These authors would probably welcome feedback from our list members, including ideas for additional publication venues. -rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 Sender: •••@••.••• (Chris Thorman) Subject: Suggested modification in your approach An open letter to Bob Anderson / Oklahomans for Children And Families (OCAF) Dear Mr. Anderson and members of OCAF, Last week your group announced its "campaign to eliminate pornography from the Internet. OCAF has identified the local Internet Service Provider (ISP) as the party primarily responsible for the distribution of the majority of illegal pornography on the Internet. "According to Bruce Taylor, Chief Legal Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families, criminal liability is clearly appropriate for this intentional conduct in distributing illegal obscenity and child pornography, just as for any other wholesale or retail merchant of illegal pornography." I hope that your group can achieve its goal of fighting child pornography while reconsidering its approach in light the damaging implications that approach will have on the future of the Internet and its ability to provide valuable information of all kinds to everyone. It has been known for years that the US Mail system can be used to distribute pornography -- and worse, even truly dangerous things like bombs. Did we respond by shutting down the mail system? Of course not: that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. But your group hopes to shut down the Internet because you don't like what some people use it for. This idea is just as silly as shutting down the US Postal service because the Unabomber sent a package bomb by US Mail. Or perhaps a more telling comparison would be prosecuting the letter carrier for murder because, after all, he delivered a lethal bomb to the poor victim. A similar analogy could be made with the telephone system: You might use it to organize a church group meeting. Someone else might use it for phone sex. Just because you don't like the phone sex users doesn't mean you should eliminate the system for all of the other users. The idea wouldn't even occur to you, because, of course, you understand and are comfortable with telephone technology; you use and need it for your everyday life. Your group must be fairly ignorant about internet technology to think that attacking access providers is a reasonable solution to the problem of porn on the Internet. ISPs are merely a common carrier -- like the phone system or the US Mail, they take information that people ask for and move it to a computer where they ask for it to be placed. They are not equivalent to broadcasters who must select and approve material to be broadcast over a limited, publicly-owned medium. ISPs have NO IDEA what the information they convey is about -- nor should they. It must be possible for people to communicate privately over the internet just as it must be by phone and by US mail. However, your group's goal is clear: by attacking ISPs you intend to cripple the Internet iself, a prospect as damaging as shutting down the Postal Service or the national telephone network would be. Your group's understandable worries about child pornography and reasonable fear that children will be exposed to inappropriate material on the Internet has combined with reactionary political attitudes and a basic misunderstanding (perhaps mistrust?) of technology to create the erroneous conclusion that it is the medium itself that must be attacked. Perhaps your group's energies could be better directed toward developing and promoting mechanisms to allow people desiring censorship to censor themselves, while allowing those not desiring censorship to share information in any way they see fit. Self-censorship is the natural solution to avoiding material you don't want to consume. There is an ever-expanding array of software tools and options for individuals and parents who wish to self-censor (or "filter") inappropriate information. Maybe your group could dedicate itself to creating a family-oriented "sub-net" within the internet, where all material can be editorially pre-approved for consumption by anyone of any age -- those who sign up to participate would agree not to link to sites outside the approved system. You could lobby developers of browser software to create versions of their browsers that would respect this "closed" net-within-a-net by disallowing links outside of the approved network. This is just one idea that comes to mind. There are many clever people working on this problem. They need the support of groups like yours. By focusing your energy in the wrong place, you are only increasing the difficulty of the work of the people who are really trying to solve the problem. Please redirect your group's focus to a *constructive* approach to solving these problems, and abandon the litigious, contentious, unconsititutional, and, ultimately, damaging approach you have currently advocated. Sincerely, Chris Thorman •••@••.••• @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 From: Karen Coyle <•••@••.•••> To: "Multiple recipients of list •••@••.•••" Subject: Piece for KQED - first draft OK, I've bit the bullet. Here's a first draft for a KQED perspective on the telecomm bill. Respond today so I can send it off to the producer to find out if he's interested. He will also make edits, so we don't have to have it "perfect" before I approach him. ********************** On Feb ? the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law by President Clinton. The bill is considered controversial because it contains specific limitations on indecent speech. Lawsuits have been filed by the ACLU and the American Library Association challenging this portion of the bill on First Amendment grounds. But this bill does much more than deny free speech. Heavily lobbied by the communications industry, it opens the gates for virtually unrestricted marketing of online services and content by the communications and entertainment industries. And it contains only a tiny nod to the issue of public interest. Communications isn't just another product. It's the means by which we create our culture and express ourselves individually. It's the mechanism for democracy, and the stuff that holds our communities together. The bill does have provisions for universal service, essentially stating the urban and rural areas should be offered comparable service at comparable rates. It requires discounted rates for schools and libraries, though these discounts can be deducted by the communications company from their universal service requirement, thus pitting schools and libraries against other, equally worthy users. It has no mention of the many non-profit organizations and public services that are so vital to the well-being of our communities. And there is as yet no plan, much less funding, to furnish our schools and libraries with up-to-date equipment and train the educators and librarians whose role it will be to teach the rest of us how to benefit from the Information Infrastructure. We, the public, get no say on what this future communications infrastructure will be. It is clear that universal access as defined in this bill places us entirely in the role of consumers, much as we are in relation to television today. Yet this technology has much greater possibilities: over computer networks every person in this country could be a provider of content; every one of us could participate fully in our culture, our community and the political life of this country. The communications system that arises out of the new digital technology could be a truly two-way dialogue. But not through a bill written to benefit the communications industry. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland •••@••.••• | Cyberlib temporarily unavailable •••@••.••• | http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ Materials may be reposted in their entirety for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~