Spin Control Alert (LI Newsday, 2/12/96)

Know your enemies:

There's an op-ed in LI Newsday by Cathleen A. Cleaver ("directory of 
legal studies at the Family Research Council..." in LI Newsday today.

Serious pro-CDA spin here. Justifies the bust of Amateur Action BBS, 
ignoring that they were set up by the gov't, and then insists the CDA 
only prohibits making porn accessible to kids. Calls anti-CDA folx 
"free-speech zealots" and "friends of the porn industry", claims the 
courts can determine merit on a per-case basis, and claims objections 
to CDA are really from "arrogance and greed... Most Americans do not 
have access to the Internet. The on-line elite would like to keep it 
that way..."

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 14-Feb-96 Re: Spin Control Alert (LI
.. by Sten Drescher@grendel.te 
> DBM> (I assume your Bible argument is just posturing. No
> DBM> U.S. Attorney, political appointees they, ever will prosecute
> DBM> someone who puts the complete text of the King James Bible
> DBM> online.)
>  
>         You assume wrong.  While I certainly agree that no
> U.S. Attorney would voluntarily prosecute such a case, what happens
> when an athiest files charges against someone for carrying the Bible?
> IANAL, but couldn't the U.S. Attorney be forced to prosecute?
> Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so, since it has been
> reported (on this list by Tim Philp from a Toronto Star article) that
> the Bible has been removed from at least one Web site, presumably due
> to fear of prosecution.

Since you don't understand the way Federal criminal charges work,
there's no reason I should take your argument seriously. (Hint: The
*U.S. Attorney*, or an AUSA, files charges, not you, me, or a random
"athiest.")

As for this mythical Bible being removed, that is irrelevant to this
discussion, which centers around a Bible being *prosecuted*. If I had a
Bible on my web site (perhaps the TCM Vernacular Translation!) I'd
remove it just to make a point. As I suspect the owner of the web pages
did.

Many of us have engaged in lofty rhetoric saying what *could* be
prosecuted -- the Bible, and Catcher in the Rye, and other works of
literature.

Now that the law's passed, let's talk about what *will* be prosecuted.
It will be material that U.S. Attorneys think will get them a
conviction. NAMBLA materials, stories about pedophilia, paraphilia, and
bestiality, and images of hardcore porn -- preferably gay porn -- that
are available to minors.

This law is dangerous because it is so overbroad that prosecutions can
be made exceedingly selectively -- depending on what a US Atty thinks
will offend a jury composed of folks from his area of the country.

-Declan

"Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU> said:

DBM> (I assume your Bible argument is just posturing. No
DBM> U.S. Attorney, political appointees they, ever will prosecute
DBM> someone who puts the complete text of the King James Bible
DBM> online.)

	You assume wrong.  While I certainly agree that no
U.S. Attorney would voluntarily prosecute such a case, what happens
when an athiest files charges against someone for carrying the Bible?
IANAL, but couldn't the U.S. Attorney be forced to prosecute?
Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so, since it has been
reported (on this list by Tim Philp from a Toronto Star article) that
the Bible has been removed from at least one Web site, presumably due
to fear of prosecution.

-- 
#include <disclaimer.h>                               /* Sten Drescher */
Unsolicited email advertisements will be proofread for a US$100/page fee.

Alan writes:
>No surprises here.  Except for the "on-line elite" shot in the dark, the
>anti-sex censors have been talking this way for decades.
> 
>What's interesting is that your report of this spokesperson's tone makes
>it sound *defensive* -- like a reaction to an onslaught rather than a
>celebration of victory.

Exactly. Catharine MacKinnon, for instance, has called the EFF and other
Rimm-debunkers part of the "pro-pornography power block" which
represents the "howling fury of the pornographers protecting their
penises and their wallets."

The Family Research Council, which wrote today's Newsday today, has
launched similar attacks. The FRC is run by Gary Bauer, a former policy
assistant to Reagan and a former undersecretary at the Department of
Education. Now he heads the FRC, the DC-based lobbying extension of
James Dobson's "Focus on the Family." Dobson's history includes serving
on the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (the Meese
Commission). Bauer also embraced Marty Rimm's cyberporn study as gospel,
calling the ACLU and EFF "porn industry apologists" who are "taking
cheap shots at this comprehensive study."

Thanks to Rob, the Newsday op-ed is at:
   http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=1153

Related articles about the FRC are at:
   http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=247
   http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=839

ObCrypto: Yes, Know Your Enemies and work with the natural enemies of
the religious right, such as groups like the ACLU and the FEN. The
theocratic push to outlaw nonescrowed crypto is next.

-Declan

"Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU> said:

DBM> ObCrypto: Yes, Know Your Enemies and work with the natural
DBM> enemies of the religious right, such as groups like the ACLU and
DBM> the FEN. The theocratic push to outlaw nonescrowed crypto is
DBM> next.

	As someone who would prolly be considered part of the
'religious right' (why don't we ever hear of the 'religious left', who
are prolly just as much in support of banning porn?), I have to take
exception to this.  I'm appalled by the CDA, and, if you start
pointing out to religious supporters of the CDA that it has already
resulted in the King James version of the Bible being removed from (at
least) one web site, I'm sure that some of them will be as well,
especially the fundamentalists for whom the spread of the Gospel is,
well, gospel.  Be sure to point out that the same courts who the blame
for 'removing prayer from our schools' would be ruling on the indency
of the Bible.  As for supporting GAK/banning non-GAK, I don't think
that you would dispute that the 700 Club is strongly dominated by the
religious right, and it came out firmly AGAINST the entire notion of
GAK during the Clipper debate.

-- 
#include <disclaimer.h>                               /* Sten Drescher */
Unsolicited email advertisements will be proofread for a US$100/page fee.

Excerpts from mail: 13-Feb-96 Re: Spin Control Alert (LI .. by Sten
Drescher@grendel.te 
>         As someone who would prolly be considered part of the
> 'religious right' (why don't we ever hear of the 'religious left', who
> are prolly just as much in support of banning porn?), I have to take
> exception to this.
> I'm appalled by the CDA, and, if you start
> pointing out to religious supporters of the CDA that it has already
> resulted in the King James version of the Bible being removed from (at
> least) one web site, I'm sure that some of them will be as well,

I do hope the religious right keeps fighting against GAK. However good
their intentions may be on *that* issue, it is transcendently obvious to
anyone who has been following the flux on Capitol Hill that they were
behind the recent push to regulate the Internet. (I assume your Bible
argument is just posturing. No U.S. Attorney, political appointees they,
ever will prosecute someone who puts the complete text of the King James
Bible online.)

So you are trivially correct in asserting that not everyone who
identifies as a member of the "religious right" supports all the actions
of their lobbyists in Washington. However, that does not change the fact
that conservative theocrats were the architects of the cyberporn scare
and the accompanying "indecency" legislation.

The selfsame theocrats, in fact, used Marty Rimm's cyberporn study and
the TIME cyberporn cover as a vehicle to promote their agenda. The very
conservative Sen. Chuck Grassley in July 1995 organized a hearing around
Rimm's study to justify his anti-smut legislation. "Not a study by an
advocacy group!" he crowed on the Senate floor.

Of course, he neglected to say that religious right lobbyists *helped
write* Rimm's study, and a member of his staff likely was involved.

Let's see who the players are, as identified by Mike Godwin:

 1) _The National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families._
Formerly the National Coalition Against Pornography, this organization
renamed itself last year, perhaps in anticipation of its legislative
compaign against online "indecency" (a broader category than pornography).
 
 2) _The National Law Center for Children and Families._ This orgnization
was formerly headed by antiporn activist Cathy Cleaver -- it is now headed
by Bruce Taylor, formerly a prosecutor specializing in obscenity cases and
formerly the general counsel of a an antiporn group based in Phoenix,
Arizona, and founded under the name "Citizens for Decency through Law."
The organization was founded by Charles Keating, himself a veteran of the
Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (a.k.a. the Meese
Commission).
 
 3) _Enough is Enough!_  Presenting itself as a secular effort, this
organization provides a platform for former party girl and ex-No
Excuses-jeans model Donna Rice-Hughes, who has leveraged her fame from the
Gary Hart candidacy into a career as an antiporn activist. (With almost
suspiciously frequent meetings with Bob Dole.)

Enough is Enough is headed by Dee Jepsen, who testified about the
dangers of online nastiness at Grassley's cyberporn hearing. Bob
Chatelle from the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression reports
that Jepsen is Chairman of the Board of Regents of Pat Roberson's Regent
University, is Cochair of Washington For Jesus, and has served on the
Steering Committee of the Coalition on Revival, closely linked with the
Christian Reconstructionist movement. Reconstructionists believe that
Christians should "take dominion" and establish Old Testament law. Many
Reconstructionists openly advocate death for homosexuals, preferably by
stoning.

I'd be happy to expand on the links between the religious right and the
move to regulate the Net, but Mike Godwin has already done it quite
eloquently, at:
   http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/

Some additional background about Donna Rice's censorship efforts,
including recent media profiles of her:
  http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=1178
  http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=302

-Declan

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

BTW, the same insipid viewpoint from June Cleaver was printed in the 
Houston Chronicle on 2/11...
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service

iQBFAwUBMSP7YSoZzwIn1bdtAQHAxAF/RaG/tuyDazedDGz4rCtcDJD4e05CQf2d
tG+QGq896zlp83HhM9yxxuEMgsJc319D
=lfto
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

In article <199602121313.IAA26828@UNiX.asb.com>,
"Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@UNiX.asb.com> wrote:

> Know your enemies:
> 
> There's an op-ed in LI Newsday by Cathleen A. Cleaver ("directory of 
> legal studies at the Family Research Council..." in LI Newsday today.
> 
> Serious pro-CDA spin here. Justifies the bust of Amateur Action BBS, 
> ignoring that they were set up by the gov't, and then insists the CDA 
> only prohibits making porn accessible to kids. Calls anti-CDA folx 
> "free-speech zealots" and "friends of the porn industry", claims the 
> courts can determine merit on a per-case basis, and claims objections 
> to CDA are really from "arrogance and greed... Most Americans do not 
> have access to the Internet. The on-line elite would like to keep it 
> that way..."

No surprises here.  Except for the "on-line elite" shot in the dark, the
anti-sex censors have been talking this way for decades.

What's interesting is that your report of this spokesperson's tone makes
it sound *defensive* -- like a reaction to an onslaught rather than a
celebration of victory.

The battle for people's hearts and minds on this issue is far from over.

ObMetzgerQ:  What the hell does this have to do with cryptography?

ObMetzgerA:  Nothing! So there!  Hahahahahahha!

- -- 
   Alan Bostick             | "If I am to be held in contempt of court,
Seeking opportunity to      | your honor, it can only be because the court
develop multimedia content. | has acted contemptibly!"
Finger abostick@netcom.com for more info and PGP public key

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

iQB1AwUBMR+b5uVevBgtmhnpAQH62wL8CgSlQ7r6WsRkLZmWeQMPjuzuEoCxsdq6
Q2ZLE/6pOSd01ieK+5SzQhUZQQtIB2mCu6rhtAVK1zjJPUJ/eLuGWvLmdPnJAGZw
cSPoVqoYW1XSas4ATzcnK9dC71ao9VOS
=je58
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----