1996-01-01
Craig A. Johnson
On 1 Jan 96 at 13:40, Richard K. Moore wrote:
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> @@ Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 Sender: Mark McFadden
> <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: R. Smith on
> "Christian Right" (viewpoint) [cr-951231]
>
> Robert Smith wrote:
> >THose dirty hypocrites.
> > Frankly I am concerned with the
> >"religious right" 's concern over the internet, it's not as if they
> >are smart enough to boot up a mac, much less snoop in my
> >non-encrypted e-mail (I don't make it a habit of giving my SS# or
> >Credit Card Numbers, or other sensitive personal information out
> >over the Internet).
>
> This is interesting. I myself, have booted this computer and I
> consider myself to be part of the so-called "religious right."
>
> My theological views are fundamental. However, I defend the right
> for all people to express their beliefs, regardless of its content.
> I know many others who hold the same view.
>
> In my view, this is an example of the lack of a balanced approach in
> the fight to defend our precious First Admendment freedoms. Perhaps
> we should consider the method of including those "narrow and
> ignorant" people by presenting this issue as it really is, a fight
> for the free speech rights of everyone. If everyone can not have the
> freedom to express themselves then it is a matter of time before no
> one possesses this unalienable right.
You represent a very slim minority among the "religious right,"
which is in direct opposition to the viewpoint of the primary
right-wing "Christian" lobby, the Christian Coalition, which is
loaded for bear with prescriptions about how all the rest of us
should lead our lives.
They can express whatever they wish, and do so freely throughout the
halls of Congress. It is well known that House Judiciary Chair Henry
Hyde (R-IL) has been relentlessly doing the CC's bidding. The Exon
"communications decency" act was considered too "liberal" for this
bunch of stuffed-shirt pollyannas, who are capitalizing upon the Net
community's political ineptness and the general population's
(including Congresspeople's) overall ignorance, fear, and gullibility
regarding the so-called "indecency" being spread over the Internet.
The "indecency" provision, as written, is pure trash, literally
incinerates the First Amendment, and should be roundly condemned,
instead of lost in some wispy dialogue about the rights of the
"religious right." It is not *their* rights that are at stake. On
the contrary, *they* are endeavoring to deprive the rest of us of
certain inalienable rights.
>
> Mark McFadden
>
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> It's all too easy for us citizens to divide into enemy camps, and
> then be played off against one another in legislative rhetoric.
> Mark reminds us to look for ways to find solidarity. It someone's
> ignorance is our enemy, then contact and education may be our weapon
> rather than opposition or derision.]
I could not disagree more with regard to the organized lobby of the
Christian Coalition. Contact and education *has* had no effect on
this predatory interest group. The anti-porn group "Enough is
Enough" backed a compromise which would have changed the operative
language in the bill to "harmful to minors." But this was not enough
for the CC. They want the wholesale proscription of free speech on the
Net.
They are so influential in fact that Newt and his cronies caved to
them in crafting the "indecency" provision even though Newt was on
record as opposing it as "probably unconstitutional."
Please... There is a time for everything -- a time for "contact and
education" and a time for "opposition and derision." Guess which
time it is now?
Craig A. Johnson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Telecommunications/Information Policy Specialist
Transnational Data Reporting Service, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
•••@••.•••
