ** ALL ** Re: A feel good story I usually don't cross post, but I wanted to make sure that all my special AH companions who visit this forum caught this story. For all those who do not know, the Masorti movement in Isreal is more or less equivalent to the US Jewish Conservative movement. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 08:49:20 -0400 From: RA Israel Reply-To: "Masorti: Torah and News from the Masorti Movement in Israel" To: Multiple recipients of list MASORTI Subject: Sign of the Times The following was written by Rabbi Moshe Tutnauer--a Masorti rabbi who makes his home in the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem. Andy Sacks ************************************************************************ Masorti Movement RAISRAEL@JTSA.EDU Rabbinical Assembly of Israel Tel:972-2-678-2433 4 Rav Ashi Street Fax:972-2-678-2441 Jerusalem, ISRAEL ************************************************************************ Signs of the times. It was, by far, the most moving Bar Mitzvah we ever attended. It took place in the Ramot Zion Synagogue on French Hill. The Bar Mitzvah boy was Boris Abalov, whose family had come from Leningrad five years ago. Boris is a student at the Frankel TALI (Masorti/Conservative) School on French Hill. This is Boris' third year in the school. Boris is one of seven children attending special classes in the school. Boris and his classmates are classified as autistic children. Less than three years ago, they did not speak. Until they came to the Frankel School. And until the Frankel staff decided to try to integrate them, at least for part of the day, into regular classes. Each child was given classmates, who would become their mentors. The autistic children now had new models to imitate. Soon they became to hold their bodies just as their mentors did. Soon they began to speak, as their mentors speak. So, on Thursday, Boris celebrated his Bar Mitzvah. He acted as a Gabbi, lead the service, chanted the prayers, and read from the Torah. After the service, he sat at an electric keyboard and played music. Boris was "assisted" by two young girls, his mentors, who are also students at the Frankel School. The school's principal, Barabara Levin, told me that the girls come from problematic families. Both found dignity and meaning by working with Boris. And Boris accepted them as his friends and his tutors. He imitated their behavior and not the behavior of other autistic children. When he slouched, his tutors gently, but firmly took his arm and stood him up straight. They were his friends and he was theirs. The common wisdom is that autistic children do not express happiness. Boris' face and his smile radiated joy and pride. The common wisdom is that autistic children are easily distracted. Boris maintained his composure even though the service was held in a new environment and people he did not know were taking his picture. Boris' parents told me that in Leningrad there had been no suitable educational facility for Boris. He was not progressing until the family moved to Israel. The integrated program that was initiated at the Frankel School is the first of it's kind. They were thankful to Israel and to Frankel for all that was done for their child. Some twenty years ago a group of "new immigrants" dreamed of a new kind of school in Jerusalem. We were accused of wanting an 'exclusive school" for our children. We persisted, the school came into being, and a great principal was found. And so we, and the Frankel staff, and the mentors, and the Abalov family all thanked God for having sustained us and kept us alive and enabled us to participate in the that most meaningful Bar Mitzvah. Margie and Moshe Tutnauer P.S. Anyone interested in more information about the program and about the Frankel School is invited to contact us: Moshe and Margie Tutnauer Moshe Tutnauer mstut@pluto.huji.ac.il Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 10:49pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 727487 To: ** ALL ** Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Copy by Lythande) I'm a new user to this board and I read a message in the hello forum that stated free speech has been repealed. I don't understand what that is supposed to mean could someone explain to me if its a joke or not. The free speech forum has no recent messages in it and I would like to know if thats relevant or maybe no one cares about free speech anymore. Date: Thursday, February 27, 1997 11:19pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 730428 To: ** ALL ** Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #730254, Reply to #730200, Reply *) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- To: Nightbird ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- N> DE>NI>DE>That would seem to be the case except for the people who can contro N> DE>NI>DE>what is or isn't said. They say they are very concernend about free N> DE>NI>DE>speech but they censor those they disagree with or shout them down. N> N> DE>NI>Well, I guess they can do that but I see your point, it isn't very fai N> N> DE>Its fair to the people who supress the speech. At least theyt appear to N> DE>think so. N> N> That is what I see sometimes N> What I find puzzling is how on occasion the people who are most vocal about freespeech are also the same people who do their best to supress it when they disagree with someone elses point of view. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Monday, March 3, 1997 10:04pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Conundrum Msg#: 730557 To: Vida Re: Wham action list (Reply to #724897, Fw by Lythande, Reply to #722627, Rep*) (3 replies) VI>But once you say you are in favor of censorship then people almost VI>immediately start waving the First Amendment flag in your face. So in VI>effect, there is censorship of saying you are in favor of censorship. Your next assignment: come up with a logical, coherent argument (rather than assertion, which is what you use), using a reasonable and agreeable definition of censorship, which actually allows you to justify this ridiculous statement you continue to assert regardless of argument. Date: Tuesday, March 4, 1997 7:39am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 730568 To: Conundrum Re: Wham action list (Reply to #730557, Reply to #724897, Fw by Lythande, Rep*) (1 reply) CO>VI>But once you say you are in favor of censorship then people almost CO>VI>immediately start waving the First Amendment flag in your face. So in CO>VI>effect, there is censorship of saying you are in favor of censorship. CO>Your next assignment: come up with a logical, coherent argument (rather CO>than assertion, which is what you use), using a reasonable and agreeable CO>definition of censorship, which actually allows you to justify this CO>ridiculous statement you continue to assert regardless of argument. I have being trying very hard to state my positions in a logical, coherent fashion. I suggest you start re-reading all of my posts. :) Date: Tuesday, March 4, 1997 7:54pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Rand Msg#: 730612 To: Conundrum Re: Wham action list (Reply to #730557, Reply to #724897, Fw by Lythande, Rep*) (2 replies) In a message dated 03-03-97 Conundrum wrote to Vida : VI>But once you say you are in favor of censorship then people almost VI>immediately start waving the First Amendment flag in your face. So in VI>effect, there is censorship of saying you are in favor of censorship. C> Your next assignment: come up with a logical, coherent argument (rather C> than assertion, which is what you use), using a reasonable and agreeable C> definition of censorship, which actually allows you to justify this C> ridiculous statement you continue to assert regardless of argument. The doctrine of political correctness. If I say that I'm in favor of eliminating pornography on the grounds that it is immoral, I get shouted down on campuses and prevented from speaking. You are not permitted to differ from the free speech doctrine. TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Tuesday, March 4, 1997 11:38pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 730623 To: Conundrum Re: Wham action list (Reply to #730557, Reply to #724897, Fw by Lythande, Rep*) C> VI>But once you say you are in favor of censorship then people almost C> VI>immediately start waving the First Amendment flag in your face. So in C> VI>effect, there is censorship of saying you are in favor of censorship. C> C> Your next assignment: come up with a logical, coherent argument (rather C> than assertion, which is what you use), using a reasonable and agreeable C> definition of censorship, which actually allows you to justify this C> ridiculous statement you continue to assert regardless of argument. C> I would say we need two definitions. 1) Censorship of free speech 2) Suppression of free speech. They sometimes go hand in hand. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Tuesday, March 4, 1997 11:38pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 730624 To: Rand Re: Wham action list (Reply to #730612, Reply to #730557, Reply to #724897, F*) (1 reply) R> VI>But once you say you are in favor of censorship then people almost R> VI>immediately start waving the First Amendment flag in your face. So in R> VI>effect, there is censorship of saying you are in favor of censorship. R> R> C> Your next assignment: come up with a logical, coherent argument (rather R> C> than assertion, which is what you use), using a reasonable and agreeable R> C> definition of censorship, which actually allows you to justify this R> C> ridiculous statement you continue to assert regardless of argument. R> R> R> The doctrine of political correctness. If I say that I'm in favor of R> eliminating pornography on the grounds that it is immoral, I get shouted dow R> on campuses and prevented from speaking. You are not permitted to differ fr R> the free speech doctrine. R> Isn't the fact that you are shouted down evidence that you were allowed free speech? The people doing the shouting are practicing their free speech. What appears to be missing are rules that are actually adhered to and civility. Usually but not always people who shout others down tend to be ignorant or afraid of what is being said. Their fears surface and they strike out blindly with their voices and too often with violence. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Wednesday, March 5, 1997 1:25am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Rand Msg#: 730629 To: Des Re: Wham action list (Reply to #730624, Reply to #730612, Reply to #730557, R*) (1 reply) In a message dated 03-04-97 Des wrote to Rand : R> The doctrine of political correctness. If I say that I'm in favor of R> eliminating pornography on the grounds that it is immoral, I get shouted R>qdow R> on campuses and prevented from speaking. You are not permitted to differ R>qfr R> the free speech doctrine. R> D> Isn't the fact that you are shouted down evidence that you were D> allowed free speech? The people doing the shouting are practicing D> their free speech. What appears to be missing are rules that are D> actually adhered to and civility. Usually but not always people D> who shout others down tend to be ignorant or afraid of what is being D> said. Their fears surface and they strike out blindly with their D> voices and too often with violence. Actually, no. The harassment codes that exist on many college campuses now prohibit certain speech; U. Conn's prohibits "inappropriate speech." TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Thursday, March 6, 1997 1:56pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 730694 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #730428, Fw by Sysop, Reply to #730254, Reply *) (1 reply) DE>N> That is what I see sometimes DE>N> DE>What I find puzzling is how on occasion the people who are most vocal DE>about freespeech are also the same people who do their best to DE>supress it when they disagree with someone elses point of view. DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Are you speaking from personal experience? Date: Tuesday, March 11, 1997 10:34pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 731047 To: Rand Re: Wham action list (Reply to #730629, Reply to #730624, Reply to #730612, R*) (1 reply) R> D> Isn't the fact that you are shouted down evidence that you were R> D> allowed free speech? The people doing the shouting are practicing R> D> their free speech. What appears to be missing are rules that are R> D> actually adhered to and civility. Usually but not always people R> D> who shout others down tend to be ignorant or afraid of what is being R> D> said. Their fears surface and they strike out blindly with their R> D> voices and too often with violence. R> R> Actually, no. The harassment codes that exist on many college campuses now R> prohibit certain speech; U. Conn's prohibits "inappropriate speech." Harrassment should not be allowed to inhibit someones ability to speek. Who decides exactly what "innapropriate speech" is? This question has to do with why I'm logging onto this board. Should a Nazi decide? A religious Jew? A Cleric? A BBS Sysop? Pat Buchanan? I believe that all sides should be heard and the people can decide for themselves. Anything else is totalitarian. Hecklers should be allowed to voice their opinions after those they heckle have been heard. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Tuesday, March 11, 1997 10:34pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 731048 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #730694, Reply to #730428, Fw by Sysop, Reply *) (1 reply) SF> DE>N> That is what I see sometimes SF> DE>N> SF> DE>What I find puzzling is how on occasion the people who are most vocal SF> DE>about freespeech are also the same people who do their best to SF> DE>supress it when they disagree with someone elses point of view. SF> SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ SF> Are you speaking from personal experience? Concerning what? ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Wednesday, March 12, 1997 9:57am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 731101 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #731048, Reply to #730694, Reply to #730428, F*) (1 reply) DE>SF> DE>N> That is what I see sometimes DE>SF> DE>N> DE>SF> DE>What I find puzzling is how on occasion the people who are most vocal DE>SF> DE>about freespeech are also the same people who do their best to DE>SF> DE>supress it when they disagree with someone elses point of view. DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ DE>SF> Are you speaking from personal experience? DE>Concerning what? DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ About having your freedom suppressed? Date: Wednesday, March 12, 1997 6:26pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Rand Msg#: 731141 To: Des Re: Wham action list (Reply to #731047, Reply to #730629, Reply to #730624, R*) In a message dated 03-11-97 Des wrote to Rand : R> D> Isn't the fact that you are shouted down evidence that you were R> D> allowed free speech? The people doing the shouting are practicing R> D> their free speech. What appears to be missing are rules that are R> D> actually adhered to and civility. Usually but not always people R> D> who shout others down tend to be ignorant or afraid of what is being R> D> said. Their fears surface and they strike out blindly with their R> D> voices and too often with violence. R> R> Actually, no. The harassment codes that exist on many college campuses now R> prohibit certain speech; U. Conn's prohibits "inappropriate speech." D> Harrassment should not be allowed to inhibit someones ability to speek. D> Who decides exactly what "innapropriate speech" is? D> This question has to do with why I'm logging onto this board. D> Should a Nazi decide? A religious Jew? A Cleric? A BBS Sysop? D> Pat Buchanan? D> I believe that all sides should be heard and the people can decide D> for themselves. Anything else is totalitarian. D> Hecklers should be allowed to voice their opinions after those they D> heckle have been heard. I actually meant to say that U. Conn's prohibits "inappropriate laughter." But I will be happy to say who decides. The owner of the property decides. If it is public property, then the Supreme Court decides. TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * I'm pro-choice on everything! Date: Monday, March 17, 1997 9:43pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 731469 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #731101, Reply to #731048, Reply to #730694, R*) (1 reply) SF> DE>SF> DE>supress it when they disagree with someone elses point of view. SF> DE>SF> Are you speaking from personal experience? SF> SF> DE>Concerning what? SF> SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ SF> About having your freedom suppressed? SF> On occassion. No more than anyone else. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Tuesday, March 18, 1997 12:14pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 731480 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #731469, Reply to #731101, Reply to #731048, R*) (1 reply) DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>supress it when they disagree with someone elses point of view DE>SF> DE>SF> Are you speaking from personal experience? DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>Concerning what? DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ DE>SF> About having your freedom suppressed? DE>SF> DE>On occassion. No more than anyone else. DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ It appears to be the only subject your are presently interested in. Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 9:24am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 731547 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #731480, Reply to #731469, Reply to #731101, R*) (4 replies) SF> DE>SF> DE>SF> Are you speaking from personal experience? SF> DE>SF> SF> DE>SF> DE>Concerning what? SF> DE>SF> SF> DE>SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ SF> DE>SF> About having your freedom suppressed? SF> DE>SF> SF> DE>On occassion. No more than anyone else. SF> SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ SF> It appears to be the only subject your are presently interested in. I'm here as a favor to someone who was suspended. He asked me to find out exactly why he was suspended. form what I've seen and been told there was no valid reason other than the sysops got tired of being shown to be inacurrate in some of their statements. IF thats not true then I believe IMHO they woyuld state exactly why they chose their course of action. So far it looks like the information related to me about various members of this board very close to the mark. I was hoping he was wrong in his assessment but so far he isn't. For instance the Sysop stated that only one member of the board was suspended in the last 3-4 years. When I questioned that statement I was told he didn't remember the exact number. Thats makes no sense if in fact the act of suspending a user is taken seriously. I have been told that there was a user called big john who was suspended recently also and that two other users disappeared abruptly. This reminds me of the story of chicken little. In thois case the sky seems to be falling. Either we have free speech or we don't. IF I were to be absent for some time and you repeatedly asked the Sysop what happened and recieved no answer wouldn't it bother you? One user viewede my questions with anger instead of trying to find out if there was any validity or not. Thats whta i would do and in fact am trying to do. What is your opinion on this? Do you think its valid to ask why a user was suspended and expect to get some sort of answer? I take freespeech and the abuility to exercise it a very improtant right. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 10:04am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 731552 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #731547, Reply to #731480, Reply to #731469, R*) (1 reply) I get the impression that you and your suspended friend believe that every subject and every manner of conducting a discussion is protected under the banner of free speech, regardless of any local rules and who may get hurt in the process. I know of one member who was suspended by the Sysop after that member refused my requests to stop sending me private e-mails filled with explicit anti-gay remarks. What would have been your response? Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 7:43pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Lythande Msg#: 731577 To: Des *EXEMPT* Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #731547, Reply to #731480, Reply to #731469, R*) DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>SF> Are you speaking from personal experience? DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>Concerning what? DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ DE>SF> DE>SF> About having your freedom suppressed? DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>On occassion. No more than anyone else. DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ DE>SF> It appears to be the only subject your are presently interested in. DE>I'm here as a favor to someone who was suspended. He asked me DE>to find out exactly why he was suspended. form what I've seen DE>and been told there was no valid reason other than the sysops DE>got tired of being shown to be inacurrate in some of their DE>statements. IF thats not true then I believe IMHO they woyuld DE>state exactly why they chose their course of action. So far it DE>looks like the information related to me about various members DE>of this board very close to the mark. I was hoping he was wrong DE>in his assessment but so far he isn't. For instance the Sysop DE>stated that only one member of the board was suspended in DE>the last 3-4 years. When I questioned that statement I was told DE>he didn't remember the exact number. Thats makes no sense if DE>in fact the act of suspending a user is taken seriously. DE>I have been told that there was a user called big john who was DE>suspended recently also and that two other users disappeared DE>abruptly. This reminds me of the story of chicken little. DE>In thois case the sky seems to be falling. Either we have DE>free speech or we don't. IF I were to be absent for some DE>time and you repeatedly asked the Sysop what happened and DE>recieved no answer wouldn't it bother you? DE>One user viewede my questions with anger instead of trying DE>to find out if there was any validity or not. Thats whta DE>i would do and in fact am trying to do. DE>What is your opinion on this? Do you think its valid to DE>ask why a user was suspended and expect to get some sort of DE>answer? DE>I take freespeech and the abuility to exercise it a very DE>improtant right. DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Now that you've finally decided to come out into the open about why you're here, I've decided to write you this one message stating the facts. You may be interested to know, btw, that it was obvious from your very first message what your purpose was here. Fact: Big John was deleted for flaming in 1995. That is well over a year ago. Fact: The sysops of this or any other board are not under any obligation to anyone to answer questions about running the board. That is why, after this message, neither of us will answer any further questions on this topic. Fact: Anyone callng After Hours is here as our guest and is required to do only one thing - treat our other guests with respect. Fact: People stop calling AH or any other board for innumerable reasons who have not been suspended. In fact, quite a few have recently called again and been pleasantly surprised that this board, unlike most, is still around after 11 years online. Since you chose to use an example (Big John) to "prove" your erroneous premise that more than one person has been deleted "recently", I will choose an example (Q) of what we do 100% of the time on the rare occassion that someone is deleted for flaming. Fact: Q was told literally dozens of times verbally in person, in chat, in Forum messages and in e-mail *exactly*, *in detail* what he was doing which was personally insulting, offensive and rude to other users here, i.e. flaming. These warnings were given over a period of years. They included many long and detailed messages with specific message numbers as references and/or verbatim quotes from flaming messages. Fact: If Q states that he was not given a chance to stop flaming he is a liar. Fact: If Q states that he was never told that he was in danger of being suspended because of his flaming, he is a liar. Fact: If Q states that he was never told that he was suspended because of years of flaming despite numerous warnings, he is a liar. One last fact. Fact: This is the last message that I will write on this topic. Now that you've gotten the answers you came here to After Hours to get, perhaps you'd like to look around the board as someone interested in what we're all doing here. I have a feeling you'll enjoy really getting involved in real discussions about other topics with us. We're always eager to have people here, like you, who can disagree with what someone says without being rude and offensive and insulting. As I've said many times on AH, if we all agreed, how boring things would be! I even wrote a pastiche or two about this in /CurrentEvents - see #292085 and #517708..if you're interested. Have a nice day, Lythande, Sysop Date: Monday, March 24, 1997 10:13pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Wanderer Msg#: 731785 To: ** ALL ** Re: the new decency laws (Copy by Calvin) (1 reply) hi,folks!!!!seems that uncle sam wants to regulate what is going on on the web.he wants to protect the kids. i don't know about you folks,but i'll be damned if i am going to let my rights be abridged for someone's kid.where are the parents?,let them regulate their own kids.its my job,or uncle sams. i was on a prodigy adult chat room,and some 15 yr. old girl is iming me.hey,does this constitute entrapment. will i have to curtail my speech because some kid sneaks onto the adult chat room. where does it all end/ Date: Tuesday, March 25, 1997 12:25pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Rand Msg#: 731799 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #731547, Reply to #731480, Reply to #731469, R*) In a message dated 03-20-97 Des wrote to Steve Flur: D> One user viewede my questions with anger instead of trying D> to find out if there was any validity or not. Thats whta D> i would do and in fact am trying to do. D> What is your opinion on this? Do you think its valid to D> ask why a user was suspended and expect to get some sort of D> answer? To tell you the truth, I don't much care about it. This is a private board and if Ed wanted to throw me off because he didn't like my QWK reader, that's up to him. D> I take freespeech and the abuility to exercise it a very D> improtant right. Me too. It's not implicated in this case. This is one board. The ability to speak is not impacted. TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Tuesday, April 8, 1997 5:55am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 733046 To: Wanderer Re: the new decency laws (Reply to #731785, Copy by Calvin) (2 replies) WA>hi,folks!!!!seems that uncle sam wants to regulate WA>what is going on on the web.he wants to protect the kids. WA>i don't know about you folks,but i'll be damned if WA>i am going to let my rights be abridged for WA>someone's kid.where are the parents?,let them regulate their WA>own kids.its my job,or uncle sams. i was on WA>a prodigy adult chat room,and some 15 yr. old girl is WA>iming me.hey,does this constitute entrapment. WA>will i have to curtail my speech because WA>some kid sneaks onto the adult chat room. WA>where does it all end/ This is oldass old news like rivers carving stone canyons or men with beards showing up with laws carved in stone tablets and is equally bullshit in essence. Where are the parents indeed? I asked that one for the last couple years before I split and never got an answer from the opposition. FWIW: entrapment is an obsolete concept legally in terms of being arrestable for typing back at whoever in whatever chatroom or sig wherever. DOJ are heavily involved in posing as targets in all imaginably illegit desire worlds so as to better arrange scenes in the real world that result in the subject finally encountering agents of enforcement. Surgeon General Recommends watch yr words and only say hello in real time to actual verifiable human beings... --- * SLMR 2.0 * To speak to an actual human being press 1 and hang up... Date: Tuesday, April 8, 1997 7:00am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 733061 To: Dti Re: the new decency laws (Reply to #733046, Reply to #731785, Copy by Calvin) (1 reply) Hi DTI! Are you coming back for good? I hope so! I missed you around here! Hugs, Vida Date: Wednesday, April 9, 1997 1:50am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Ersatz Msg#: 733104 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Interesting (4 replies) Its very interesting that the sysops claim to have not expelled anyone from this board (or just one person). I personally know that the following users were expelled, and I've heard from reliable sources that there were others: Quack 323641 Big John Another user whose name escapes me at the moment. These people were all expelled for exercising free speech in the Freespeech (alleged) forum. My God they should have been killed instead of just expelled from the BBS. The people who run this board are liers and very small minded people. I am sure that I too will be kicked off the board. I challenge the sysops not to expell me but rather answer my charge that they lied about how many people they kicked off. That is if they have the guts; I'm sure they don't. Date: Wednesday, April 9, 1997 2:00am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Ersatz Msg#: 733105 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #731547, Reply to #731480, Reply to #731469, R*) (1 reply) DE>I'm here as a favor to someone who was suspended. He asked me DE>to find out exactly why he was suspended. form what I've seen DE>and been told there was no valid reason other than the sysops DE>got tired of being shown to be inacurrate in some of their DE>statements. IF thats not true then I believe IMHO they woyuld DE>state exactly why they chose their course of action. So far it DE>looks like the information related to me about various members DE>of this board very close to the mark. I was hoping he was wrong DE>in his assessment but so far he isn't. For instance the Sysop DE>stated that only one member of the board was suspended in DE>the last 3-4 years. When I questioned that statement I was told DE>he didn't remember the exact number. Thats makes no sense if DE>in fact the act of suspending a user is taken seriously. DE>I have been told that there was a user called big john who was DE>suspended recently also and that two other users disappeared DE>abruptly. This reminds me of the story of chicken little. DE>In thois case the sky seems to be falling. Either we have DE>free speech or we don't. IF I were to be absent for some DE>time and you repeatedly asked the Sysop what happened and DE>recieved no answer wouldn't it bother you? DE>One user viewede my questions with anger instead of trying DE>to find out if there was any validity or not. Thats whta DE>i would do and in fact am trying to do. DE>What is your opinion on this? Do you think its valid to DE>ask why a user was suspended and expect to get some sort of DE>answer? DE>I take freespeech and the abuility to exercise it a very DE>improtant right. Big John is a friend of mine. He was suspended for disagreeing with the sysops. They trumped up some silly charge that he was "inserting extra lines" into his posts. Nobody knew what that meant. When he tried to find out what the sysops meant, they got very angry and expelled him. I was very upset when Big John disappeared. It took me a long time to track him down on another board. The sysops don't respect other people. Sure, its their board and they can do what they like, but they should not lie and they should behave like rational adults. Of course this is asking alot. There's freespeech in this forum, if you don't disagree with the sysop too much. Date: Wednesday, April 9, 1997 7:23am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Lythande Msg#: 733120 To: Ersatz Re: Interesting (Reply to #733104) *EXEMPT* Date: Wednesday, April 9, 1997 1:10pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 733139 To: Ersatz Re: Interesting (Reply to #733104) Do you belive that when a BBS Sysop sets rules that in itself prevents free speech? Date: Thursday, April 10, 1997 1:55pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve C Msg#: 733188 To: Ersatz Re: Interesting (Reply to #733104) (2 replies) ER>I am sure that I too will be kicked off the board. I challenge the ER>sysops not to expell me but rather answer my charge that they lied about ER>how many people they kicked off. That is if they have the guts; I'm ER>sure they don't. I think you are going about this the wrong way. By coming on like gangbusters, you are only aggravating the people who can give you the answers. If you were to start out by explaining why you are on the board, and then asking for the circumstances behind your friends dismissal, perhaps you would get an answer. BTW, so you don't think I am just a flackey for the sysops, one of the names you mentioned above (Quack) is a friend, and he also has told me he was cut off without a reason. I would like an answer to that myself, but I don't think the sysops owe me one. Date: Thursday, April 10, 1997 5:45pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Lythande Msg#: 733195 To: Steve C Re: Interesting (Reply to #733188, Reply to #733104) (2 replies) SC>I think you are going about this the wrong way. SC>By coming on like gangbusters, you are only aggravating the people who SC>can give you the answers. SC>If you were to start out by explaining why you are on the board, and SC>then asking for the circumstances behind your friends dismissal, SC>perhaps you would get an answer. SC>BTW, so you don't think I am just a flackey for the sysops, one of the SC>names you mentioned above (Quack) is a friend, and he also has told me SC>he was cut off without a reason. I would like an answer to that myself, SC>but I don't think the sysops owe me one. You might want to read message #731577. Date: Saturday, April 12, 1997 6:05am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 733256 To: Vida Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #733061, Reply to #733046, Reply to #731785, C*) (1 reply) VI>Hi DTI! Are you coming back for good? I hope so! I missed you around VI>here! VI>Hugs, VI>Vida As Steamboat Willie said so well in the last century: Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated... I am securely chained to a stout radiator these days and have had all my teeth removed. I figured I could work a knitting needle up past the gumline on the maxilla side and scramble some annoying biological material, but all I ended up with was no teeth and bent knitting needles. However, I did figure out how to review shit I type before offering the gubbins up to the Telco Wire so I might appear less cantankerous nowadays... >9# Best to yez, A BTW fill me in: Who is Moloch? I have been hearing that name quite a bit in the last week on my fave radiostation and Moloch sounds like some kinda hellified deathrattle of iron wrack nightmare personified to be sure... --- * SLMR 2.0 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be illegible Date: Saturday, April 12, 1997 8:28am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 733270 To: Dti Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #733256, Reply to #733061, Reply to #733046, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>Hi DTI! Are you coming back for good? I hope so! I missed you DT>around VI>here! DT>VI>Hugs, DT>VI>Vida DT> As Steamboat Willie said so well in the last century: DT> Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated... I am securely DT>chained to a stout radiator these days and have had all my teeth DT>removed. I figured I could work a knitting needle up past the gumline DT>on the maxilla side and scramble some annoying biological material, but DT>all I ended up with was no teeth and bent knitting needles. However, I DT>did figure out how to review shit I type before offering the gubbins up DT>to the Telco Wire so I might appear less cantankerous nowadays... DT> >9# DT> Best to yez, DT> A It's good to have you back! This place was not the same without you Adam! DT> BTW fill me in: Who is Moloch? I have been hearing that name quite a DT>bit in the last week on my fave radiostation and Moloch sounds like some DT>kinda hellified deathrattle of iron wrack nightmare personified to be DT>sure... DT>--- ???? I am afraid I don't know who you are talking about. I mostly listen to either CBS FM or my own CD/cassette collection, which is an eclectic mix of show tunes, folk music, jazz and Jewish music. Date: Sunday, April 13, 1997 9:07pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Don Msg#: 733373 To: Lythande Re: Interesting (Reply to #733195, Reply to #733188, Reply to #733104) (2 replies) ³LL> You might want to read message #731577. ³ ΤΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΎ I tried to look this up but the board doesn't recognize it. I'm with Steve in that you don't owe me an explanation...but I'm curious as to why Quack is banned. And I wonder how I missed this? --- ώ MegaMail 2.10 #0:Alex, I'll take "THINGS ONLY I KNOW" for $1000. Date: Sunday, April 13, 1997 9:13pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Lythande Msg#: 733380 To: Don Re: Interesting (Reply to #733373, Reply to #733195, Reply to #733188, R*) (1 reply) DO>³LL> You might want to read message #731577. DO>ΤΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝ DO> I tried to look this up but the board doesn't recognize it. I'm DO> with Steve in that you don't owe me an explanation...but I'm DO> curious as to why Quack is banned. And I wonder how I missed DO> this? ?? From here (while reading this message) type #731577 and it'll bring you there. Or, from the /FreeSpeech main menu type r 731577 and it'll take you there. Don't know how you missed that message either - do you only read messages to you or to ALL? Date: Monday, April 14, 1997 8:28am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve C Msg#: 733393 To: Lythande Re: Interesting (Reply to #733195, Reply to #733188, Reply to #733104) LY>SC>I think you are going about this the wrong way. LY>SC>By coming on like gangbusters, you are only aggravating the people who LY>SC>can give you the answers. LY>SC>If you were to start out by explaining why you are on the board, and LY>SC>then asking for the circumstances behind your friends dismissal, LY>SC>perhaps you would get an answer. LY>SC>BTW, so you don't think I am just a flackey for the sysops, one of the LY>SC>names you mentioned above (Quack) is a friend, and he also has told me LY>SC>he was cut off without a reason. I would like an answer to that myself, LY>SC>but I don't think the sysops owe me one. LY>You might want to read message #731577. Actually, I have. My point was that we are guests here and that if you don't want us here it is your right to cut us off , and that I would have no right to demand an answer on why another user was cut off. After all, the BBS is running on your computer which is your property. We are only using it with your permission. Date: Monday, April 14, 1997 8:03pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Don Msg#: 733425 To: Lythande Re: Interesting (Reply to #733380, Reply to #733373, Reply to #733195, R*) ³LL> Don't know how you missed that message either - do you only read ³ ³LL> messages to you or to ALL? ³ ΤΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΎ I was just doing it wrong.... --- ώ MegaMail 2.10 #0:Dance naked in front of your cats. Date: Monday, April 14, 1997 8:09pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Don Msg#: 733428 To: Lythande Re: Missed it I have no idea how I missed that message, but thanks for pointing it o out to me..... Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 4:16am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 733613 To: Vida Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #733270, Reply to #733256, Reply to #733061, R*) (1 reply) VI>It's good to have you back! This place was not the same without you VI>Adam! So I have noted this very evening, suddenly there are over 2 dozen new things in the greentile institutional cellar sig, where there was relatively little activity over the past some whatever months. Then again, I jammed in some text last time I hit that was rife with shall we say ahem reactive possibilities... >9# VI>???? I am afraid I don't know who you are talking about. I mostly VI>listen to either CBS FM or my own CD/cassette collection, which is an VI>eclectic mix of show tunes, folk music, jazz and Jewish music. Moloch. I thought that name was some demon or similar type figure. Sure sounded that way from the context in Howl, which I got to hear seven thousand times on the air recently. O well, it was a blind guess figuring you could clue me in, its cool no prob. I thought I halfway remembered Moloch from the Old Testament but I am not really sure. Great lyric tho, and I miss the author... --- * SLMR 2.0 * THEY DONT WANT MY MONEY Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 7:10am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 733636 To: Dti Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #733613, Reply to #733270, Reply to #733256, R*) (2 replies) DT>VI>It's good to have you back! This place was not the same without you DT>VI>Adam! DT> So I have noted this very evening, suddenly there are over 2 dozen DT>new things in the greentile institutional cellar sig, where there was DT>relatively little activity over the past some whatever months. Then DT>again, I jammed in some text last time I hit that was rife with shall we DT>say ahem reactive possibilities... >9# I have been surprised that there has been so little activity in this sig. I posted an article written by Gloria Steinem when the film "People vs. Larry Flynt" was released to try to generate some discussion here. No bites. :( DT>VI>???? I am afraid I don't know who you are talking about. I mostly DT>VI>listen to either CBS FM or my own CD/cassette collection, which is an DT>VI>eclectic mix of show tunes, folk music, jazz and Jewish music. DT> Moloch. I thought that name was some demon or similar type figure. DT>Sure sounded that way from the context in Howl, which I got to hear DT>seven thousand times on the air recently. O well, it was a blind guess DT>figuring you could clue me in, its cool no prob. I thought I halfway DT>remembered Moloch from the Old Testament but I am not really sure. Great DT>lyric tho, and I miss the author... DT>--- Hmmm. Moloch kinda sounds familiar to me too from the Tanakh (What we Jews call the "Old Testament"). Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 10:51am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Kkid Msg#: 733641 To: Vida Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #733636, Reply to #733613, Reply to #733270, R*) (2 replies) VI>Hmmm. Moloch kinda sounds familiar to me too from the Tanakh (What we VI>Jews call the "Old Testament"). There is mention in the bible of Molech (sp?) the god where individuals would carry their children between two rows of fire. There is a Midrash, I think, that says parents would actually offer their children to this god. This meant that the children would be killed in the fire. Date: Friday, April 18, 1997 7:21am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 733754 To: Kkid Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #733641, Reply to #733636, Reply to #733613, R*) KK>VI>Hmmm. Moloch kinda sounds familiar to me too from the Tanakh (What we KK>VI>Jews call the "Old Testament"). KK>There is mention in the bible of Molech (sp?) the god where individuals KK>would carry their children between two rows of fire. There is a Midrash, KK>I think, that says parents would actually offer their children to this KK>god. This meant that the children would be killed in the fire. What you didn't give me the actual citation for this passage? :) Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 5:01am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 734019 To: Vida Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #733636, Reply to #733613, Reply to #733270, R*) (1 reply) VI>I have been surprised that there has been so little activity in this VI>sig. I posted an article written by Gloria Steinem when the film VI>"People vs. Larry Flynt" was released to try to generate some VI>discussion here. No bites. :( Well, I cannot comment there, having not seen the post. I suppose it was swept by time, People V Flynt came out some months ago long before I chanced back in here. VI>Hmmm. Moloch kinda sounds familiar to me too from the Tanakh (What we VI>Jews call the "Old Testament"). By context, Moloch sounded like a demon as run by Ginsberg. KKid maybe jump in here and explain it to me? --- * SLMR 2.0 * To speak to an actual human being press 1 and hang up... Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 5:01am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 734020 To: Kkid Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #733641, Reply to #733636, Reply to #733613, R*) (1 reply) KK>There is mention in the bible of Molech (sp?) the god where individuals KK>would carry their children between two rows of fire. There is a Midrash, KK>I think, that says parents would actually offer their children to this KK>god. This meant that the children would be killed in the fire. Are you familiar with 'Howl'? Allen Ginsberg longform poem from some years ago by now, it was why I was asking about Moloch. Moloch is used seemingly as the name of a greatly powerful awful force or personage of some kind... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Famous Last Words: ahhh shit whats wrong with my legs Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 6:14am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 734042 To: Dti Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #734019, Reply to #733636, Reply to #733613, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>I have been surprised that there has been so little activity in this DT>VI>sig. I posted an article written by Gloria Steinem when the film DT>VI>"People vs. Larry Flynt" was released to try to generate some DT>VI>discussion here. No bites. :( DT> Well, I cannot comment there, having not seen the post. I suppose it DT>was swept by time, People V Flynt came out some months ago long before I DT>chanced back in here. I might still have the post on the disk I use to download from the net. If I find it, I will repost it here. DT>VI>Hmmm. Moloch kinda sounds familiar to me too from the Tanakh (What we DT>VI>Jews call the "Old Testament"). DT> By context, Moloch sounded like a demon as run by Ginsberg. KKid DT>maybe jump in here and explain it to me? DT>--- We will have to wait and see. Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 8:37am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Kkid Msg#: 734054 To: Dti Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #734020, Reply to #733641, Reply to #733636, R*) (1 reply) DT> Are you familiar with 'Howl'? Allen Ginsberg longform poem from some DT>years ago by now, it was why I was asking about Moloch. Moloch is used DT>seemingly as the name of a greatly powerful awful force or personage of DT>some kind... Not familiar with it at all. Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 6:54am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 734120 To: Dti Re: Gloria Steinem article (1 reply) As promised, I searched through my download disk and was able to find the Gloria Steinem article on "People vs. Larry Flynt". I am reposting it because I think it raises some interesting questions re: the rights of free speech (pornography) and the rights of human dignity (feminism). I never saw the film in question BTW. I will, however, catch it once it comes out in video. >From the NYTimes January 7, 1997 Hollywood Cleans Up Hustler By GLORIA STEINEM Larry Flynt the Movie is even more cynical than Larry Flynt the Man. "The People vs. Larry Flynt" claims that the creator of Hustler magazine is a champion of the First Amendment, deserving our respect. That isn't true. First, we need to make clear that a pornographer is not a hero, no more than a publisher of Ku Klux Klan books, or a Nazi on the Internet would be. The Rev. Jerry Falwell sued Mr. Flynt over a parody that depicted Mr. Falwell in a drunken, incestuous encounter with his mother. Mr. Flynt's victory only confirmed the right to parody public figures (if the result can't be taken as fact), and prevented plaintiffs from doing an end run around the First Amendment by claiming they suffered "emotional distress." In fact, the Nazis who marched in Skokie, Ill., and the Klansman who advocated violence in Ohio achieved more substantive First Amendment victories than did Mr. Flynt. Yet no Hollywood movie would glamorize a Klansman or a Nazi as a champion of free speech, much less describe him in studio press releases as "the era's last crusader," which is how Columbia Pictures describes Larry Flynt. In this film produced by Oliver Stone and directed by Milos Forman, Hustler is shown as tacky at worst, and maybe even admirable for pushing the limits. What's left out are the magazine's images of women being beaten, tortured and raped, women subject to degradations from bestiality to sexual slavery. Filmgoers don't see such Hustler features as "Dirty Pool," which depicted a woman being gang-raped on a pool table. Two months after those pictures were published, a woman was gang-raped the same way in New Bedford, Mass. Mr. Flynt's response was to publish a postcard of another nude woman on a pool table, this time with the inscription "Greetings from New Bedford, Mass. The Portuguese Gang-Rape Capital of America." Nor do you see such typical Hustler photo stories as a naked woman in handcuffs who is shaved, raped and apparently killed by guards in a concentration camp-like setting ("The Naked and the Dead"). You won't meet "Chester the Molester," the famous Hustler cartoon character who sexually stalks girls. (The cartoonist, Dwaine Tinsley, was convicted in 1990 of sexually molesting his daughter.) You certainly don't see such Hustler illustrations as a charred expanse of what looks like human skin, with photos of dead and dismembered women pinned to it. On the contrary, the Hollywood version of Larry Flynt, played by the boyish Woody Harrelson, is opposed to violence. At an anti-censorship rally, he stands against a backdrop of beautiful images of nude women that are intercut with scenes of Hiroshima, marching Nazis and the My Lai massacre. "Which is more obscene," the Flynt character asks, "sex or war?" Only viewers who know Hustler's real content might ask, "Why can't Larry Flynt tell the difference?" Mr. Flynt's daughter Tonya, 31, is so alarmed by this film's dishonesty that she joined women who picketed its opening in San Francisco. She also publicly accused Mr. Flynt of having sexually abused her when she was a child, a charge he vehemently denies, and attributes to her "mental problems." "I'm upset about this film because it supports my dad's argument that pornography does no harm," she has said. "If you want to see a victim of pornography, just look at me." Unlike his film character, the real Mr. Flynt is hardly an unwavering advocate of free speech. Indeed, other feminists and I have been attacked in Hustler for using our First Amendment rights to protest pornography. In my case, that meant being called "dangerous" and put on a "Most Wanted" poster; I was also depicted in a photo story that ended in bloody sexual mutilation. Given the number of crimes that seem to imitate pornography, this kind of attack does tend to get your attention. So no, I am not grateful to Mr. Flynt for protecting my freedom, as the film and its enthusiasts suggest I should be. No more than I would be to a racist or fascist publisher whose speech is protected by the Constitution. My question is: Would men be portrayed as deserving and even enjoying their own pain and degradation -- as women are in Mr. Flynt's life work? Suppose Mr. Flynt specialized in such images as a young African-American man trussed up like a deer and tied to the luggage rack of a white hunter's car. Or a nude white man being fed into a meat grinder. (Those are some of the milder ways in which Hustler portrays women.) Would Oliver Stone -- who rarely lets powerful men emerge unscathed -- bowdlerize and flatter that kind of man? Would actor Woody Harrelson, who supports animal rights and protests the cutting of trees, pose happily next to that Larry Flynt? Would Milos Forman continue to defend his film by citing his memories of censorship under the Nazis? What if the film praised an anti-Semitic publisher? Would it be nominated for five Golden Globe awards? Would Donna Hanover Giuliani, a New York television personality; Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor; Judge D'Army Bailey of the Memphis Circuit Court and James Carville, the political consultant, have agreed to do cameos? I don't think so. The truth is, if Larry Flynt had published the same cruel images even of animals, this movie would never have been made. Fortunately, each of us has the right to protest. Gloria Steinem is a founding editor of Ms. magazine. Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 12:21am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 734320 To: Vida Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #734042, Reply to #734019, Reply to #733636, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT> Well, I cannot comment there, having not seen the post. I suppose it VI>DT>was swept by time, People V Flynt came out some months ago long before I VI>DT>chanced back in here. VI>I might still have the post on the disk I use to download from the net. VI> If I find it, I will repost it here. Thats ok, I liked the movie without having read the original post anyway. I was asking about Moloch. Not Gloria. KKid never heard of Howl. O well, chalk it up to a lost query, leave it in the recycle bins of the world... --- * SLMR 2.0 * It Will All Be Over Soon... Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 12:21am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 734322 To: Kkid Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #734054, Reply to #734020, Reply to #733641, R*) KK>DT> Are you familiar with 'Howl'? Allen Ginsberg longform poem from some KK>DT>years ago by now, it was why I was asking about Moloch. Moloch is used KK>DT>seemingly as the name of a greatly powerful awful force or personage of KK>DT>some kind... KK>Not familiar with it at all. Ok then. I have no further context to buttress the inquiry... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Less is More. Death is the Answer. Life is the Question. Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 1:43am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 734343 To: Vida Re: Gloria Steinem article (Reply to #734120) (1 reply) VI>As promised, I searched through my download disk and was able to find VI>the Gloria Steinem article on "People vs. Larry Flynt". I am reposting VI>it because I think it raises some interesting questions re: the rights VI>of free speech (pornography) and the rights of human dignity (feminism). VI>I never saw the film in question BTW. I will, however, catch it once it VI>comes out in video. The article was an interesting read, thanks, hadnt seen it in print. You already know my position on expression, I am in favour of it in all forms. My sole comment on the article and the magazine too, is that my personal fave photo spread from Hustler was from, holy fuck lemme try to figure... '77 or so when I used to get it. It was an editorial in ref to some media scragging the magazine was getting at the time, illustrated with a pic taken from a recent issue of Soldier of Fortune. The pic was of some fella from some '70's war who had apparently caught a round or a large bit of frag below one eye. The rest of the mans face was collapsed, and he was laying in the dirt in a uniform. I forget the text, it has been some time, but it had something to do with sexual content as opposed to violent content in media with intent to arouse. The point had to do with america and its sanctioned lust for actual violence, and its stated aversion to actual human sexual expression... --- * SLMR 2.0 * so cold its hot so fine everything fire and me still dead Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 7:15am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 734401 To: Dti Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #734320, Reply to #734042, Reply to #734019, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>DT> Well, I cannot comment there, having not seen the post. I suppose i DT>VI>DT>was swept by time, People V Flynt came out some months ago long before DT>VI>DT>chanced back in here. DT>VI>I might still have the post on the disk I use to download from the net. DT>VI> If I find it, I will repost it here. DT> Thats ok, I liked the movie without having read the original post DT>anyway. I was asking about Moloch. Not Gloria. KKid never heard of DT>Howl. O well, chalk it up to a lost query, leave it in the recycle bins DT>of the world... DT>--- BTW, there is a reference to Molekh in the Torah portion that is read this Saturday in synagogues. At Leviticus 18:21 it says: "Do not give any of your children to be initiated to Molekh so that you not profane your God's name; I am God." The footnotes in the version of the Bible which I use say about this passage as follows: "This was a ritual that related to many idolatrous religions, but was particular to Molekh, the Ammonite God. This ritual was an intiation wherby a man's sons and daughters would go through fire. Some say that the intiation rite consisted of crossing a platform between two large fires, while others say that it consited of jumping over a fire. In general, the Molekh ritual did not involve human sacrifice. According to some, however, it was a trial by fire, in which the child could be killed. In some cases, it actually did involve human sacrifice. This was associated with various occult practices, possibly as an initation rite for the father." (citations ommitted) Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 7:18am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 734402 To: Dti Re: Gloria Steinem article (Reply to #734343, Reply to #734120) (1 reply) DT>VI>As promised, I searched through my download disk and was able to find DT>VI>the Gloria Steinem article on "People vs. Larry Flynt". I am reposting DT>VI>it because I think it raises some interesting questions re: the rights DT>VI>of free speech (pornography) and the rights of human dignity (feminism). DT>VI>I never saw the film in question BTW. I will, however, catch it once it DT>VI>comes out in video. DT> The article was an interesting read, thanks, hadnt seen it in print. DT>You already know my position on expression, I am in favour of it in all DT>forms. My sole comment on the article and the magazine too, is that my DT>personal fave photo spread from Hustler was from, holy fuck lemme try to DT>figure... '77 or so when I used to get it. It was an editorial in ref DT>to some media scragging the magazine was getting at the time, DT>illustrated with a pic taken from a recent issue of DT>Soldier of Fortune. The pic was of some fella from some '70's war who DT>had apparently caught a round or a large bit of frag below one eye. The DT>rest of the mans face was collapsed, and he was laying in the dirt in a DT>uniform. I forget the text, it has been some time, but it had something DT>to do with sexual content as opposed to violent content in media with DT>intent to arouse. The point had to do with america and its sanctioned DT>lust for actual violence, and its stated aversion to actual human sexual DT>expression... DT>--- And you can imagine what I think of Larry Flynt and his violent, woman hating form of pornography!!! But I will still catch the film once it is released in video. Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 7:08pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 734591 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #731552, Reply to #731547, Reply to #731480, R*) (1 reply) SF> I get the impression that you and your suspended friend believe that SF> every subject and every manner of conducting a discussion is protected SF> under the banner of free speech, regardless of any local rules and who SF> may get hurt in the process. I know of one member who was suspended by SF> the Sysop after that member refused my requests to stop sending me SF> private e-mails filled with explicit anti-gay remarks. What would have SF> been your response? SF> I do not and never have believed thatevery manner of conducting a discussion is protected under the banner of free speech. I want to know WHERE and WHEN the offending messges were posted. Is that clear? Thats what I am trying to find out. Are you at all curious about the same thing? The sysops of a private board can suspend anyone anytine for any reason. Thats not the issue. Truth is the issue in this case. As far as the E-mail is concerned I would have forwarded it to a public forum for all to see. I do not believe in hiding vile speech. You fight racist and bigots by exposing their views for all to see IMHO. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 7:08pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 734592 To: Ersatz Re: Interesting (Reply to #733104) E> Its very interesting that the sysops claim to have not expelled anyone E> from this board (or just one person). I personally know that the E> following users were expelled, and I've heard from reliable sources that E> there were others: E> E> Quack E> 323641 E> Big John E> Another user whose name escapes me at the moment. E> E> These people were all expelled for exercising free speech in the E> Freespeech (alleged) forum. My God they should have been killed instead E> of just expelled from the BBS. E> E> The people who run this board are liers and very small minded people. E> E> I am sure that I too will be kicked off the board. I challenge the E> sysops not to expell me but rather answer my charge that they lied about E> how many people they kicked off. That is if they have the guts; I'm E> sure they don't. E> I could understand why you would be expelled also. You are looking for a fight. Try being polite. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 7:08pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 734593 To: Ersatz Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #733105, Reply to #731547, Reply to #731480, R*) (1 reply) E> E> DE>I take freespeech and the abuility to exercise it a very E> DE>improtant right. E> E> E> Big John is a friend of mine. He was suspended for disagreeing with the E> sysops. They trumped up some silly charge that he was "inserting extra E> lines" into his posts. Nobody knew what that meant. When he tried to E> find out what the sysops meant, they got very angry and expelled him. E> E> I was very upset when Big John disappeared. It took me a long time to E> track him down on another board. The sysops don't respect other people. E> Sure, its their board and they can do what they like, but they should E> not lie and they should behave like rational adults. Of course this is E> asking alot. No one has to act like a rational adult if they don't want to. quack doesn't. Why should the sysops do that? What I do believe is that someone who contributes a fair amount of money does deserve is to be told where and when they caused the suspension. Members in good standing of the board deserve the same answer. To do otherwise is totalitarian IMHO. E> E> There's freespeech in this forum, if you don't disagree with the sysop E> too much. E> ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 7:08pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 734594 To: Steve C Re: Interesting (Reply to #733188, Reply to #733104) SC> SC> ER>I am sure that I too will be kicked off the board. I challenge the SC> ER>sysops not to expell me but rather answer my charge that they lied about SC> ER>how many people they kicked off. That is if they have the guts; I'm SC> ER>sure they don't. SC> SC> SC> I think you are going about this the wrong way. SC> SC> By coming on like gangbusters, you are only aggravating the people who SC> can give you the answers. SC> SC> If you were to start out by explaining why you are on the board, and SC> then asking for the circumstances behind your friends dismissal, SC> perhaps you would get an answer. That isn't the case so far. SC> SC> BTW, so you don't think I am just a flackey for the sysops, one of the SC> names you mentioned above (Quack) is a friend, and he also has told me SC> he was cut off without a reason. I would like an answer to that myself, SC> but I don't think the sysops owe me one. Why not? Remember Nazi Germany? No one asked and those that did got no answer. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 7:09pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 734595 To: Don Re: Interesting (Reply to #733373, Reply to #733195, Reply to #733188, R*) D> ³LL> You might want to read message #731577. D> ΤΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝ D> D> I tried to look this up but the board doesn't recognize it. I'm D> with Steve in that you don't owe me an explanation...but I'm D> curious as to why Quack is banned. And I wonder how I missed D> this? It appears the list of questioners is growing. Maybe an asnwer will be forthcoming. You were on the board during the time his suspension occurred. Did you notice any nasty posts made by Quack? It seems no one did except for the sysops. I would like anyone to relate a message by Quack since last summer that would be cause for suspension. In this forum or any other forum on the board. Quacks speculation to why he was suspended isn't something I would like to believe so anyone who can relate a message for the suspension would be greatly apreciated. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 7:09pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 734596 To: Dti Re: the new decency laws (Reply to #733046, Reply to #731785, Copy by Calvin) (1 reply) D> This is oldass old news like rivers carving stone canyons or men with D> beards showing up with laws carved in stone tablets and is equally D> bullshit in essence. Where are the parents indeed? I asked that one for D> the last couple years before I split and never got an answer from the D> opposition. FWIW: entrapment is an obsolete concept legally in terms of D> being arrestable for typing back at whoever in whatever chatroom or sig D> wherever. DOJ are heavily involved in posing as targets in all D> imaginably illegit desire worlds so as to better arrange scenes in the D> real world that result in the subject finally encountering agents of D> enforcement. Surgeon General Recommends watch yr words and only say D> hello in real time to actual verifiable human beings... D> --- D> * SLMR 2.0 * To speak to an actual human being press 1 and hang up... D> Quack related how you told him that "Only white racist nazi scumbags get suspended from AH so he must be one". Is that correct? ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Tuesday, May 6, 1997 3:05pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 735072 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #734591, Reply to #731552, Reply to #731547, R*) (2 replies) DE>SF> I get the impression that you and your suspended friend believe that DE>SF> every subject and every manner of conducting a discussion is protected DE>SF> under the banner of free speech, regardless of any local rules and who DE>SF> may get hurt in the process. I know of one member who was suspended by DE>SF> the Sysop after that member refused my requests to stop sending me DE>SF> private e-mails filled with explicit anti-gay remarks. What would have DE>SF> been your response? DE>SF> DE>I do not and never have believed thatevery manner of conducting a DE>discussion is protected under the banner of free speech. DE>I want to know WHERE and WHEN the offending messges were posted. DE>Is that clear? Thats what I am trying to find out. Are you at DE>all curious about the same thing? The sysops of a private board DE>can suspend anyone anytine for any reason. Thats not the issue. DE>Truth is the issue in this case. DE>As far as the E-mail is concerned I would have forwarded it to DE>a public forum for all to see. I do not believe in hiding DE>vile speech. You fight racist and bigots by exposing their DE>views for all to see IMHO. DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Do you think you will ever get beyond this issue? Date: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 9:59pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 735174 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735072, Reply to #734591, Reply to #731552, R*) (1 reply) SF> DE>I do not and never have believed thatevery manner of conducting a SF> DE>discussion is protected under the banner of free speech. SF> SF> DE>I want to know WHERE and WHEN the offending messges were posted. SF> SF> DE>Is that clear? Thats what I am trying to find out. Are you at SF> DE>all curious about the same thing? The sysops of a private board SF> DE>can suspend anyone anytine for any reason. Thats not the issue. SF> DE>Truth is the issue in this case. SF> SF> DE>As far as the E-mail is concerned I would have forwarded it to SF> DE>a public forum for all to see. I do not believe in hiding SF> DE>vile speech. You fight racist and bigots by exposing their SF> DE>views for all to see IMHO. SF> SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ SF> Do you think you will ever get beyond this issue? Most definitely. Instead of asking a question why not answer mine. Did you see any offensive messages from quack that would cause him to be suspended? I believe you were on the the board in the October time frame when it occurred. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Friday, May 9, 1997 10:31pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 735263 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735072, Reply to #734591, Reply to #731552, R*) (1 reply) ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 2:09am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 735315 To: Vida Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #734401, Reply to #734320, Reply to #734042, R*) (1 reply) VI>BTW, there is a reference to Molekh in the Torah portion that is read VI>this Saturday in synagogues. At Leviticus 18:21 it says: "Do not give VI>any of your children to be initiated to Molekh so that you not profane VI>your God's name; I am God." VI>The footnotes in the version of the Bible which I use say about this VI>passage as follows: VI> "This was a ritual that related to many idolatrous religions, but VI>was particular to Molekh, the Ammonite God. This ritual was an VI>intiation wherby a man's sons and daughters would go through fire. VI>Some say that the intiation rite consisted of crossing a platform VI>between two large fires, while others say that it consited of jumping VI>over a fire. VI> In general, the Molekh ritual did not involve human sacrifice. VI>According to some, however, it was a trial by fire, in which the child VI>could be killed. In some cases, it actually did involve human VI>sacrifice. This was associated with various occult practices, possibly VI>as an initation rite for the father." (citations ommitted) Strange, this really doesnt sound like a bad enough antiexemplar to be invoked by Ginsberg the way he did in the pome, I mean, Molekh as quoted above could prolly work alright for pentecostals with a slight name change... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * so cold its hot so fine everything fire and me still dead Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 2:10am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 735327 To: Vida Re: Gloria Steinem article (Reply to #734402, Reply to #734343, Reply to #734120) (1 reply) VI>And you can imagine what I think of Larry Flynt and his violent, woman VI>hating form of pornography!!! But I will still catch the film once it VI>is released in video. Well, hell. I suppose they set the contracts up so they make a bit of green off video rentals too... it was a fun flick, esp Courtney as the Junky Wife playing a role essentially natch with little real acting stretch implied still pretty cute... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * Famous Last Words: ahhh shit whats wrong with my legs Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 3:55am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 735346 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #734593, Reply to #733105, Reply to #731547, R*) (1 reply) DE>No one has to act like a rational adult if they don't want to. DE>quack doesn't. Why should the sysops do that? DE>What I do believe is that someone who contributes a fair amount DE>of money does deserve is to be told where and when they caused DE>the suspension. Members in good standing of the board deserve DE>the same answer. To do otherwise is totalitarian IMHO. Stan, just giving money to help a cause does not and never has implied a requirement on the part of the recipient to comply with ones personal worldview. I gave a certain amount of cash and gifts and never expected Ed n Deb to believe that people who breathe my air ought to be universally terminated from real actual life, yet that is my desire... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Am I REALLY responsible for someone who refuses to eat? Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 3:55am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 735347 To: Des Re: the new decency laws (Reply to #734596, Reply to #733046, Reply to #731785, C*) (1 reply) DE>Quack related how you told him that "Only white racist nazi scumbags DE>get suspended from AH so he must be one". DE>Is that correct? Actually, Quack, yr wrong on this, check yr Netscape cache. I did not use the term 'suspended'. I also have some doubts in general in ref to the use of 'white'. I think I said that only nazi scumbags get deleted from After Hours. Like I said, Quack, check yr Netscape email cache. Please dont make me do it. I will vomit chapter and verse like a well oiled machine, ex deus. --- * SLMR 2.0 * Less is More. Death is the Answer. Life is the Question. Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 11:43am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 735373 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735174, Reply to #735072, Reply to #734591, R*) (1 reply) DE>SF> DE>I do not and never have believed thatevery manner of conducting a DE>SF> DE>discussion is protected under the banner of free speech. DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>I want to know WHERE and WHEN the offending messges were posted. DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>Is that clear? Thats what I am trying to find out. Are you at DE>SF> DE>all curious about the same thing? The sysops of a private board DE>SF> DE>can suspend anyone anytine for any reason. Thats not the issue. DE>SF> DE>Truth is the issue in this case. DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>As far as the E-mail is concerned I would have forwarded it to DE>SF> DE>a public forum for all to see. I do not believe in hiding DE>SF> DE>vile speech. You fight racist and bigots by exposing their DE>SF> DE>views for all to see IMHO. DE>SF> DE>SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ DE>SF> Do you think you will ever get beyond this issue? DE>Most definitely. Instead of asking a question why not answer DE>mine. Did you see any offensive messages from quack that DE>would cause him to be suspended? I believe you were on the DE>the board in the October time frame when it occurred. DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Do you always avoid dialouge by continuously reasking the same question? Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 11:44am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 735374 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735263, Reply to #735072, Reply to #734591, R*) (1 reply) DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] HUH????????? Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 11:26pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 735453 To: Dti Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735346, Reply to #734593, Reply to #733105, R*) (1 reply) D> DE>No one has to act like a rational adult if they don't want to. D> DE>quack doesn't. Why should the sysops do that? D> DE>What I do believe is that someone who contributes a fair amount D> DE>of money does deserve is to be told where and when they caused D> DE>the suspension. Members in good standing of the board deserve D> DE>the same answer. To do otherwise is totalitarian IMHO. D> D> Stan, just giving money to help a cause does not and never has D> implied a requirement on the part of the recipient to comply with ones D> personal worldview. This has noithing to do with compliance. Its actually an attempt to show the bigotry of the sysops when it pleases them. Thats all. No one cares so the subject is finished. D> D> I gave a certain amount of cash and gifts D> and never expected Ed n Deb to believe that people who breathe my air D> ought to be universally terminated from real actual life, yet that is my D> desire... D> --- D> * SLMR 2.0 * Am I REALLY responsible for someone who refuses to eat? D> ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 11:26pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 735454 To: Dti Re: the new decency laws (Reply to #735347, Reply to #734596, Reply to #733046, R*) (1 reply) D> DE>Quack related how you told him that "Only white racist nazi scumbags D> DE>get suspended from AH so he must be one". D> D> DE>Is that correct? D> D> Actually, Quack, yr wrong on this, check yr Netscape cache. I did not D> use the term 'suspended'. I also have some doubts in general in ref to D> the use of 'white'. I think I said that only nazi scumbags get deleted D> from After Hours. D> all that I stated was hearsay. I may not have quoted it correctly. D> D> Like I said, Quack, check yr Netscape email cache. Please dont make D> me do it. I will vomit chapter and verse like a well oiled machine, ex D> deus. D> --- D> * SLMR 2.0 * Less is More. Death is the Answer. Life is the Question. D> ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 11:26pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 735455 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735373, Reply to #735174, Reply to #735072, R*) (1 reply) SF> DE>SF> DE>can suspend anyone anytine for any reason. Thats not the issue. SF> DE>SF> DE>Truth is the issue in this case. SF> DE>SF> SF> DE>SF> DE>As far as the E-mail is concerned I would have forwarded it to SF> DE>SF> DE>a public forum for all to see. I do not believe in hiding SF> DE>SF> DE>vile speech. You fight racist and bigots by exposing their SF> DE>SF> DE>views for all to see IMHO. SF> DE>SF> SF> DE>SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ SF> DE>SF> Do you think you will ever get beyond this issue? SF> SF> DE>Most definitely. Instead of asking a question why not answer SF> DE>mine. Did you see any offensive messages from quack that SF> DE>would cause him to be suspended? I believe you were on the SF> DE>the board in the October time frame when it occurred. SF> SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ SF> Do you always avoid dialouge by continuously reasking the same question? No. Apparently you do. The subject is finished. All that was related to me by Quack seems accurate. Mose of the people here avoid answwering when they can't give an answer they l;ike. I am actually happy he was correct. I Won't have to keep wasting my time logging on to find out if anyone cares. No one does. It would appear he was a pariah of sorts and contributed nothing to this board except aggravation and the board is better off without him. His constant flaming of everyone must have beeen a terrible burden to bear. I must agree with you all. Better off without him. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 11:26pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Des Msg#: 735456 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735374, Reply to #735263, Reply to #735072, R*) SF> SF> DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] SF> HUH????????? SF> A mistake. I fogot to delete old messages after replying. I removed all the lines from this one. ... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Date: Friday, May 16, 1997 1:36pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 735700 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735455, Reply to #735373, Reply to #735174, R*) (1 reply) DE>SF> Do you always avoid dialouge by continuously reasking the same question? DE>No. Apparently you do. The subject is finished. All that was related to DE>me by Quack seems accurate. Mose of the people here avoid answwering DE>when they can't give an answer they l;ike. I am actually happy he was DE>correct. I Won't have to keep wasting my time logging on to find DE>out if anyone cares. No one does. DE>It would appear he was a pariah of sorts and contributed nothing to DE>this board except aggravation and the board is better off without him. DE>His constant flaming of everyone must have beeen a terrible burden to DE>bear. I must agree with you all. Better off without him. Don't be so hard on yourself. Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 9:03am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 735775 To: Dti Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #735315, Reply to #734401, Reply to #734320, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>BTW, there is a reference to Molekh in the Torah portion that is read DT>VI>this Saturday in synagogues. At Leviticus 18:21 it says: "Do not give DT>VI>any of your children to be initiated to Molekh so that you not profane DT>VI>your God's name; I am God." DT>VI>The footnotes in the version of the Bible which I use say about this DT>VI>passage as follows: DT>VI> "This was a ritual that related to many idolatrous religions, but DT>VI>was particular to Molekh, the Ammonite God. This ritual was an DT>VI>intiation wherby a man's sons and daughters would go through fire. DT>VI>Some say that the intiation rite consisted of crossing a platform DT>VI>between two large fires, while others say that it consited of jumping DT>VI>over a fire. DT>VI> In general, the Molekh ritual did not involve human sacrifice. DT>VI>According to some, however, it was a trial by fire, in which the child DT>VI>could be killed. In some cases, it actually did involve human DT>VI>sacrifice. This was associated with various occult practices, possibly DT>VI>as an initation rite for the father." (citations ommitted) DT> Strange, this really doesnt sound like a bad enough antiexemplar to DT>be invoked by Ginsberg the way he did in the pome, I mean, Molekh as DT>quoted above could prolly work alright for pentecostals with a slight DT>name change... >9# DT>--- DT> * SLMR 2.0 * so cold its hot so fine everything fire and me still dead That's exactly what Bob told me! Those pentecostals really get hot over all the fire and brimstone sections of the Tenakh (Jewish Bible). Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 9:04am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 735776 To: Dti Re: Gloria Steinem article (Reply to #735327, Reply to #734402, Reply to #734343, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>And you can imagine what I think of Larry Flynt and his violent, woman DT>VI>hating form of pornography!!! But I will still catch the film once it DT>VI>is released in video. DT> Well, hell. I suppose they set the contracts up so they make a bit of DT>green off video rentals too... it was a fun flick, esp Courtney as the DT>Junky Wife playing a role essentially natch with little real acting DT>stretch implied still pretty cute... >9# DT>--- Sure, I think they make more money off the video rentals at this point than they do from the theatre release. Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 11:39am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Nightbird Msg#: 735882 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735700, Reply to #735455, Reply to #735373, R*) (1 reply) SF>DE>SF> Do you always avoid dialouge by continuously reasking the same questi SF>DE>No. Apparently you do. The subject is finished. All that was related to SF>DE>me by Quack seems accurate. Mose of the people here avoid answwering SF>DE>when they can't give an answer they l;ike. I am actually happy he was SF>DE>correct. I Won't have to keep wasting my time logging on to find SF>DE>out if anyone cares. No one does. SF>DE>It would appear he was a pariah of sorts and contributed nothing to SF>DE>this board except aggravation and the board is better off without him. SF>DE>His constant flaming of everyone must have beeen a terrible burden to SF>DE>bear. I must agree with you all. Better off without him. SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. Let other people be hard on you!!! --- ώ OLX 2.1 TD ώ I will not do that thing with my tongue. - Bart Simpson Date: Tuesday, May 20, 1997 8:06pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Sysop Msg#: 736034 To: ** ALL ** Re: mental masturbation (Copy by Sysop, Reply to #735947, Reply to #735482, Repl*) (2 replies) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- I thought I'd post this here too, in case anyone missed it in /Currentevents. ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- >I had him do the research. He conversed with VIDA, Steve Flur, Don, >2380, Nightbird and Kkid in the October time frame prior to be suspended. >I would like any one of them to relate vile or flaming posts that were >seen. As far as the sysops are concerned they have no evidence. >From what I have seen their judgement and standards are not very >proper. they use the old standard that was used in the South along >time ago against blacks. "Nigger you guilty, we gonna hang/imprison >you." No trial or defense by the accused was allowed becuase the >accusers were in a postion of power and anyone who disagrred usually >was afraid to voice their opinion lest they recieve the same >punishment. In this case no one seems to have any idea of the >suspension and the accusers don't seem to have the ability to defend >the suspension either. Well, Quack you shot your load last time and came up empty. I'm sure you expected to start a revolt here and have everyone else who calls here jump on your bandwagon. BUT NO ONE ELSE WHO CALLS HERE IS HAVING THESE PROBLEMS EXCEPT YOU! In fact, almost every response to you talks about quack's flaming and general disruption of this board. Even more importantly, there are a number of messages where YOU AGREE THAT QUACK WAS CAUSING PROBLEMS HERE. For your edification, I will include some relevent comments WHICH YOU YOURSELF MADE HERE: MESSAGE #734593 in freespeech: DE> No one has to act like a rational adult if they don't want to. DE> quack doesn't. MESSAGE #735455 in freespeech DE> It would appear he was a pariah of sorts and contributed nothing to DE> this board except aggravation and the board is better off without him. DE> His constant flaming of everyone must have beeen a terrible burden to DE> bear. I must agree with you all. Better off without him. MESSAGE #734586 in currentevents L> Fact: Q was told literally dozens of times verbally in person, in L> chat, in Forum messages and in e-mail *exactly*, *in detail* L> what he was doing which was personally insulting, offensive and L> rude to other users here, i.e. flaming. These warnings were L> given over a period of years. They included many long and L> detailed messages with specific message numbers as references L> and/or verbatim quotes from flaming messages. DE> He told me that already. L> L> Fact: If Q states that he was never told that he was in danger of L> being suspended because of his flaming, he is a liar. DE> He told me you let him know about his unacceptable behaviour DE> Quack on the other hand had concurred with most of what you accuse DE> him of except for some of the magnitude. *************************** END OF QUOTES BY DES *************************** Ok, so let's recap. You have repeatedly said that Quack doesn't know why he was suspended. But above you stated that Quack told you about how many times he was asked to cut it out and that he knew he was in danger of being suspended. You have stated that Quack does not act like a rational adult. You have even stated that Quack "concurred with most of what you (we) accuse him of". So the fact is that both you and he (or is that you and you) are very much aware of exactly why he (you) were suspended. And, contrary to your childish "nigger" comment above, quack was warned time and time again over a period of three years before we took any action. And since this consistently flaming behavior occurred over a period of years, of course we can't point you to specific message numbers. Older messages are automatically deleted each night at cleanup. In currentevents, the message lifetime was 30 days until recently, when I extended the message lifetime in all the forums. But in any case, what would be the point - again and again you have stated that quack is in substantial agreement with what we have said. If we indeed were the lynch mob you are suggesting, do you think for one minute that you'd still be able to log on here? A simple yes or no answer will be sufficient. Oh yeah, a few more things come to mind: MESSAGE #735456 in freespeech SF> HUH????????? SF> DE> A mistake. I fogot to delete old messages after replying. I removed DE> all the lines from this one. Quack has accused us on a number of occasions of deleting messages. I find it interesting that it's ok for you to alter what you have written, but no good for us to delete blank messages posted in error on request from the person who posted them. MESSAGE 734586 in currentevents DE> You are nopt under any obligation ever to answer anyone. I agree. DE> I was also told you don't respond when you are wrong. There are a number of messages that you have avoided answering recently. Would you like me to bring them to your attention? What makes this particular message interesting is that you were replying to the answer you claimed you didn't get. Make up your mind. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ********************************* >As far as opinion is concerned, what is your opinion of sysops >who read private e-mail and suspend someone based on its content? Well, I see that since you failed in your previous attempts to cause trouble here, you are now reduced to outright fabrication. Keep in mind that I realize that you phrased your statement very carefully and that you did not actually accuse anyone of anything...just like you did in recent threads where you started off with similar type statements, and then later became more specific. And, of course, just like Quack did when he wanted to flame. ***** FOR THE RECORD: ***** Galacticomm removed a sysop's ability to read users email in 1990, before I even purchased this software, when the Electronic Privacy Act was passed. On occasion, users have asked me to read their email due to receiving offensive messages, and even that's a pain in the neck for me to do. ONE LAST THING - I was about to post a public message telling you how easy it would have been for quack to resume calling here if he wanted to. All he would have had to do was post a message (through you) saying a few simple things: - admit that he was flaming for years - admit that we put up with a lot more of his crap than we should have - apologize publicly for acting like a jerk on here - promise to try to act like an adult when calling here This certainly would have been a lot easier than making up all these phony accounts (although "Ersatz" was an amusing choice), but it would have involved admitting that he was wrong and forgetting his favorite passtime of starting trouble. But since you haven't changed a bit, I've decided not to make the offer now or ever. Quack's egregious abuse of our hospitality is finished. Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 3:30am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 736103 To: Des Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735453, Reply to #735346, Reply to #734593, R*) DE>D> Stan, just giving money to help a cause does not and never has DE>D> implied a requirement on the part of the recipient to comply with ones DE>D> personal worldview. DE>This has noithing to do with compliance. Its actually an attempt to DE>show the bigotry of the sysops when it pleases them. Thats all. DE>No one cares so the subject is finished. Stan, this was what Big John did last year or so, and it was silly when he did it. I thought we agreed on that? Why be as silly as he was? Far as the rights of proprietorship go if I was still running Automatic Dead Man there are people I would discourage in the strongest possible way from from participating. And people I would encourage to hit, just as strongly if not moreso. If the Telco and yr landlord allow you to easily run multiple phonelines from where you are, I would love to see you run a place of yr own. Shitfire, I'd prolly even ahem hak kaff hrarrgck the software to you to make it an easier startup... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Cshy mnopoey? Dlmnwyt pysaklcko qizmplrinjrtgny! Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 3:30am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 736104 To: Des Re: the new decency laws (Reply to #735454, Reply to #735347, Reply to #734596, R*) (1 reply) DE>D> Actually, Quack, yr wrong on this, check yr Netscape cache. I did not DE>D> use the term 'suspended'. I also have some doubts in general in ref to DE>D> the use of 'white'. I think I said that only nazi scumbags get deleted DE>D> from After Hours. DE>D> DE>all that I stated was hearsay. I may not have quoted it correctly. DE>D> Like I said, Quack, check yr Netscape email cache. Please dont make DE>D> me do it. I will vomit chapter and verse like a well oiled machine, ex DE>D> deus. DE>... nfx v2.4 [C0000] http://www.westonia.com/blueview/ Stan, its only hearsay if someone else said it to you relating an experience of some kind that said other person had. I have a feeling that when I hit the blueview page I might get a better idea about whatever it is yr about, seeing as you use the URL as a tagline... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Sleep is Not Legal Geneva Convention plus Other Laws Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 3:30am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 736105 To: Vida Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #735775, Reply to #735315, Reply to #734401, R*) (2 replies) VI>DT> Strange, this really doesnt sound like a bad enough antiexemplar to VI>DT>be invoked by Ginsberg the way he did in the pome, I mean, Molekh as VI>DT>quoted above could prolly work alright for pentecostals with a slight VI>DT>name change... >9# VI>That's exactly what Bob told me! Those pentecostals really get hot VI>over all the fire and brimstone sections of the Tenakh (Jewish Bible). Hey, V: people are like that, strange and varied in the ways and worlds they choose to get their rocks off on. That is one reason why they arent easy to force into conforming to one or another way of thinking about things... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * This tagline is yr brain on Drugs hear it move? Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 3:31am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 736106 To: Vida Re: Gloria Steinem article (Reply to #735776, Reply to #735327, Reply to #734402, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT> Well, hell. I suppose they set the contracts up so they make a bit of VI>DT>green off video rentals too... it was a fun flick, esp Courtney as the VI>DT>Junky Wife playing a role essentially natch with little real acting VI>DT>stretch implied still pretty cute... >9# VI>Sure, I think they make more money off the video rentals at this point VI>than they do from the theatre release. You may have made yr point against the Flynt movie better if you saw it in the actual Cineplex? Hmm. Seeing it is seeing it, exposure counts the same no matter the specific venue. I guess I imagined some other reason why you mentioned how you had declined to see it in theatre but would catch it once it made it to video. I figured some kinda economic boycott sort of reason... --- * SLMR 2.0 * To speak to an actual human being press 1 and hang up... Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 6:41am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 736123 To: Dti Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #736105, Reply to #735775, Reply to #735315, R*) DT>VI>DT> Strange, this really doesnt sound like a bad enough antiexemplar to DT>VI>DT>be invoked by Ginsberg the way he did in the pome, I mean, Molekh as DT>VI>DT>quoted above could prolly work alright for pentecostals with a slight DT>VI>DT>name change... >9# DT>VI>That's exactly what Bob told me! Those pentecostals really get hot DT>VI>over all the fire and brimstone sections of the Tenakh (Jewish Bible). DT> Hey, V: people are like that, strange and varied in the ways and DT>worlds they choose to get their rocks off on. That is one reason why DT>they arent easy to force into conforming to one or another way of DT>thinking about things... >9# DT>--- That goes without saying. :) Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 6:44am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 736124 To: Dti Re: Gloria Steinem article (Reply to #736106, Reply to #735776, Reply to #735327, R*) DT>VI>DT> Well, hell. I suppose they set the contracts up so they make a bit DT>VI>DT>green off video rentals too... it was a fun flick, esp Courtney as t DT>VI>DT>Junky Wife playing a role essentially natch with little real acting DT>VI>DT>stretch implied still pretty cute... >9# DT>VI>Sure, I think they make more money off the video rentals at this point DT>VI>than they do from the theatre release. DT> You may have made yr point against the Flynt movie better if you saw DT>it in the actual Cineplex? Hmm. Seeing it is seeing it, exposure counts DT>the same no matter the specific venue. I guess I imagined some other DT>reason why you mentioned how you had declined to see it in theatre but DT>would catch it once it made it to video. I figured some kinda economic DT>boycott sort of reason... DT>--- Actually, I wanted to catch "People vs. Larry Flynt" while it was in the theatre. Just never got around to it. I wasn't boycotting the film, I was just lazy. :) Date: Friday, May 23, 1997 4:47am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 736179 To: Sysop Re: mental masturbation (Reply to #736034, Copy by Sysop, Reply to #735947, Repl*) (1 reply) S>-------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- S>I thought I'd post this here too, in case anyone missed it in S>/Currentevents. S>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- S>>I had him do the research. He conversed with VIDA, Steve Flur, Don, S>>2380, Nightbird and Kkid in the October time frame prior to be suspended. S>>I would like any one of them to relate vile or flaming posts that were S>>seen. As far as the sysops are concerned they have no evidence. S>>From what I have seen their judgement and standards are not very S>>proper. they use the old standard that was used in the South along S>>time ago against blacks. "Nigger you guilty, we gonna hang/imprison S>>you." No trial or defense by the accused was allowed becuase the S>>accusers were in a postion of power and anyone who disagrred usually S>>was afraid to voice their opinion lest they recieve the same S>>punishment. In this case no one seems to have any idea of the S>>suspension and the accusers don't seem to have the ability to defend S>>the suspension either. FWIW, I will go on the record again as being one of the people here that Quack did not chuck burns/heat/flame at, such things being in the eye of the beholder and I being a user who really did not see this irrational egregious offensive stuff, or whatever it was, as being something I ought to take personally. I liked Quack while he was on. I liked RPM too. I like a lot of things, what the fuck... That said, I am really disappointed that Quack opted to pull a BigJohn/3280/who or whatever routine and snag a probie account here with what had to be a fraudulent identity so as to type this pave diamelle third person account bullshit the last couple weeks. --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 1:45pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 736288 To: Nightbird Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #735882, Reply to #735700, Reply to #735455, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>DE>SF> Do you always avoid dialouge by continuously reasking the same que NI>SF>DE>No. Apparently you do. The subject is finished. All that was related t NI>SF>DE>me by Quack seems accurate. Mose of the people here avoid answwering NI>SF>DE>when they can't give an answer they l;ike. I am actually happy he was NI>SF>DE>correct. I Won't have to keep wasting my time logging on to find NI>SF>DE>out if anyone cares. No one does. NI>SF>DE>It would appear he was a pariah of sorts and contributed nothing to NI>SF>DE>this board except aggravation and the board is better off without him. NI>SF>DE>His constant flaming of everyone must have beeen a terrible burden to NI>SF>DE>bear. I must agree with you all. Better off without him. NI>SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. NI>Let other people be hard on you!!! NI>--- NI> ώ OLX 2.1 TD ώ I will not do that thing with my tongue. - Bart Simpson That depends on the context! Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 10:59pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Nightbird Msg#: 736322 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #736288, Reply to #735882, Reply to #735700, R*) (1 reply) SF>NI>SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. SF>NI>Let other people be hard on you!!! SF>That depends on the context! Oh really! * OLX 2.1 TD * How come pizza gets to your house faster than the police Date: Friday, May 30, 1997 12:44pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Sysop Msg#: 736539 To: ** ALL ** Re: New Forum (Copy by Calvin) In case anyone has missed it, we have a new forum on the board. It's called /BirdDroppings Feel free to check it out! Date: Tuesday, June 10, 1997 10:52am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737202 To: Nightbird Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #736322, Reply to #736288, Reply to #735882, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>NI>SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. NI>SF>NI>Let other people be hard on you!!! NI>SF>That depends on the context! NI>Oh really! NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * How come pizza gets to your house faster than the police O"Reilly. Date: Tuesday, June 10, 1997 8:05pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Nightbird Msg#: 737221 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #737202, Reply to #736322, Reply to #736288, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>NI>SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. SF>NI>SF>NI>Let other people be hard on you!!! SF>NI>SF>That depends on the context! SF>NI>Oh really! SF>NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * How come pizza gets to your house faster than the police SF>O"Reilly. REALLY! * OLX 2.1 TD * I put a skylight in my apartment, People upstairs are mad Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 1:52pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737592 To: Nightbird Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #737221, Reply to #737202, Reply to #736322, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Let other people be hard on you!!! NI>SF>NI>SF>That depends on the context! NI>SF>NI>Oh really! NI>SF>NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * How come pizza gets to your house faster than the poli NI>SF>O"Reilly. NI>REALLY! NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * I put a skylight in my apartment, People upstairs are mad OK.....OK......!!!! Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 8:18pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Nightbird Msg#: 737614 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #737592, Reply to #737221, Reply to #737202, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Let other people be hard on you!!! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>That depends on the context! SF>NI>SF>NI>Oh really! SF>NI>SF>O"Reilly. SF>NI>REALLY! SF>OK.....OK......!!!! FINE!!! * OLX 2.1 TD * Confused? You won't be after this episode of "Soap!" Date: Thursday, June 19, 1997 9:53am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737690 To: Nightbird Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #737614, Reply to #737592, Reply to #737221, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Let other people be hard on you!!! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>That depends on the context! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Oh really! NI>SF>NI>SF>O"Reilly. NI>SF>NI>REALLY! NI>SF>OK.....OK......!!!! NI>FINE!!! NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Confused? You won't be after this episode of "Soap!" Good!!!!! Date: Sunday, June 22, 1997 7:13am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Ersatz Msg#: 737781 To: Dti Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #736105, Reply to #735775, Reply to #735315, R*) (2 replies) DT> Hey, V: people are like that, strange and varied in the ways and DT>worlds they choose to get their rocks off on. That is one reason why DT>they arent easy to force into conforming to one or another way of DT>thinking about things... >9# DT>--- DT> * SLMR 2.0 * This tagline is yr brain on Drugs hear it move? Its not really strange, Christians believe in the Old Testament just as much as the New Testament, and there is a lot of that fire and brimstone in the Old, not in the New. Date: Sunday, June 22, 1997 2:59pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Nightbird Msg#: 737785 To: Steve Flur Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #737690, Reply to #737614, Reply to #737592, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Let other people be hard on you!!! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>That depends on the context! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Oh really! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>O"Reilly. SF>NI>SF>NI>REALLY! SF>NI>SF>OK.....OK......!!!! SF>NI>FINE!!! SF>Good!!!!! Great! * OLX 2.1 TD * If it's not biodegradable, throw it away. Date: Sunday, June 22, 1997 2:59pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Nightbird Msg#: 737788 To: Ersatz Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #737781, Reply to #736105, Reply to #735775, R*) ER>DT> Hey, V: people are like that, strange and varied in the ways and ER>DT>worlds they choose to get their rocks off on. That is one reason why ER>DT>they arent easy to force into conforming to one or another way of ER>DT>thinking about things... >9# ER>DT>--- ER>DT> * SLMR 2.0 * This tagline is yr brain on Drugs hear it move? ER>Its not really strange, Christians believe in the Old Testament just as ER>much as the New Testament, and there is a lot of that fire and brimstone ER>in the Old, not in the New. True, the Old Testament was written in a total different time, before Christ. The writers were inspired just the same, the New Testament the writers of at least two Gospels were with Christ. * OLX 2.1 TD * Coach Potato: Definition of absolute rest. Date: Monday, June 23, 1997 2:56pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737846 To: Nightbird Re: Free Speech has been repealed? (Reply to #737785, Reply to #737690, Reply to #737614, R*) NI>SF>I>SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>Don't be so hard on yourself. NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Let other people be hard on you!!! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>That depends on the context! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Oh really! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>O"Reilly. NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>REALLY! NI>SF>NI>SF>OK.....OK......!!!! NI>SF>NI>FINE!!! NI>SF>Good!!!!! NI>Great! NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * If it's not biodegradable, throw it away. Wonderful! Date: Thursday, June 26, 1997 11:33am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Sysop Msg#: 737925 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Free Speech Online (2 replies) The Supreme Court ruled today that the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional, saying that forced censorship of adult material infringes on the rights of adults! Victory at last!! Date: Thursday, June 26, 1997 5:22pm Forum: FreeSpeech From: Vida Msg#: 737936 To: Sysop Re: Free Speech Online (Reply to #737925) SY>The Supreme Court ruled today that the Communications Decency Act is SY>unconstitutional, saying that forced censorship of adult material SY>infringes on the rights of adults! SY>Victory at last!! YEAH!!! :) Hip, hip, horray! :) Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:11am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 738289 To: Sysop Re: Free Speech Online (Reply to #737925) S>The Supreme Court ruled today that the Communications Decency Act is S>unconstitutional, saying that forced censorship of adult material S>infringes on the rights of adults! S>Victory at last!! Victory on this one, yeh, but I figure we can rest assured that the banner of microminded nosy fuck headedness so much a mark of late American public discourse will in relatively short time once again be raised and result in yet another pointless and offensive federal or state law such as the one most recently declawed by the Supremes... --- * SLMR 2.0 * so cold its hot so fine everything fire and me still dead Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:14am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Dti Msg#: 738324 To: Ersatz Re: decency laws: oxymoron... (Reply to #737781, Reply to #736105, Reply to #735775, R*) ER>DT> Hey, V: people are like that, strange and varied in the ways and ER>DT>worlds they choose to get their rocks off on. That is one reason why ER>DT>they arent easy to force into conforming to one or another way of ER>DT>thinking about things... >9# ER>Its not really strange, Christians believe in the Old Testament just as ER>much as the New Testament, and there is a lot of that fire and brimstone ER>in the Old, not in the New. You saying that people arent strange, or that it isnt strange that people believe in the material relayed in either Testament as popularly disseminated? Personally, I find that the old lowest common denominator concept seems to be functional much of the time, and as a result I am not surprised that people believe things like men living for upwards of nine hundred years and fathering children, or a boat built by hand by a small crew of carpenters that was capable of holding one of each gender of each existing species on the face of the earth at this time with many more also represented as boat passengers considering the rate of extinction proved by presently nonexistent fossil evidence, or a human male concieved by a virgin human female and a noncorporeal entity often represented as a dove who once born of still virgin pussy went on to resuscitate a man who had been decomposing for several days, and was allowed to be killed slowly over the course of some long run of hours nailed to a crucifix even though it would have been simple to evaporate the nails and the wood and drop to the ground by simple thought if he was really able to animate soupy rotten flesh and restore full memory and conscience to the soupy rotten flesh. --- * SLMR 2.0 * This tagline is yr brain on Drugs hear it move? Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 2:15am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Conundrum Msg#: 744083 To: Vida Re: Wham action list (Reply to #730568, Reply to #730557, Reply to #724897, F*) VI>CO>VI>But once you say you are in favor of censorship then people almost VI>CO>VI>immediately start waving the First Amendment flag in your face. So in VI>CO>VI>effect, there is censorship of saying you are in favor of censorship. VI>CO>Your next assignment: come up with a logical, coherent argument (rather VI>CO>than assertion, which is what you use), using a reasonable and agreeable VI>CO>definition of censorship, which actually allows you to justify this VI>CO>ridiculous statement you continue to assert regardless of argument. VI>I have being trying very hard to state my positions in a logical, VI>coherent fashion. I suggest you start re-reading all of my posts. :) Vida: The problem is that you are refusing to accept the majority (or the opponent's, for that matter) definition on what censorship is. Since we are saying that you are in favor of censorship (our definition), it's our definition of censorship you get to attempt to throw in our faces, not yours. Since our definition refers to the attempt to stop someone from expressing their views, not argument or dismissal of those same views, or even insulting those same views, you'll have to take a different tack to argue this coherently. Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 2:20am Forum: FreeSpeech From: Conundrum Msg#: 744084 To: Rand Re: Wham action list (Reply to #730612, Reply to #730557, Reply to #724897, F*) RA>The doctrine of political correctness. If I say that I'm in favor of RA>eliminating pornography on the grounds that it is immoral, I get shouted dow RA>on campuses and prevented from speaking. You are not permitted to differ fr RA>the free speech doctrine. More coherent than Vida ever got on the subject, but still not good enough. For one thing, while people are disagreeing with proponents of censorship here, they certainly aren't "shouting them down." For another, the perception of "pc-ism" is mostly, if not entirely, a myth -- people will dismiss your views if they find your axioms insuportable (for instance, holding vapid morality over necessary freedoms), but they certainly won't try to stop you from preaching to others, as long as you don't make yourself a public nusance (which isn't a state restricted to anyone, even if the fundamentalist streetcorner preachers do it more often than not). You have the freedom to speak, and others have the freedom to listen to you. You do NOT have the freedom to be heard -- pressing your speach apon those who cannot avoid it if they chose is a violation of their rights, not an excersize of yours. End of list! Select a Sysop option (R,W,F,T,S,M,E,A,O,X to exit or ? for menu):