Re: Organizations Needed to Sign Letter Against Online Indecency Legislation [cr-95/11/03]


Sender: •••@••.••• (Clint Kraft)
Subject: Re: (ALERT) Religious Right threatens to shutdown net; call now 

>Implore them NOT(my emphasis) to allow parents to make choices for their

I think you meant, Implore them to allow parents to make choices for their
children, instead of government censors.

Now we agree.

clint(called dad by two children)

Clinton R. Kraft                                              •••@••.•••
Aristera Publications                                       •••@••.•••
P.O. Box 3764                                             •••@••.•••
Redwood City, CA 94064-3764                                 (415)364-2075fax


Sender: •••@••.••• (Ann Beeson)

On Nov 04, 1995 21:06:54, 'Cyber Rights <•••@••.•••>'

>Sender: "Steve Eppley" <•••@••.•••>
>>CYBER-LIBERTIES ALERT        November 2, 1995
>I'd prefer the telecomm deform bill be killed entirely, not massaged
>so it is somewhat less terrible.  So maybe the bill should keep the
>odious censorship amendment, in order to bring on a veto...

What, are you kidding?!!  The Clinton administration has no problem with
the online indecency speech crimes, except to the extent that they
*inhibit* law enforcement's ability to go after all those pedophiles in
cyberspace (the defenses in Exon, etc.).  Clinton also loves the v-chip, in
case you haven't heard.  So if he vetoes the telecomm bill, it will have
NOTHING to do with the censorship provisions.

Ann Beeson


Sender: "Craig A. Johnson" <•••@••.•••>

On  4 Nov 95 at 21:08, Steve Eppley wrote:

> I'd prefer the telecomm deform bill be killed entirely, not massaged
> so it is somewhat less terrible.  So maybe the bill should keep the
> odious censorship amendment, in order to bring on a veto...

Well, I don't think this makes a hell of a lot of sense Steve,
considering that the reasons that the bill *may* be vetoed clearly
have little if anything to do with the censorship provisions.

On the contrary, in Clinton's letter to Senator Hollings of October
26 (below)  in which he re-states his "specific issues of concern," the
censorship threat does not come up even once.

This is why the CPSR campaign, spearheaded by Andy's statement on the
bill which was adopted as an official CPSR position paper, takes a
broad approach toward criticizing the bill, and does not focus solely
on censorship, as VTW and some other groups do.

At the same time, it is important to keep up the online efforts
against censorship and let the conference committee know that the
bills as written are unacceptable and subversive of the First
Amendment.  Even Cox-Wyden has its problems.

But the larger effort by CPSR, TAP, People for the American Way, and
other groups is to persuade Clinton to veto the bill, because of its
anti-consumerist, anti-public interest provisions.

Obviously, if the bill is vetoed, the censorship provisions go away
for the moment.  But no one should fool themselves into thinking that
the Administration's top concerns lie with censorship.
> - - -
> It's nice to see those tv commercials against the telecomm bill.
> Who ponied up the money to pay for them?

Have you heard of the Competitive Long Distance Coalition?  This is
the lobby of the big interexchange providers -- AT&T, MCI, Sprint.
It is headed by former Senator and Majority Leader of Watergate
investigation (and Reagan bailout) fame, Howard Baker.  They are
putting up the cash for the ads, which Pressler, quite
inappropriately, asked AT&T to pull.  Pressler evidently is panicking
that the ads may somehow be having an impact.

Actually, I'm sure most people don't pay much attention to them,
just as they are oblivious to the real issues in the telecom bill.

The more broad-based efforts of the public interest community have a
good chance of influencing a few key conferees.

Whatever combination of forces can get the job done should be



October 26, 1995
Dear Fritz:

I enjoyed our telephone conversation today regarding the upcoming
conference on the telecommunications reform bill and would like to
follow-up on your request regarding the specific issues of concern to me in
the proposed legislation.

As I said in our discussion, I am committed to promoting competition and
diversity in every aspect of the telecommunications and information
industries. I believe that the legislation should protect and promote
diversity of ownership and opinions in the mass media, should protect
consumers from unjustified rate increases for cable and telephone services,
and, in particular, should include a test specifically designed to ensure
that the Bell companies entering into long distance markets will not impede

Earlier this year, my Administration provided comments on S. 652 and H.R.
1555 as passed. I remain concerned that neither bill provides a meaningful
role for the Department of Justice in safeguarding competition before local
telephone companies enter new markets. I continue to be concened that the
bills allow too much concentration within the mass media and in individual
markets, which could reduce the diversity of news and information available
to the public. I also believe that the provisions allowing mergers of cable
anbd telephone companies are overly broad. In addition, I oppose
deregulating cable programming services and equiptment rates before cable
opertaors face real compeititon. I remain committed, as well, to the other
concerns contained in those earlier statements on the two bills.

I applaud the Senate and the House for including provisions requiring all
new televisions to contain technology that will allow parents to block out
programs with violent or objectionable content. I strongly support
retention in the final bill of the Snowe-Rockefeller provision that will
ensure that schools, libraries and hospitals have access to advanced
telecommunications services.

I look forward to working with you and your colleagues during the
conference to produce legislation that effectively addresses these

Bill Clinton
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
Ranking Member
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
Washington, DC  20510

Craig A. Johnson
Telecommunications/Information Policy Specialist
Transnational Data Reporting Service, Inc.

 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages for non-commercial use,
pursuant to any redistribution restrictions included in individual messages.