[Noise] Re: Clinton Backs Internet 'Decency Act'

At 10:35 AM 6/14/96 -0700, you wrote:

>This is also at odds with what Clinton said. The full text of the statement
>is available on whitehouse.gov, among other places.

        I don't see how necessarily. (1) He supports the bill, and (2) he
thinks the bill is within the realm of constitutionality, his statement is
rather weak, but I think if you take the two points above, their summation
is obvious and _is_ contrary to the bravado of Gore's MIT commencement
speech. This is not to say he could very well back off to save face, which
is what he is starting to do, and I hope he continues to do... 


 Statement by President Clinton in reaction to Court Decision




                             THE WHITE HOUSE

                      Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                                       June 12, 1996

                         STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

The Justice Department is reviewing today's three judge panel court
decision on the Communications Decency Act.  The opinion just came down
today, and the statute says we have twenty days to make an appeal.

I remain convinced, as I was when I signed the bill, that our Constitution
allows us to help parents by enforcing this Act to prevent children from
being exposed to objectionable material transmitted though computer
networks.  I will continue to do everything I can in my Administration to
give families every available tool to protect their children from these
materials. For example, we vigorously support the development and
widespread availability of products that allow both parents and schools to
block objectionable materials from reaching computers that children use.
And we also support the industry's accelerating efforts to rate Internet
sites so that they are compatible with these blocking techniques.

                               -30-30-30-

_______________________
Regards,            Democracy is where you can say what you think 
                    even if you don't think. -?
Joseph  Reagle      http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html
reagle@mit.edu      E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65  BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 15-Jun-96 [Noise] Re: Clinton Backs I.. 
by Joseph M. R. Jr.@MIT.EDU 

Rich Graves wrote:
RG>This is also at odds with what Clinton said. The full text of the
RG>statement is available on whitehouse.gov, among other places.

>  
>         I don't see how necessarily. (1) He supports the bill, and (2) he
> thinks the bill is within the realm of constitutionality, his statement is
> rather weak, but I think if you take the two points above, their summation
> is obvious and _is_ contrary to the bravado of Gore's MIT commencement
> speech. This is not to say he could very well back off to save face, which
> is what he is starting to do, and I hope he continues to do... 

It is in fact not at odds with what Clinton said. In fact, Clinton did
not have to go out and defend the law's constitutionality in an official
statement.

He could have just said "my attorneys in the DoJ are reviewing the
opinion and will make a decision to appeal or not within the time given
by law."

-Declan