Re: Enough is Never Enough -- pro-CDA alliances, from TNNN

[Sir Robin of Locksley <tozser@stolaf.edu>]

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

 >
 >
 >---------- Forwarded message ----------
 >Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:04:35 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
 >To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
 >Subject: Enough is Never Enough -- pro-CDA alliances, from TNNN
 >
 >[Attached are two excerpts from the article. For the rest, check out:
 >http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/textonly/1,1035,549,00.html --Declan]
 >
 >********
 >
 >The Netly News Network
 >http://netlynews.com/
 >
 >Enough Is Never Enough
 >By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
 >January 17, 1997
 >
 >       A broad coalition of conservative and anti-pornography groups and
 >   individuals will file legal briefs next Tuesday in the Supreme Court
 >   supporting the government's defense of the Communications Decency Act,
 >   The Netly News has learned.
 >   
 >       The alliance includes longtime supporters of the act, such as
 >   Enough is Enough, Focus on the Family, and the National Association of
 >   Evangelicals. Members of Congress will join a separate brief that the
 >   National Law Center for Children and Families is preparing.
 >   
 >       But a letter from the attorney representing the coalition asked
 >   the ACLU for permission to file a brief "on behalf of" 59 plaintiffs,
 >   including such unlikely participants as the National Association for
 >   the Advancement of Colored People, PBS, SafeSurf... and Netscape.
 >   
 >       Netscape? The company that lobbied against the CDA? A firm with a
 >   reputation of putting their balls on the chopping block when fighting
 >   for Net-issues on Capitol Hill? Netscape was as shocked as I was to
 >   learn about their participation. "It wasn't authorized by me or my
 >   office. This is flabbergasting," Peter Harter, public policy counsel
 >   for Netscape, said. "I'd be crucified if this happened."
 >
 >[...]
 >   
 >       In their brief, which argues sociological rather than legal
 >   points, the groups hope to highlight the "dangers" of pornography
 >   online. They plan to supply the court with "legislative facts" to
 >   support the position Congress took when crafting the bill. The
 >   document also will include statistics discussing the effects of the
 >   Internet on children and the availability of material covered by the
 >   law. (Marty Rimm, where are you now?)
 >   
 >       Donna Rice-Hughes from Enough is Enough says: "It discusses three
 >   primary areas of our concern: letting the court know the problems on
 >   the Internet. Adult pornography, indecency, and child porn as well. A
 >   section on the harms of pornography. And a section dealing with the
 >   compliance issues: Is it feasible technically to comply with the CDA?"
 >
 
Stuff like this makes me sick. What the hell is up with these people!? You
offended me so you must leave. Well, excuse me, there is a reason internet
addresses have a WWW URL. It stands for World Wide Web and as such encompasses
the world. If there is stuff in the world that offends someone, don't look! But
to tell everyone else that they can't either since some were offended, that is
a starting point for cencorship. Now it's porn, tomorrow it's you saying what
you beleive (that might also be the truth...)

If one is offended by something, don't look! How come Catholicism doesn't get
banned and outlawed? Hell, it offends me... Guess not people!

>[...]
 >   
 >       Chris Stamper and Noah Robischon contributed to this report.
 >   

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQEVAgUBMuBpXKr5aWnB1HshAQEm0QgAwnTz+xjtVKCVNgA0/L5hkqBALubqySM3
zzZlifGue1tq9puyPFEvaPSgRuRWcZSJN9BOYXAVd/kMnMiGwlvV2mAFjGiOCl2W
sPu5tUEC01V77l/egifYp8CvVGjsaZRBiQ5Ia0e5kqM/kd6/gxcbcRk69/3kpCQX
E2CCHCMZS+aW/HOl2HhX2k8t8oVVAGLoJFkaNV5WEc33N5XMv7URTBpx07NH8nmc
EjNpbroXl2LwqakAWleEFbr+eBQLJOPa43CKbRha6Dxop+LaaQrMBgihnHdD410P
6g0SgX0dJup9LTYryF3Ig30tUl/uJPdhg2TpjRw+/bom2v1m4iRZHg==
=vZqM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Gabor K. Tozser
        (Gabe)