@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 Sender: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Was The "Indecency" Controversy Staged? Craig, Art: But, I did quote Neproponte (twice) and he made his statement in front of 500-600 people -- plus he confirmed and embellished it with me later over dinner. He specifically stressed that the meeting and the decision to vote out absurd, unconstitutional language was *not* reported. No, he wasn't in the "caucus" room and he presumably didn't follow the blow-by-blow but could he have some real inside juice on the situation? It could happen. When some of my Washington sources told me that EFF was directly involved in the final minutes in getting Digital Telephony released (in the previous Congress) and I published what I'd heard, I got ripped a new snorkel by EFFers who swore that no one from EFF went near the hill on this one. Then, Cook turned up the Barlow "I did it with my little axe" quote from the Well and, more recently, people who should know have insisted that Berman went to the hill and did the deed. What really happened? Will we ever know? These events are complex and the players involved have been known to lie about their motives and, where possible, even their actions. Are Schroeder and Conyers' regrets to be taken at face value? I, for one, am dubious. Anyway, second thoughts are totally consistent with the storyline Negroponte writes. I have no reason to challenge anyone's journalism but have you considered that you might have missed the story here? Two very liberal congress-critters side with their bitterly sworn enemies on a highly visible and much debated issue and then all hell breaks loose -- most of which is politically good for the liberal side. Mighty odd, indeed. Where's Jack Anderson when we need him? <g> Mark Stahlman New Media Associates New York City @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 Sender: "Brock Meeks" <•••@••.•••> [NON c-r SUBSCRIBER] Subject: Re: Was The "Indecency" Controversy Staged? I'll have to add my voice now. Frm everything I know, Craig and Art are correct. No secret caucus. Conyers was embarassed by his vote. It took me two weeks of dogging him on the hill to get an on-the-record quote about his vote for an article I did for Wired. Frankly, he had *no* defense and was embarrased about it and "redeemed" himself by voting against the entire conference bill as it came back to the floor. Schroeder voted with her heart, not her head. She really believes it was the best thing for kids, and she told me so on the record. What caught her blind-side was the abortion provision. She voted with Hyde and then felt betrayed by the abortion provisiosn, which no one ever mentioned. No secret meeting here, Mark. Negroponte is off-base. The whole story, to have credibility, would mean that the Democrats were capable of planning and then implementing such a plan. That gives them far too much credit; they just aren't that clever. Besides, Rep.Goodlatte sprung his little "amendment" to the White proposal in an impromptu manner; no one had advance warning... the Dems would have had to know about this little move in advance and they didn't. --Brock @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 Sender: •••@••.••• (Vadim Antonov) Subject: Re: Was The "Indecency" Controversy Staged? Mark Stahlman wrote: >But, I did quote Neproponte (twice) and he made his statement in front of >500-600 people -- plus he confirmed and embellished it with me later over >dinner. I think that's just an attempt to make himself & the gang to look smarter than they really are -- after the blunder was comitted. Rading Negroponte's column certainly leaves the impression that he's employing that kind of back-of-the-pants foresight pretty often. --vadim @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 Sender: Arun Mehta <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cr> a novel theory re: CDA politics Mark makes some serious allegations, specifically: 1) The Democrats voted with the Republicans on CDA to make *them* look bad to netizens 2) Possibly the cyber civil-rights organisations were also part of the conspiracy with a view to "reviving the fortunes of flagging cyber civil-rights organizations with fresh volunteers and righteous contributions." I would like to see some support for these allegations other than the quoting of some unnamed sources. These are serious allegations, and if they are untrue, as others who were very close to the process seem to think, we damage the Democratic party and even more seriously the cyber civil-rights organisations -- not to mention the cyber-rights list, which loses credibility. If one sees a conspiracy behing every bush, one only ends up as Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. In the process, the genuine conspiracies -- and there are some -- go unattended. ~--<snip of private material>--~ Arun Mehta, B-69 Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24, India. Phone 6841172,6849103 http://mahavir.doe.ernet.in/~pinaward/arun.htm •••@••.••• Moderator of india-gii, which discusses telecom issues relating to India. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 Sender: Ken Deutsch <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Was The "Indecency" Controversy Staged? Craig A. Johnson wrote: > > Schroeder's vote was a mistake, and she came close to admitting it > publicly. This was demonstrated by her exasperation in the conf. > committee meeting the following week, where she asked the leadership > four times if they would please circulate language for members to > study in advance. Her request was shunned. She was obviously stung > by her own vote the week before, and the public's response to it, as > reported by many people, including Art and myself. > Was it really a mistake or is Schroeder just concerned with who determines what is "indecent"? After all, her argument and legislative attempts after the legislation was passed only deal with the added language dealing with abortion. The conferees only voted on concepts when Schroeder voted for the ban on "indecency", maybe she had no problem with the concept until the actual language turned against her own concerns. Ken Deutsch Director, Information Marketing Services Issue Dynamics, Inc. •••@••.••• http://idi.net @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From: "Craig A. Johnson" <•••@••.•••> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 Subject: (Fwd) Re: Was The "Indecency" Controversy Staged? ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: "Craig A. Johnson" <•••@••.•••> To: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) <•••@••.•••> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 Subject: Re: Was The "Indecency" Controversy Staged? Cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• On 27 Feb 96 at 13:10, via RadioMail wrote: > Craig, Art: > > But, I did quote Neproponte (twice) and he made his statement in > front of 500-600 people -- plus he confirmed and embellished it with > me later over dinner. Yes, but your quote is entirely non-specific as to a "Democratic caucus." You quote Negroponte as saying: "They wanted to pass something that was as absurd as possible and that was clearly unconstitutional." This does not speak to the existence of a "secret" Democratic meeting. > He specifically stressed that the meeting and the decision to vote > out absurd, unconstitutional language was *not* reported. No, he > wasn't in the "caucus" room and he presumably didn't follow the > blow-by-blow but could he have some real inside juice on the > situation? It could happen. > Yes, it could. But, my larger point is that this is unlikely and the Digital Telephony bill is not a good comparison. If there had been such a meeting, where were Dingell and Markey, the ranking minority leaders, and Boucher, and Anna Eshoo? *They" didn't vote for the Goodlatte amendment. It is much more likely that what Negroponte meant is that the House caucus, *with both Democrats and Republicans* which voted for the amendment was closed, and therefore there was no direct reporting on what went on. It is also true that there was constant tension between the Judiciary Committee members and the Commerce Committee members. It seems much more likely to me that Schroeder and Conyers, whatever their reasons, went along with Hyde partially for reasons of inter-committee rivalry, which marked the process throughout. The quote you offer from Negroponte is so vague and general that it could be attributed to many "decisions," which had the effect of "voting out absurd, unconstitutional language," like, the anti-abortion language, for instance, which of course Schroeder would not have voted for if she had understood it in committee. <..> > These events are complex and the players involved have been known to > lie about their motives and, where possible, even their actions. Are > Schroeder and Conyers' regrets to be taken at face value? I, for > one, am dubious. Anyway, second thoughts are totally consistent with > the storyline Negroponte writes. > > I have no reason to challenge anyone's journalism but have you > considered that you might have missed the story here? Two very > liberal congress-critters side with their bitterly sworn enemies on > a highly visible and much debated issue and then all hell breaks > loose -- most of which is politically good for the liberal side. > Mighty odd, indeed. No question, Mark, but don't ever underestimate jurisdictional rivalries or Congressional ignorance. Craig A. Johnson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Telecommunications/Information Policy Specialist Transnational Data Reporting Service, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •••@••.••• @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 Sender: "David E. Anderson" <•••@••.•••> Subject: re: hypothetical political strategy re: "Indecency" Controversy I would like to thank you, Mark, for once again making me more aware of how politics is conducted and particularly how it is done on the Net. Since I began reading your commentaries I've become more sceptical than ever. It is remarkable how easy it is to be naive, even though I was raised in the midst of politics all my life and spent 20 years on the Internet. I have to discipline myself to remember that things are not always as they seem and that on the Net anyone can say anything. I'm reminded of a very controversial episode within an email community I belonged to. One of the most prominant members invented a new identity under a second email id. This second "manufactured" persona then engaged in dialog and argumentative behavior which disrupted the entire community. After extended controversy we found out who really originated the affair, under the guise of "performance art". A lot of people felt taken advantage of. With this kind of background and your caution that we Netizens are being cynically manipulated, I even wonder: Is it true that the Democrats are so net-savvy and willing to risk so much by "heightening the contradictions"? Are you being manipulated? Are you conducting an experiment on us? Is your story a political ad? How is your attempt to move the heat from the Christian Coalition, which conducted a very well-organized campaign in favor of CDA, to the Democrats related to your positing Christian theology as the best basis for philosophy? As usual I'm learning a lot by thinking that was stimulated by your writing, so thanks again. Your net colleague, Dave -- This private message not endorsed or reviewed by Oracle. David E. Anderson/New Media Support/Oracle Corporation 415-506-6307 fax: 7809 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/library/ CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
