Re: HISTORY - pre-CDA, "compromise", untrue civil-liberties groups (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:19:58 -0400
From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
To: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@mit.edu>, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Cc: jberman@cdt.org
Subject: Re: HISTORY - pre-CDA, "compromise", untrue civil-liberties groups

At 4:44 PM -0400 7/17/97, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
>	I finally went back digging through my archives, to confirm my
>memory that we had gone through almost exactly this sort of argument
>in the run-up to the CDA. All the elements were there - the
>"compromise" in terms of attempts to use labeling, the defensiveness
>from EFF, CDT, compared to opposition from the ACLU, and so on. Not a
>whole lot has changed. Mike Godwin was just as snide and snotty then
>as he is now :-).
>
><....>

Ah, the old 'drag out CDT's funding list' trick.  For the record, CDT is
supported by companies and foundations who share our agenda and goals, and
believe that we are effective advocates of our views.  Search all you want
for a consipracy -- you aren't going to find one.

While CDT makes no apology for our position (along with EFF and others) to
reluctantly support White's proposal 2.5 years ago given the context of the
debate (read our statement at
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp311204.html) - the fact is that the
Supreme Court decision settled this debate, and the White compromise was
never passed by Congress.

As for your claim that what happened yesterday at the white house is
similar to the "compromise" of December 1995, you are way off base.

White 1995                                 White House 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Content Regulations imposed                No content regulations, no law
by Congress on all Internet                or regulation of Net, no requiement
Publishers.                                to label or rate content.

Criminal Penalties for                     No criminal penalties for anything
display of Harmful To                      besides trafficing in child
Minors Material w/o good                   pornography, obscenity or
faith effort to block                      stalking kids online (illegal before
kids access                                CDA)

The bottom line is that these are two remarkably different approaches. Even
White himself is supportive of the direction the President articulated
yesterday.

Hope that helps clarify a bit.

Jonah



  * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
            Adopt Your Legislator -  http://www.crypto.com/adopt

--
Jonah Seiger, Communications Director                  (v) +1.202.637.9800
Center for Democracy and Technology                 pager: +1.202.859.2151
<jseiger@cdt.org>

http://www.cdt.org                                      PGP Key via finger
http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger/

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

In <Pine.LNX.3.95.970717175139.11493B-100000@vorlon.mit.edu>, on 07/17/97 
   at 05:51 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan@vorlon.mit.edu> said:

Declan,

I sniped this from your forwarded post:


>White 1995                                 White House 1997
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Content Regulations imposed                No content regulations, no law
>by Congress on all Internet                or regulation of Net, no
>requiement Publishers.                                to label or rate
>content.

>Criminal Penalties for                     No criminal penalties for
>anything display of Harmful To                      besides trafficing in
>child Minors Material w/o good                   pornography, obscenity
>or faith effort to block                      stalking kids online
>(illegal before kids access                                CDA)


Do you have any docs or transcripts from the meeting with the White House?

What is being claimed above about the current proposal and what I ahve
been hearing here are two differnet things. It was my understnding that
the current proposal was very much like the White proposal in '95.

Any clairifcation you can provide on this matter would be appreciated.

Thanks,



- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM86PuI9Co1n+aLhhAQGs9wP/RPNSdQxvRvWgThjPGWG6wbS0m4wyjaPz
K1psZ+UZwsng3htjbo9KF023NfQMJo4+soQk7UkZiD8du4WejBQWA6epGmM6/MB7
12FwSwnRz0EmruUrC7sGYq3TcG2f3DP2mEF5znQjcCYKnbn0nmcYFpSQJc+Hy/nR
gcVOqvaW4gI=
=C+sN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----