Fight-each-other

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: "James S. Tyre" <j.s.tyre@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Fight-each-other

Some random thoughts:

It's no surprise that pro-CDA folks are on f-c. Paul Cardin from OCAF
subscribed about a year ago. Bruce Taylor and lawyers for Enough is Enough
and the Family Research Council have been known to frequent the list,
along with a variety of Hill staffers.

They do a better job of keeping their disagreements under wraps, though if
you ask the right questions you'll learn about some of the riffs that
split their community over CDA I. We're not as organized -- nor should we
be. Netizens, by their very nature, can't march in lockstep together. 
Sure, the pro-CDA I forces will hear our squabbles, smell our dirty
laundry. But this debate won't continue forever, and perhaps some common
ground will emerge.

Maybe it was naive to think that the anti-CDA coalition would hang
together after the Supreme Court decision. After all, the current fault
lines are split along some of the same divisions that existed for a year
and a half in two lawsuits: the one organized by the ACLU and the one
organized by CIEC. I've heard some say that the current dispute was
inevitable. 

Or, think of it this way: when privacy groups ally with the religious
right on database legislation, they don't expect their alliance to last
forever. Or when librarians join with Sony, Bell Atlantic, and Sun on
copyright lobbying. Or when the ACLU joins the Eagle Forum on crypto. Or
when the Cato Institute joins Ralph Nader on opposing the CDA.

These are issue-by-issue alliances, and everyone involved understands that
from the start. Perhaps we should have thought of the CDA alliance the
same way? Or perhaps the conflict arises because all groups would like to
claim the mantle of "representing the interests of the Net" -- which
brings with it some political currency here in Washington. And some might
say the tussle comes from long-standing personality conflicts.

Again, these are stream-of-consciousness thoughts, typed in while watching
that excerable new TV show "Roar." I haven't thought this through as much
as I'd like.

-Declan


On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, James S. Tyre wrote:

> The note below was sent to me privately earlier today.  I will respect
> the author's privacy by not revealing who s/he is, but y'all might take
> heed of what the author says.
> 
> I am familiar with the author from elsewhere, and many on f-c might well
> agree with the self-characterization (which, in this context, has
> nothing to do with Libertarianism, pro or con).

At 7:30 PM -0700 7/21/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:

>same way? Or perhaps the conflict arises because all groups would like to
>claim the mantle of "representing the interests of the Net" -- which
>brings with it some political currency here in Washington. And some might

Nope, not all groups would like to claim they are "representing the
interests of the Net." And not all individuals, either. I don't recall any
plausible consensus of the Cypherpunks claiming to represent the interests
of the Net.

I've never claimed to represent the interests of "the Net"--I just want
anyone who tries to tell me what to do in violation of the strict limits of
the Constitution (especially the Old Testament version, not the newfangled
New Testament that says I have to hire some percentage of coloreds, for
example) to _STOP_.

And I don't trust legislation. Only way to STOP them is to use
technological monkeywrenches. The stuff that should be well-known, even to
Washington burrowcrats.

And I'm not convinced the "alliance" against the CDA was terribly
important. Had the Eagle Forum, or whatever, and the CPSR, or whatever, not
been part of the suit, the ACLU lawyers would still likely have carried the
day. The Supremes may have been willing to look the other way on some major
constitutional issues the last several decades, but some things are just
too clear cut violations of the First, even for them.

(Similarly, I expect the "mandatory voluntary Net ratings" system to fail.
It's not even clear if television networks have to "voluntarily self-rate,"
as the NBC refusal is likely to ultimately show, and these are networks
ostensibly bound by FCC rules and the usual "scarce spectrum" arguments.
The Net is exactly like print, and there is no plausible argument for
demanding that all writers classify their writings according to some
government standard. (Lest this not be clear, suppose that my value system
argues that sex and profanity are necessary parts of a child's education,
so I voluntarily rate my writings as "suitable for children of all ages."
What then? And must I warn Muslims that my writings may be offensive to
them? And so on, for literally hundreds or more everyday examples. The
Supremes will strike this mandatory voluntary "Children's Protection and
Safe Surfing Act" down pronto. Whether or not a Grand Alliance is formed.)

By the way, I've attempted to comply with the spirit of Comrad Clinton's
ratings system. See below.

--Tim May


Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article
(U.S. Statute 43-666-970719).
Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance
is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable
by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense,
and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself
not contain material in violation of the Act.

** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** :

Suitable for Children: yes  Age Rating: 5 years and up.
Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No  Hindus: Yes
Pacifists: No  Government Officials: No  Nihilists: Yes  Anarchists: Yes
Vegetarians: Yes  Vegans: No  Homosexuals: No  Atheists: Yes
Caucasoids: Yes  Negroids: No  Mongoloids: Yes
Bipolar Disorder: No  MPD: Yes and No  Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh?

--Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture,
regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering.
--Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of
color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article.

**SUMMARY**
Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1
Composite Age Rating: 45 years

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
(reasonable stuff)
> ** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** :
> 
> Suitable for Children: yes  Age Rating: 5 years and up.
> Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No  Hindus: Yes
> Pacifists: No  Government Officials: No  Nihilists: Yes  Anarchists: Yes
> Vegetarians: Yes  Vegans: No  Homosexuals: No  Atheists: Yes
> Caucasoids: Yes  Negroids: No  Mongoloids: Yes
> Bipolar Disorder: No  MPD: Yes and No  Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh?
> 
> --Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture,
> regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering.
> --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of
> color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article.
> 
> **SUMMARY**
> Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1
> Composite Age Rating: 45 years
> 
> 

This is hilarious.

It also gives me an idea for a project, if anyone wants one:

Put out your own .RAT file with shit like "advocates censorship" or
"opposes use of crypto".  Put out PICS ratings against the material
on the net using this .RAT file.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Maybe it was naive to think that the anti-CDA coalition would hang
> together after the Supreme Court decision. After all, the current fault
> lines are split along some of the same divisions that existed for a year
> and a half in two lawsuits: the one organized by the ACLU and the one
> organized by CIEC. I've heard some say that the current dispute was
> inevitable. 
> 
> Or, think of it this way: when privacy groups ally with the religious
> right on database legislation, they don't expect their alliance to last
> forever. Or when librarians join with Sony, Bell Atlantic, and Sun on
> copyright lobbying. Or when the ACLU joins the Eagle Forum on crypto. Or
> when the Cato Institute joins Ralph Nader on opposing the CDA.
> 
> These are issue-by-issue alliances, and everyone involved understands that
> from the start. Perhaps we should have thought of the CDA alliance the
> same way? Or perhaps the conflict arises because all groups would like to
> claim the mantle of "representing the interests of the Net" -- which
> brings with it some political currency here in Washington. And some might
> say the tussle comes from long-standing personality conflicts.

I think something more is going on, at least with the "conserative
movement", but I also watch National Empowerment Television :).

Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that
simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional
authority to be in.  They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the
only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon.  I would number
Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group.

The other side (e.g. Concerned Women For America) wants to "tame" or turn
the dragon and assume they can make the power to kill and imprison work
for good when they are in control, and will even let Bill & Hillary run
things if they "will only save our kids from cyberporn".

The first group are deserting the Republican party as such in droves (look
for a Libertarian party pickup if the party avoids being too libertine). 
The Republican coalition is based on shrinking the power and cost of
government and the people they have proved to be ineffective or even
against shrinking government in practice.  Principled losses would be
welcomed over compromised victories, but even worse, they stand on
principle for two weeks, and when it looks like they are about to win, but
are getting a media barrage only inside the beltway, they cave in
suffering all the scars of battle without anything to show for it.  The
next (1998) election should be interesting. 

The CDA brought the differences into clear view.  I usually ask if they
would like Joycelyn Elders to decide what gets censored (Who do they think
Bill & Hillary would appoint?), or if the same courts that they say can't
tell up from down in their judicial abuse alerts will be able to decide on
whether an anti-abortion site is "indecent".

What I cannot understand is why people who spend a great deal of their
content cataloging abuses from all branches of government and otherwise
say it is too intrusive believe that in the instance of net censorship
that it will suddenly turn into a wise and beatific force when every other
bit of evidence would indicate otherwise. 

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---

Mismatched NFS IDs writes:

> I think something more is going on, at least with the "conserative
> movement", but I also watch National Empowerment Television :).
> 
> Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that
> simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional
> authority to be in.  They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the
> only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon.  I would number
> Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group.

Sure, *they* want to be left alone, but I wouldn't trust these
groups to leave the rest of us alone.  They'll want to make sure
that we're not ingesting any controlled substances, and that we're
not shacking up with an unmarried partner, and that we're not peeking
at porn or engaging in "abnormal" sexual practices, and that we pray
to the right god at the right time, and so forth.  These groups are
not friends of liberty.  Like the traditional "liberals", they seek
not so much to slay the dragon as to replace it with their own.  If
they currently happen to agree with "us" on net issues, fine.  
Otherwise, give me true libertarians anyday.


[snip]
> The first group are deserting the Republican party as such in droves (look
> for a Libertarian party pickup if the party avoids being too libertine). 

Hah!  Can anyone imagine the Libertarians supporting an Anti-abortion
amendment, or a school prayer amendment or a flag-burning amendment?
No, I don't think these folks will be joining the Libertarian party
anytime soon.


-- Jeff

Regarding the subject, Q.E.D.

On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Jeff Barber wrote:

> > Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that
> > simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional
> > authority to be in.  They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the
> > only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon.  I would number
> > Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group.
> 
> Sure, *they* want to be left alone, but I wouldn't trust these
> groups to leave the rest of us alone.  They'll want to make sure
> that we're not ingesting any controlled substances, and that we're
> not shacking up with an unmarried partner, and that we're not peeking
> at porn or engaging in "abnormal" sexual practices, and that we pray
> to the right god at the right time, and so forth.  These groups are
> not friends of liberty.  Like the traditional "liberals", they seek
> not so much to slay the dragon as to replace it with their own.  If
> they currently happen to agree with "us" on net issues, fine.  
> Otherwise, give me true libertarians anyday.

You either missed or paraphrased my second paragraph.  My point is
precisely that the rift is between those who want to use government to
regulate the things you mention, and those who don't think it is the
government's business, whether they consider them good or bad.  The
organizations I mentioned here specifically don't want the federal
government trying to control these things.

In general, sacrificing one's own liberty in an attempt to limit someone
else's behavior when it doesn't affect anyone else, even if it is
self-destructive, is silly. 

Both France and the United States had revolutions at about the same time.
One eventually established liberty and the other a reign of terror, but
both thought they were "true libertarians".

> > The first group are deserting the Republican party as such in droves (look
> > for a Libertarian party pickup if the party avoids being too libertine). 
> 
> Hah!  Can anyone imagine the Libertarians supporting an Anti-abortion
> amendment, or a school prayer amendment or a flag-burning amendment?
> No, I don't think these folks will be joining the Libertarian party
> anytime soon.

Political parties are defined by their members and a membership change
would result in a policy change.  I can imagine a 10th ammendment style
anti-abortion ammendment which would overturn Roe v. Wade and remove the
federal government from the debate.  I can also imagine a similar
ammendment returning us to "public schools" instead of the current
"government schools" which would have prayers or not as part of their
local policy.  And I have heard many "conservative Republicans" say that
they should trivially alter the constitution for something like flag
descration. 

But I will even go further.  There is such an organization as Libertarians
for Life - where you stand on the abortion question is dependent on when
you think a human life becomes a person with constitutional protections,
not on whether you think there should be laws against murder, or whether
people who want medical procedures should be able to have them, which
there is almost unanimous agreement on.  The rift in the Republican party
will cause a similar one in the Libertarian party, between the Actonite
and Libertine and even the anarchical wings.  Even libertarinaism is not a
point, but a continuum.  True libertarians all agree that my rights end
where yours begin, but not on exactly where that line is, and rights are
only one side of the equation.  Liberty is precious and a delicate balance
which is why it is so rare.

Liberty has a cost of personal responsibility.  Ingesting controlled
substances can affect me if they drive or work for me.  Remember that the
other side of this is that I would be able to personally evaluate all
these things when deciding to hire someone I intend for a long term
position - they can have all their privacy but no job, or would have to
act under my definition of responsibility - and you would be equally free
to hire people who met your standards.

Or to update the old joke, A socialist is a libertarian who has overdosed
or injured someone during a blackout, had a child out of wedlock, or has
contracted a STD.  They probably start praying too :).

At 10:06 -0400 7/23/97, Jeff Barber wrote:

>An implicit threat to use government to regulate the industry.
>
>I could do the same thing with the Progress and Freedom Foundation
>or the National Empowerment TV group you mentioned, but what's the
>point?  These people are not libertarians!  And grouping them into
>something called the "leave-us-alone" coalition is a fraud.

PFF would like to be more libertarian than conservative, though they've
been quieter recently after many of their staff members left. I'm thinking
of going to their Aspen conference next month, but I hear that it's been
going downhill.

I've been on National Empowerment TV a few times, and they're hardcore
conservatives, not libertarians. The Family Research Council's Cathy
Cleaver has her own show on there where she rants about how we need more
government censorship of the Net.

-Declan


-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

Last night (7/24/97), on National Empowerment Television, the hosts of
Endangered Liberties honored Phil Zimmerman for his work on PGP, and they
even had an employee of PGP there to discuss the program and the policy
problems.

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---

Nobody writes:

> > > Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that
> > > simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional
> > > authority to be in.  They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the
> > > only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon.  I would number
> > > Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group.
> > 
> > Sure, *they* want to be left alone, but I wouldn't trust these
> > groups to leave the rest of us alone.
[snip]
> >                                                    These groups are
> > not friends of liberty.  Like the traditional "liberals", they seek
> > not so much to slay the dragon as to replace it with their own.

> You either missed or paraphrased my second paragraph.  My point is
> precisely that the rift is between those who want to use government to
> regulate the things you mention, and those who don't think it is the
> government's business, whether they consider them good or bad.  The
> organizations I mentioned here specifically don't want the federal
> government trying to control these things.

OK, let's look at one of these organizations.  Here's certain bullets
from the mission statement from Eagle Forum's web site, followed by
my annotations.  I've omitted most of their bullets, some of which
I actually agree with.

o	Supports a strong national defense and the protection of
	American sovereignty and jobs against encroachments by
	international agreements. We support using the newest
	technology to build a strong ballistic missile defense. We
	oppose weakening the military by putting women and open
	homosexuals in combat assignments. We oppose "New World
	Order" interventions -- a government that can't protect our
	safety in America's cities has no business trying to police the
	world. 

Protection of jobs by government as implied here does not reflect a
perception of government as "an intrinsic evil".


o	Supports a health care system that puts control of spending in
	the hands of individuals -- not the government. We support
	individual medical savings accounts plus tax fairness, so that all
	Americans can buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars. 

Again, a government solution, not a clear "keep the government out of
the health care system."


o	Supports conservative and pro-family policies at every level of
	government. 

There's that G-word again.


o	Opposes government subsidies for offensive "art," elective
	abortions, or immoral lifestyles. 

But implicit in this is that they *would* give government subsidies
to art they don't find offensive, and would support "moral" lifestyles
(for their definition of moral).  Otherwise, why don't they come out 
and say "we oppose ALL government subsidies for art" and "we think
the government ought not promote any lifestyle"?


o	Opposes violence, pornography, and attacks on traditional
	family values by the entertainment industry. 

An implicit threat to use government to regulate the industry.

I could do the same thing with the Progress and Freedom Foundation
or the National Empowerment TV group you mentioned, but what's the
point?  These people are not libertarians!  And grouping them into
something called the "leave-us-alone" coalition is a fraud.


-- Jeff