cr> 20Feb96 Tidbits


Richard Moore

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996
Sender: Eric G Stenbom <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> ACLU: To all Plaintiffs

I would like a copy of the government's brief please send me one via
regular mail. My address is:Eric Stenbom
                            P.O. Box 552
                            Kingston, Wa 98346


To: <a similar requestor>
From: "Craig A. Johnson" <•••@••.•••>
Date:          Sun, 18 Feb 1996

The ACLU is distributing the government's reply to "plaintiffs" only,
and I don't even have a copy yet.  I am the CPSR contact for the
suit, and would be happy to respond to any questions concerning
CPSR's role.

I suggest you try requesting a copy of the government's brief from
Emily Whitfield at the ACLU at (212) 944-9800, x 426, e-mail:

Craig A. Johnson

CPSR Liason with the ACLU on ACLU v. Reno
Co-Leader, CPSR Cyber Rights Working Group

Date:         Wed, 14 Feb 1996
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <•••@••.•••>
To: Multiple recipients of list CYBER-SOC <•••@••.•••>

Referred to by some as the Judge Greene Retirement Act, the
telecommunications reform bill recently signed into law by President
Clinton removes Judge Harold Greene from his position as the most powerful
authority over U.S. telecommunications regulation for the past 12 years.
But Greene warns that the new competitive rules may not turn out to be the
best prescription for the industry:  "I'm a little concerned whether there
are sufficient safeguards against the kinds of mergers and acquisitions
that might give some small group of companies or individuals a
stranglehold" over U.S. telecom markets.  "I'd hate to see the AT&T
monopoly be reconstituted in some form.  It would be like I'd wasted the
past 18 years."  (Wall Street Journal 12 Feb 96 B1)

            W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
      Center for Information, Technology & Society
       Voice: 617-662-4044  •••@••.•••
 Fax: 617-662-6882 WWW: gopher://

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996
Sender: "Steve Eppley" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> Marty Tennant: Action Alert

Marty Tennant proposed an alliance of small netbusinessfolk:
>If I have left any business entities out of my list above,

No one will speak for the users in this providers-only group.  Why
should we expect them to care much about universal affordable access?


        I'm sorry dear colleague, but I find this objection really
objectionable!  Besides the obvious rejoinder that small providers would
like to have as large a market as possible (and presumably as wide an
access as possible), allow me to suggest that any alliance deserves netizen
support which aims for a more competitive cyber-playing-field and opposes
the Cyber-Baron monopolist initiatives.

        _Perhaps_ your comment stems from your direct-democracy philosophy,
and possibly from a belief that all deliberations and decisions should be
on some kind of at-large basis.  If so, let me suggest that
associations/alliances are, and always have been, an important bulwark of
democracy.  People find voice through such groupings, and De Toqueville
emphasized the role of associations in the vitality of American democracy.

        Note that Marty's alliance could be beneficial to your next
complaint, below.


Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996
Sender: "Steve Eppley" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> IP: A poem that says it all -- from one of my students

>                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 me.
>     And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

Then they raised the rates, and I could no longer afford to speak up.

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996
From: Henry Huang <•••@••.•••>
Subject: 24 Hours of Democracy

HotWired is sponsoring a project called "24 Hours of Democracy".
The idea is to get lots of people to write essays about free
speech and such, and then to air them all on the Web this Thursday.

There seem to be other purposes to this project (organizing and



Here's some comments by Userland's Dave Winer on the project:

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996
Sender: •••@••.•••

Amusing Rants from Dave Winer's Desktop
Released on 2/18/96; 8:58:20 AM PST

  We're at a crossroads for the Internet medium. Will it be a
  narrow-channel one-way medium as the east coast people glibly claim
  it will be? Soap commercials, sensationalism, imitation
  friendship -- a continuation of the suburban culture of isolation,
  lies, dysfunction and unhappiness?

  Or will it be the medium of "Great Hair"? Of speaking and being heard?

  They're telling us to shut up! The chill is real. What are you prepared
  to do about it?

  I decided to do something about it. I believe every voice makes a
  difference. I believe in the power of the Internet. It just needs a bit
  of organization. It needs someone to stick his or her neck out first.

  It's really simple. On February 22, everyone who cares about
  freedom, write an essay so everyone can see it. I don't care if you
  agree with me. It isn't a Dave Winer fan club. It's about numbers and
  voters. This is a two-way medium. We need to demonstrate that before
  it's too late.

  So webmasters, I'm down on my hands and knees, begging -- get behind
  the 24 Hours of Democracy project! Today.

  Put a link on your home page.

  Give us a chance to organize free speech on the Internet.


  Dave Winer

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996
Sender: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: cr> BRIEFING: Supreme Court Precedents

Sender:  •••@••.•••

As I read the postings to this list, I have been wondering about those
households without children.

If a certain household where no children are present and aren't likely to be
present (such as a single person or gay couple or older couple), why should
that household be denied full uncensored access to the content of the Net
just because there are households with children?

That just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm also concerned about governments across the globe and their definitions
of "indecency." If the govenment of the US can decide what is "indecent" for
the planet, and the German government can block access to 200+ Usenet
newsgroups availble through CompuServe (that happens to affect users
globally), then what is to stop another government from deciding that women
should not be allowed to use the Internet because it is against their
religious beliefs? (Or any other group for that matter.)
Now that I've seen that thought in writing, it seems kind of far-fetched, but
I can remember a time when I thought the regulation if Net content by any
government was far-fetched.

Who is to decide what is "indecent?"  Furthermore, who is to decide who gets
to say what is "indecent?"

I think that as adults, we must protect ourselves. It is no one else's job to
shelter us from obcene or indecent e-mail or posts.  I have been the
 recipient of indecent e-mail, and I simply deleted it and thought no more of
it. What's so hard about that? I've also seen postings on newsgroups of
people using 4-letter words as insults. I closed the window. Was I supposed
to sue instead? I'm confused.....   ;-)

Wendy Geeslin


 Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
    •••@••.•••  |  Cyberlib temporarily unavailable
    •••@••.•••  |
 Materials may be reposted in their entirety for non-commercial use.