Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting

[John Deters <jad@dsddhc.com>]

This message was also To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, but
apparently algebra.com eats messages with more than one To: recipient.

From: John Deters <jad>
Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970716080230.15247L-100000@well.com>

At 08:03 AM 7/16/97 -0700, you [Declan McCullagh] wrote:
>I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the
>Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to
>remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental
>liberties in the process. 

Declan,

I think you made a phrasing error here.  Perhaps you meant to say that you
think it, "prudent to hold your tongue when speaking to the White House if
you want a gold-engraved invitation back."  To some people, it read like
you were saying "give up fundamental liberties to free speech in order to
'protect the children.'"  

Either way, there's not much difference there:  political speech MUST
remain the 'most protected of all', and if someone is afraid of speaking
their mind during a debate, then we've all lost.

However, I think you've missed the ACLU point of NOT "playing the game".
They're not trying to get on (or stay on) the short invitation list to
whatever dog-n-pony show the White House trots out next.  Their concern is
for the Constitution, that it be followed BY EVERYONE, and that it doesn't
get trampled completely by bad laws written by ignorant lawmakers.  When
the ACLU was not "invited" to a meeting where the entire purpose seems be
that of passing another bad law to circumvent the first amendment without
pissing off the same ACLU, don't you agree that perhaps the White House
made a tactical error?

IMHO, the ACLU should be a part of the lawmaking *process*.  Rather than
passing bad laws and checking for their constitutionality on the back end
by people desperate enough to gamble on the outcome of a long, expensive
legal process, I think we'd all be a lot better off checking for
constituonal laws before we pass them at all.  According to the
Constitution, that's the President's job (it's what he said when he took
the oath), but we all know that he only sees his job to be that of "the
biggest congressman of all, gotta follow the polls of the whole nation."

Perhaps the "three strikes and you're out" rule could apply to Congress:
if you vote for three laws that are overturned by the Supreme Court as
unconstitutional, you go to jail for 25 years to life, no parole.  Debate
the new laws all you want, but when it comes down to casting your vote,
you'd better be certain you're not violating the Constitution.  

We need more accountability on the front end of the legal process, because
the average among us can't afford to gamble on the back end.

John
--
J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code.  Think
          of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in OLE sauce'."
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NET:   mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work)   mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) |
| PSTN:  1 612 375 3116 (work)          1 612 894 8507 (home)        |
| ICBM:  44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work)                |
| For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of:       |
| Subject: get pgp key                                               |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+