cr> 10Feb96 Tidbits


Richard Moore

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996
Sender: Lazlo Nibble <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> 5Feb96 Tidbits

> While the issues of cyber-rights are critical to all of us, a question
> has persisted in my mind on this topic of regulation.  Given the almost
> borderless nature of the internet, how will regulation be technically
> possible?

1) Find a site that's publishing "indecent" content.
2) Figure out where the site is physically located, or likely to be.
3) If that location is in the US, get a search warrant.
4) Raid, seize, arrest.

I don't see the problem, really.

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996
Sender: Brennon Martin <•••@••.•••>

>                             by Randall M. Chastain
>                        American Reporter Correspondent
>         COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The enormous and long-awaited telecommunications
> bill slated for Presidential approval this week has been widely discussed
> in the media.

I have to wonder where Mr. Chastain gets his media feed because this
statement seems absolutely ludicrous to me.  Later in this article, the
author correctly points out the fact that the media has failed to discuss
this legislation sufficiently, but this point cannot be emphasized
enough.  What little discussion has appeared (re: CDA) has focused not on
the fact that basic rights were being taken away but more on what it is
from which we are being "protected."  The Fourth Estate, our "watchdogs,"
have become the loudspeaker of the government.

Cynically yours,

Brennon M. Martin
School of Communications, Box 353740
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3740

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996
Sender: LECLERC YVES <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> Telecom bill outlaws Supreme Court decisions

On Mon, 5 Feb 1996, Craig A. Johnson wrote:

> Under the terms of the Telecom bill, soon to be law, making this
> Supreme Court decision generally available is a crime punishable by 2
> years in prison and a $25,000 fine.
> You might think that because this decision is talking about indecency,
> it is exempt from indecency rules. If you read the decision you will
> find that there is no such exemption. The material that the Supreme
> Court found to be indecent was a radio program about indecency rules.

If this is correct, I strongly suggest that one of our American
colleagues, or CPSR itself, bring the Supreme Court (or the agency housing
the official site where its decisions are available) to court for
'Net indecency. Any lawyer with a sense of humor out there?

Yves Leclerc          Dead-End Democracy? or open-ended government...
<•••@••.•••>    Montreal, Quebec

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996
Sender: "Steve Eppley" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> "Nations see Internet as Threat"

Mike Ang wrote:
>"Nations see Internet as threat to security" made the front page of
>the Saturday _Globe and Mail_.

It was in the L.A. Times 2/4/96 Opinion section, too.

It concluded by musing on whether the multinational corporations
might come down on the side of the cyberdenizens or the nationstates,
failing to note they have their own agendas.

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996
Sender: "David E. Anderson" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: incident report: Telecom Dregs chills

from Educom:

The recent passage of the telecommunications reform bill has some college
administrators worried over new liability issues for educational
institutions that might unknowingly make "indecent" material available to
minors through their Internet access operations.  In addition, they've
expressed concern over potential First Amendment violations if they censor
the content too heavily.  "We have programs on campus about date rape,
unwanted pregnancy, and reproductive-health options, so I don't see how we'd
tolerate censorship of that kind of information in the electronic format,"
says the head of telecommunications at Carnegie Mellon University.
(Chronicle of Higher Education 9 Feb 96 A23)

The Telecom Bill passed Feb '96: "This is the most lobbied piece of
legislation I have ever seen," said Rep. Ron Klink, D-Penn. "This is the most
lobbied piece of legislation I hope I ever see. I don't want anyone to try and
break these records."  So, do you really think the bill is about getting
government off your back?

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me
to tremble for the safety of my country.  ... corporations have been enthroned
and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of
the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices
of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic
is destroyed."  -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln,  Nov. 21, 1864

David E. Anderson/New Media Support, Worldwide Support, Oracle Corporation

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996
Sender: "T. Bruce Tober" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: It used to be said...

The traditional chant when a monarch dies is "The King/Queen is
dead. Long live the king/queen".

Well, As of about an hour ago the First Amendment is dead.
Unfortunately there is no good replacement, just the Communications
"Decency" Act.

And so I guess the best can be said is "The First Amendment is
dead. Rest in Peace."

My condolences.

tbt - The US Congress should be impeached for breach of the
Constitution it was sworn to uphold.

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996
Sender: •••@••.••• (Jan Blair)
Subject: Lowey-Hyde colloquy re CDA

I've been trying for two days to get a copy of the colloquy.  You have one?
Would really appreciate a copy.

[ Please respond directly to Jan.  -rkm]

Thanks -

Jan Blair - San Francisco


 Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland
 Materials may be reposted in their entirety for non-commercial use.