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

-----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)

Sir Robin of Locksley wrote:
 
 >  >       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.
 
 >  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...
 
   I'm afraid that you are in the minority in your beliefs, at least
 here on the CypherPunks list.
   Most CypherPunks believe that we need a higher authority to protect
 us from things that we don't want to see.  Most CypherPunks see that
 Beneviolent Moderation is a good thing, as was made plain from the
 discussions on the list in this regard, so I assume that they would
 not be so hypocritical as to oppose the attempts of others to bring
 the blessing of Beneviolent Moderation to everyone on the InterNet.
   I expect the majority of CypherPunks will be more than willing to
 throw their support behind efforts to remove pornography from the
 whole InterNet, just as they were eager to remove posts containing
 'bad words' from this list.
 
   Of course, you must realize that I don't pretend to speak for
 all CypherPunks subscribers--only for the upright, decent ones,
 who, like Donna Rice-Hughes, want to live in a safe, filtered
 world, free from the intrusion of wrong-thinkers.
  Some of the CypherPunk subscribers seem to favor taking personal
responsibility for what they chose to read or not read, but they
are just a small, troublesome minority on the list.

  Donna Rice-Hughes and her crowd are merely late-comers on the
moderation scene, trying to emulate the 'good' CypherPunks who
finally stood up and said, "Enough is enough."
 
 Toto

Toto wrote:
> Sir Robin of Locksley wrote:
> > > 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.

> > 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...

I didn't see the question anywhere, so I'm asking:

This Donna Rice-Hughes couldn't possibly be the Donna Rice who sat on
Gary Hart's lap for the famous picture, could she?