Strange Sounds of Silence

[Alan Pugh <ampugh@mci.newscorp.com>]

Please reply to amp@pobox.com as this email address dies on the 14th.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

AEN News
Commentary by Alan M. Pugh
<mailto:amp@pobox.com>

The Strange Sounds of Silence

Has anyone else out there noticed the strange sounds of silence
emmanating from the american print and broadcast media concerning the
rider attached to the Telecommunications Act recently signed by
President Clinton known as the CDA (Communications Decency Act)?

Here we have a piece of legislation that has enormous ramifications
to the free flow of information and ideas through various electronic
media, and yet we hear hardly a peep from the "defenders of the 1st
amendment". Many readers here have probably noticed the screams of
censorship and gnashing of teeth that accompany any attempt to pass
legislation or regulations that have even tangental relationships to
the 1st amendment. The first amendment has, during this century, been
greatly expanded from the protections it was widely recognised to
afford at the begining of this century. It has been "incorporated"
through the courts to bar states from infringing on our freedoms as
well as the federal government. The definition of "speech" has been
stretched to the point that the act of burning a flag is considered
to be an act of speech, and not destruction of property. (I agree
with the court wholeheartedly on this point.) We've so expanded its
scope, and rightly so, that it is difficult if not impossible to win
in court on a charge of slander or libel. 

The press in this country enjoys wide lattitude. They cannot be
forced to divulge sources except under very specific and limited
circumstances. They have recently been restricted more than in the
past on military operations. These restrictions have garnered almost
universal cries of "censorship!" from those news organizations
affected. 

Why then, when almost all of cyberspace is up in arms over this
provision is this story almost universally ignored or distorted to be
merely an issue of "child pornography" or "protecting our children"?
I recall several prominent news organizations across the country
coming to the aid of Larry Flint, the publisher of _Hustler_ magazine
a few years ago through amicus briefs filed with the court when an
overzealous prosecutor was attempting to nail him for the
distribution of material that violated his puritanical
interpretations of local "community standards".

Where are these papers now? Where is their outrage? I'd like to know
what the difference is between a picture of Michelangelo's David
displayed in an article by the _Smithstonian Institution_, and the
same picture when displayed on someone's home page? Where is the
outrage that someone who makes a copy of _Catcher in the Rye_
available to people who visit their home page who may very well now
be open to prosecution by that same puritanical prosecutor? Where is
it? Has the "free" press in this country suddenly discovered the
virtues of censorship? 

Do these organizations not realize that the precidents that will soon
be laid down on this issue will soon be affecting them as well? Any
major publisher who is not looking at electronic media as a method of
distribution is a fool. The _New York Times_ is now available on the
World Wide Web. Perhaps they are living in a delusion that *they*
will not be held to the same standards that will soon be enforced
against the small publisher who sees the Web as means for cheap mass
distribution. Perhaps for a time, they won't. Eventually, the bird
will come home to roost. One would think that they would understand
that the free flow of information is important enough that we will
have to stand a little pornography and other distasteful material -
the same way we allow magazines to be sold at the local convienience
store. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. If you don't
want to read racist material, go somewhere else. Noone will *force*
you to consume that which you cannot abide. 

They also do not seem to recognise the international nature of the
internet. It is not something that operates entirely within the
confines of the united States. It is an international community that
reaches nearly every corner of the globe. What is proper to be
displayed in New York City or Los Angeles, is probably not something
that, say the government of Saudi Arabia would like to see available
to its subjects. By the same token, what is deemed to satisfy the
"community standards" of Amsterdam, may very well not fly in many
places in the united States. In order for any government to restrict
access to any country that flaunts its standards, it would have to
disconnect itself from the internet. It is not possible to build
walls around a country and still have all the good benifits of the
internet still available. 

Is it a bad thing for a group of children to be able to become
electronic pen-pals with another group of students in Malaysia, or
Russia? Do we not think that personal relationships with people from
another culture helps personalize our understanding of their
cultures? I think many wars could have been avoided in the past if
each side knew each other better. How can someone claim that "all
russians are evil" when they have a personal relationship with Ivan
in St. Petersburg? 

For better or worse, the technology is now out there. The world will
always be smaller than it once was. We are no longer limited in our
circle of friends by distance or time. (Time could indeed be an issue
if one were attempting to place a phone call to someone in Paris
from Dallas. Many people don't want to talk at 4am their time.) We
are also not limited by the delays and expense of postage. I've met
good people around the world through electronic communications who
have points of view that I would probably never have considered. 

Again I ask, "Where is the media?" Why is the censorship of
individuals a good thing? Don't come crying to me when you find, a few
years down the road that this camel's nose has snuck into the tent
with its bad breath, prelediction to spit, and no potty training.

Since this message is being transmitted electronically, I feel that
it is my moral duty to include the following so this message will
fall under the purview of the act I so abhor.

Shit, Piss, Cunt, Fuck, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Teats.

There they are. Come and get me Big Brother.

=end of article=

This article was digitally signed with PGP so as to further aid
prosecutors. A signed document is hard to deny.

amp
<0003701548@mcimail.com>
<alan.pugh@internetmci.com>
PGP Key = 57957C9D
February 10, 1996   15:23

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMRz+6YdTfgZXlXydAQG2qgf+Omae9/yVYvcyX1ADp6mmSHQJlQJ3qS4C
AnT4VK4AepDHnqrh7gVsNPQB58QAWekY4IZBGws0mdxDQF9h3q8+pu+CNEFB2CDo
Zi24IqjbCD2wYnovPOAZVmppOCoD0Au6XdUPdY2rLN/AEqo7H4H3RefTXDozu1J6
9QTOytuwLhaSlQ6BeBi2XhTrKFM7g1EtpA8O+B2tEOqvghQgq9f5SeY2kOY+5792
RY4EKlhcGIeT95pevnoQFPWTQA5wJghpXD1D4gfg7hULDZM1ZXLZRHF+XxlQImgZ
SrxISrE1kDxlwHe4BYM4WXPH3OU0Gj4H9pH2J0YZA5H5pZS90u7mwA==
=aNzy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
#!/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
$m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%Sa
2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print
pack('H*',$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length$n&~1)/2)