1996-02-27
Craig A. Johnson
Below is the original post by Mark Stahlman. Following it are
response by Art Brodsky, of Communications Daily, and myself.
Sorry again for the confusion.
--caj
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:08:35 -0800
From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Was The "Indecency" Controversy Staged?
Folks:
On Friday at the TED Conference in Monterey, Nicholas Negroponte of
MIT's Media Lab, dropped a significant fact on the stage in front of
the audience of 500 -- the decision to switch votes at the last minute
by two liberal Democrats (Schroeder and Conyers) was reached at an as
yet unreported Democrat "caucus" with the intent of embarassing
legislating moralists and throwing the issue into the courts for
eventual positive resolution. He said, "They wanted to pass something
that was as absurd as possible and that was clearly unconstitutional."
According to sources reached over the weekend, there was little doubt
by many involved in the conference committee that the otherwise oddly
reversed votes on the bill's First Amendment language was not
spontaneous and not explained by the statements which flowed from the
Congresspeople's offices.
They stressed the relevance of the Presidential election and the
prominence being achieved by Newt Gingrich late in 1995 -- stealing
thunder from rival cyber-pol Al Gore. They focussed on the desire to
force the Republicans to be tarred-and-feathered with the Christian
Right brush is a priority tactic in an increasingly hot campaign
season. The feeling is that without Ralph Reed's support, no
Republican can be nominated. Then in the election the association
with the Christian Coalition -- especially in the crucial electoral
state of California -- could be turned against the Republicans on the
Net.
They hypothesize that the severe reaction against the CDA online was
completely predictable as would be the resulting anti-Republican
voting bias on the Net in November. This is simply another in a
series of moves to manipulate public opinion by harnessing the
Internet's general naivete about the political process, they
concluded.
Reached after his speech and asked if reviving the fortunes of
flagging cyber civil-rights organizations with fresh volunteers and
righteous contributions might also figure in here, Negroponte said,
grinning, "Gee, that's even more cynical than I would have thought."
On an chillingly related note, according to Antony Lewis' column in
today's New York Times, Buchanan's "platform" includes the provision
that Supreme Court decisions become subject to binding nation
referenda. Interpreting the Constitution would become a majoritarian
circus. Stay tuned; more madness to follow.
Mark Stahlman
New Media Associates
New York City
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date sent: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 19:36:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Arthur Richard Brodsky <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Was The "Indecency" Controversy Staged?
To: Mark Stahlman <•••@••.•••>
Copies to: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••,
•••@••.•••
I heard you mention this "secret" caucus on the radio. I covered this
bill very closely for Communications Daily. While it's possible I
didn't get everything, I never heard about such a meeting. I know
why Schroeder voted why she did in the conference, and it wasn't
to embarrass anyone. And Conyers people later told me he
regretted his vote in the closed conference meeting where the
vote took place -- not something that someone intent on a
cynical manipulation of the system would do.
<Quoted Stahlman original text elided.>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: "Craig A. Johnson" <•••@••.•••>
Date sent: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 12:15:17 +0000
Subject: Re: Was The "Indecency" Controversy Staged?
Priority: normal
On 26 Feb 96 at 19:36, Arthur Richard Brodsky wrote:
>
> I heard you mention this "secret" caucus on the radio. I covered
> this bill very closely for Communications Daily. While it's
> possible I didn't get everything, I never heard about such a
> meeting. I know why Schroeder voted why she did in the conference,
> and it wasn't to embarrass anyone. And Conyers people later told me
> he regretted his vote in the closed conference meeting where the
> vote took place -- not something that someone intent on a cynical
> manipulation of the system would do.
>
Art is of course correct. I also covered the bill (though not as
closely as Art) and I never heard any rumor of a Democratic caucus
deciding to vote *for* censorship in order to embarass the
Republicans. What a fanciful, far-fetched, silly notion!!
There *was* a House conferees' caucus, at which Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA)
offered an amendment, which bastardized and essentially obliterated
the White idea to sustitute a "harmful to minors" standard for the
"indecency" standard. *This* was the amendment for which Scroeder and
Conyers voted; it did not occur at some *special* Democratic caucus.
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.
Stahlman's post offered no direct quotes from Negroponte, and to my
knowledge Negroponte did not closely follow the machinations of this
issue within the conference committee.
Let's try to ground such quasi-conspiratorial accusations in some
kind of reality, if at all possible, shall we?
Craig
Craig A. Johnson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Telecommunications/Information Policy Specialist
Transnational Data Reporting Service, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
•••@••.•••
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Visit The Cyber-Rights Library, accessible via FTP or WWW at:
ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/
You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
