@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >From: "Steve Eppley" <•••@••.•••> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 Subject: Re: Henry re: "But there is another option" [cr-951208] Henry Huang wrote: >Steve Eppley wrote: >> But there is another option. A veto of the entire telecom deform >> bill. Can't we unite in that campaign? Even if the bill didn't >> contain censorship provisions, it would still be terrible. > >This is true, but it seems that everyone's been treating it as unlikely. >Is it? I'm not up to speed on the rest of the bill, but is there another >point that would make Clinton consider a veto? Clinton has already threatened a veto on other grounds having to do with over-deregulation (allowing even greater concentration of media outlets, and allowing local telcos to compete in long distance before they have local competition, for examples). I believe you can find more details in earlier cyber-rights messages (approx 2 months ago?), such as the piece on Clinton on 11/31, the CPSR document on 11/26, Vigdor's post on 8/3, etc. >Of course, if Clinton can be forced to veto based on pressure surrounding >the "indecency" stuff, that would be nice also ... I wonder if we're being duped, if the censorship provisions are intended to serve as a lightning rod to divert the protest efforts which would otherwise attack the remainder of the bill. In this scenario, expect the final form of the bill not to contain censorship on indecency. We can then declare victory, even while losing the war. Only the poor will be censored off the net. (Include as "poor" organizations such as the 90's Channel, which can't afford the outrageous rate now charged them by TCI for cable time.) I'd prefer that the bill be vetoed even if the censorship provision is deleted. If Clinton bases a veto threat partly on the censorship, he needs to make clear that each of his reasons is *by itself* sufficient to veto, not some sum of negatives which only when combined add up to a veto. As has been pointed out by others in cyber-rights, Clinton hasn't expressed any qualms about the censorship provisions. He may not want to appear during his re-election campaign as being pro-porn, which is how his opponents would attempt to portray him. ---Steve (Steve Eppley •••@••.•••) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland Cyber Rights co-leader | Cyberlib=http://www.internet-eireann.ie/cyberlib ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
