@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 Sender: Stan Bernstein <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cr> OPPOSITION: Cleaver on "Net Filth" Is it conceivable that someone like Cathleen A. Cleaver simply does not know the difference between the accepted legal definitions of "obscenity" and "indecency" or is her editorial another deliberate instance of disinformation? Stan Bernstein •••@••.••• Editor - Internet '96 Harris Publications - New York City Standard disclaimer @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Larry or Lynn Tunstall Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 Subject: re: cr> Post-"Reform" Perspectives Larry or Lynn Tunstall wrote: > If needed, Clinton and others can join in the effort to get rid of > the "obvious excesses" of the censorship measure. If what is left Clinton has not restrained the DoJ so far -- whereas, according to the Cypherpunks list, he *has* done so in the case of the new HIV military ban. Read into that what you will. -H @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 Sender: •••@••.••• (Charles Levendosky) Subject: Re: CR Web Page Updated The Casper Star-Tribune First Amendment Web site has linked to the CPSR Cyber-Rights Web page and its Library: Net-Suppression page. YOu can find it at http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.webs.html. Charles Levendosky Editorial Page Editor/FACT Web Site Editor Casper Star-Tribune Box 80 Casper, Wyoming 82602 Tel: 307-266-0619 FAX: 307-266-0568 E-mail: •••@••.••• @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 Sender: Joe Shea <•••@••.•••> Subject: AMERICAN REPORTER BRIEF FILED A brief for our action has been filed to supplement the complaint filed Feb. 8. It appears below, along with a story on the fact we were not protected by the TRO issued yesterday, as I first believed. Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter •••@••.••• http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html + by American Reporter Staff Hollywood, Calif. 2/16/96 decision free TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER DOES NOT COVER THIS NEWSPAPER American Reporter Staff LOS ANGELES -- A Federal judge has thrown a constitutional safety net over the Communications Decency Act, but it missed The American Reporter. A statement issued yesterday by the paper was incorrect in that respect. "We will continue to fight for vindication in the courts, and we expect to find it following our hearing in the New York matter," AR editor Joe Shea said Friday afternoon. According to American Reporter attorney Randall Boe, this paper is not covered by the temporary restraining order issued yesterday by Philadelphia U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Buckwalter. "The judge refused to enjoin (or restrain) enforcement of the provision that would presumably apply to [the American Reporter]. The judge found that the use of "indecent" in one section of the CDA was vague, but that the definition in section 502(d)(2) -- was not vague. "This is why the ACLU should never have asked for a TRO -- they have succeeded only in muddying the issues and creating a little bad law for everyone else," Boe said. The American Reporter's complaint against the CDA, filed in federal court in New York on Feb. 8, minutes after President Clinton signed the telecom reform bill into law, will be heard by a separate three-judge panel in New York. In the latest action in Shea v. Reno, a brief prepared by Boe was filed today in New York, and Federal Judge Denise Cote has given the government 30 days to answer it. The American Reporter is represented by Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn, the Washington-based law firm that also defended George Carlin in the famous "seven dirty words" case. -30- * * * @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 Sender: John Whiting <•••@••.•••> Subject: Plotnikoff on decency debate (clipping) ---------- Forwarded Message [excerpted -rkm] ---------- From: Larry or Lynn Tunstall, INTERNET:•••@••.••• TO: John Whiting, 100707,731 DATE: 16/02/96 01:57 RE: Plotnikoff on decency debate (clipping) LEADERS EMERGE IN 'DECENCY' DEBATE By DAVID PLOTNIKOFF IT'S been true since the days data was recorded on a papyrus roll: Real leaders and real heroes are not schooled -- rather, they are forged by extraordinary events. For them, the defining moment is the darkest moment. When others are retreating, they stand fast and deliver the goods. ~--<snip>--~ While much of Washington was taking leave of its senses, two veteran on- line observers distinguished themselves with dead-on-target commentary that will resonate for years to come. Brock Meeks and John Perry Barlow are not new to this arena. They've fought so-called ''decency'' provisions at every step in the process. They saved their best shots for the hour when the whole world was watching. Meeks, former Washington bureau chief for Inter@ctive Week and a reporter for Communications Daily, is a respected investigative reporter who has developed a second voice as the angriest dog in the Internet kennel with his Cyberwire Dispatch e-mail newsletter. Recent issues of the 100,000-circulation Dispatch have seen Meeks, a ''serious'' industry analyst, toy with the idea of taking up the gonzo journalism mantle. With his Feb. 6 installment, ''We're Not in Kansas Anymore,'' he finally goes over the top with an article that uses his personal paranoia and anger as an allegory for the paranoia and anger washing over the Internet community. ~--<snip>--~ You can see it for yourself, along with a year's worth of previous Dispatches, at http://cyberwerks.com/cyberwire/cwd. (For what it's worth, Meeks walked the walk: A few hours after he filed that Dispatch, he signed on as one of the plaintiffs in the ACLU legal challenge to the decency provisions.) On Feb. 8, two days after Meeks weighed in, John Perry Barlow, the closest thing the wired world has to poet laureate, delivered ''A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace'' on the ''24 Hours in Cyberspace'' Web site. ~--<snip>--~ DEPT. OF REALLY BAD TIMING: When the call went out last Thursday for Web-masters to turn their pages black for 48 hours to protest the signing of the ''decency'' law, my first thought was what impact the move would have on the ''24 Hours in Cyberspace'' crew. You have to wonder if project director Rick Smolan did something to offend the gods: He had his pick of any day of the year on which to spend $5 million shooting a humanistic documentary of cyberspace. Long after it is too late to reschedule, it turns out the day he picked is both literally and figuratively the darkest day in the history of the Net. Tom Melcher, the ''24 Hours'' chief operating officer, says they didn't let the blackout ruin their project, which produced 65 stories and recorded 4 million hits in 24 hours. ''The White House had told us a week in advance they'd decided to do (the signing) specifically to be part of our project,'' says Melcher. ''When it became apparent there'd be a lot of protests, we as journalists decided to cover both sides of it -- the signing and the protests. As for our own editorial stance, we did add a blue ribbon on the front page.'' <snip> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 Sender: John Whiting <•••@••.•••> Subject: Net censorship (clipping) ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Larry or Lynn Tunstall, INTERNET:•••@••.••• TO: John Whiting, 100707,731 DATE: 17/02/96 18:39 RE: Net censorship (clipping) Sun, 11 Feb 1996 17:00:16 School's Online Policy Rapped ROCK HILL, S.C. (AP) -- Winthrop students Brian Walker and Josh Campbell have had their university Internet accounts pulled after officials said they violated school policy. Walker created a web page soliciting money and Campbell created one including a nude woman. While the two admitted they crossed the line, the Feb. 2 suspension has risen free speech debates and computer policy review through the school. Both students deleted their web pages, and their two-week suspension was reduced to one. Nathaniel Felder, Winthrop's associate vice president for information technology, said work on amending the computer policy has been ongoing. School officials planned to submit the proposals Friday to Winthrop's board of trustees. But Internet users, particularly professors and students, thought the new policy included language that infringed on their rights and violated their freedom of speech. So, the policy will be forwarded to a computer committee for further review. Professors and students opposed language in the policy that said e-mail be used only for official university business. The policy also allows officials to randomly audit e-mail for compliance. ``It could be a violation of the principles of the free change of ideas at the university,'' political science professor Glen Broach said. But Bob Thompson, Winthrop's board chairman, said Internet policy is to protect the users and Winthrop from liability. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 Sender: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: IP: "Has the government gone mad?" Re: DoJ Brief Donna Hoffman <•••@••.•••> wrote: >What? How can the plaintiffs dispute that which has not been >demonstrated! Is there really a "large and growing amount of >pornography...online...far exceeding anything available prior to the >advent of on-line computer services"? While they may be wrong about the "large and growing" part, the "easily accessible to children in the home, far exceeding anything available prior to the advent of on-line computer services" isn't too far off the mark. For example, go to Infoseek and do a seek on "hot babes". You'll get a bunch of hits, including pictures that would fall under the CDA. However, while doing this little experiment of mine proved how easy it was for kids to find porn on the net, it also showed how futile the CDA is: some of the porn that I found were in places outside the USA, where the CDA has no effect. Thus, search engines like Infoseek have rendered the CDA useless. >Now, what about the idea that the amount of pornography on the >Internet far exceeds anything available in the terrestrial world? You could make the case for unprecedented availablilty, since it's so easy to find porno sites from search engines, and it's something that any minor coould do. While using Infoseek to find pornography, some questions have popped into my mind. One of the web pages the search showed had no ponography of its own, it was simply a hot list of pornograhic sites. Would this fall under the CDA? I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer. Similarly, would search engines that allow minors to find ponography be doing anything illegal under the CDA? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 Sender: Assembly of IaHUShUA MaShIaChaH <•••@••.•••> Subject: FREE to SPEAK? lets take a VOTE!!! GREETINGS!! THANKYOU for your efforts! Together we WILL be heard! I would like to call your attention to Yet another FREE SPEECH... Blue Ribbon SUPPORT page... "http://www.efn.org/~iahu/speak.htm" BUT MAINLY... FIGHT NET CENSORSHIP!! A GLOBAL VOICE FREE SPEAK ...What do you think VOTE page... "http://www.efn.org/~iahu/voice.htm" and then there is ... A Cyberspace DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE... "http://www.efn.org/~iahu/freedom.htm" SHALOM!!! OK?? IaHU-NaTaN @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ 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. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
