Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate

Danny,

Trying to deny that CDT supported the White harmful to minors "compromise"
is a sad attempt at history revisionism. As Marc Rotenberg said, "CDT
supported the White measure and went to great pains to blame the members of
the conference committee who did not endorse it."

Which is of course true. After the vote you lost on the harmful to minors
"compromise":

     -- Comm Daily reported: Jerry Berman, exec. dir. of Center for
	Democracy & Technology, which had tried to forge
	compromise on issue, said he had been betrayed "by
	liberal Democrats, who are supposed to be protectors of
	the Constitution.

     -- IISR reported: Jerry Berman, executive director of the
	Center for Democracy and Technology, called the [vote on
	the] White proposal "a significant defeat for civil liberties
	in cyberspace.

     -- EETimes reported: "The House came within an inch of
	getting it right," says Jerry Berman, Center for
	Democracy and Technology.

Either the world's population of journalists are in a vast clandestine
conspiracy to misrepresent your organization's position or ... CDT (gasp!)
did in fact embrace the HTM so-called compromise.

You must remember, after all, that CDT declined to sign a December 5, 1995
coalition letter that told Congress to "to reject *all* proposals to impose
new government censorship regulations on cyberspace." Why didn't you sign
it?  (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html)

Instead, as I recall, CDT was up on stage with the anti-porn advocates to
unveil the "compromise." (I admit my memory's fuzzy on this point. I'm sure
you'll clarify.)

Where was I then? When the news of the "compromise" broke in December 1995,
I was in Cambridge having brunch with Harvey Silverglate (who's now
defending the Au Pair case) and other local free-speech advocates. As I
wrote in a post to f-c at the time, all of us were astonished to see the
headline in the New York Times: "Civil liberties groups accept compromise."
Of course it was CDT that accepted it. ACLU said at the time here on f-c
that "no true civil liberties group" would ever agree to supporting that
kind of censorship.

Also, contrary to what you claim, I'm not an "opponent" of filtering
software. Parents have the right to use it with their children. I believe,
however, that public institutions must abide by the First Amendment when
installing it.

I'm glad you provided this opportunity to clarify these issues. Now perhaps
we can move on to discussing the Coats bill.

-Declan


On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Daniel J. Weitzner wrote:

> Declan,
>
> It's kind of you to get the word out about this new Coats bill, but you
> have managed to seriously mischaracterize CDT's position on the White
> legislation of 1995.  We did not believe that Congress should have passed
> the White Compromise, and certaily never "embraced" it, as you write.
> Based on my initial reading of the Coats bill, we will certainly oppose it.
>
> The Coats bill, with it's emphasis on age verification as a means to
> "protect" kids and provide online publishers with liability limitation, is
> actually a direct result of Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the
> CDA case and her desire to try to "zone" cyberspace.  Following Larry
> Lessig, she suggests that instead of relying on individually-controlled
> blocking and filtering software, it is better for the government to require
> that certain content be placed behind age verification firewalls.  Prof.
> Lessig prefers this zoning to what you have characterized as "censorware."
> I hope that you, as an opponent of user empowerment filtering tools like
> Larry, do not prefer this O'Connor/Lessig approach too?
>
> I can't remember whether you were actually around in 1995, either as
> journalist or activist, so let me remind you of what we and other civil
> liberties advocates like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC said.
>
> In the New York Times (12/2/95, p.A1)
>
>    "While it does embody much of the original Exon proposal, it does so in
> a way
> that tries to embody a constitutionally recognized standard," said Jerry
> Berman, director of the Center of Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group
> that focuses on civil rights and technology issues.
>
> and Jerry went on to say:
>
> "I don't think we need any legislation at all."
>
> Marc seemed to take a similar position:
>
> "It is preferable to the Exon bill, but ultimately this issue will be
> resolved in the courts, which is where it should be resolved," said Marc
> Rotenberg....
>
> Both CDT and EPIC recognized that as a plain matter of constitional law,
> the "harmful to minor" standard is more broadly accepted by courts around
> the country, but that the legislation was still an unwise infringement on
> Internet speech.
>
> We still believe that.
>
> We can certainly have a discussion about the various legislative strategies
> employed during the final days of the CDA debate and House-Senate
> conference, but frankly I think there's more important work to do.
>
> I hope that future discussions on this list can focus on how to defeat
> misguided efforts like the Coats bill, instead of misleading
> characterization of the past.
>
> Finally, Declan, I would suggest that when you want to characterize CDT
> positions you talk to someone at CDT, or at least find some documentation
> of your assertions.  I know that you recognize you have an obligation as a
> journalist to check facts and sources with some care.  That sort of care
> would also help in discussions among activists.  I'm never exactly sure
> whether you think of yourself as a journalist or activist when writing to
> FC, but whichever it is, I hope you'll try to avoid this confusion in the
> future by talking to us.

[Got a note from a longtime Hill observer on CDT and their "harmful to
minors" compromise. --Declan]

>I remember a press conference, or a briefing, on the Hill in which
>White, AOL, ISA, CDT, et. al. were promoting the measure very
>heavily.  Jerry spoke out strongly in favor of it.
>
>Memories in Washington are short, and distortions are the currency of
>the realm.

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Jonah,
> Contrary to what you claim, I'm not "trying to accomplish" anything except
> report the facts.
... 
> Then CDT responded to my article publicly, incorrectly claiming that CDT
> did not embrace the harmful to minors "compromise." My post was to correct
> those inaccuracies and clear the air -- and, you'll remember I concluded by
> saying I hoped we could move forward to discussing Coats. You seem unable
> -- or unwilling -- to do that.

  Has anyone noticed that the cycles of CDT intrusions into the
CypherPunks list occurs with about the same frequency as the phone
calls from the aluminum siding salesmen who call us in their search
for old people with huddled life savings, struggling to be free?
  The underlying concept is the same. Once they stretch their scam
a little too far, and get run out of town, the perpetrators move on
to fresh territory. When they run out of new areas to run their scam,
then they begin re-working old territory, starting with the areas
where their targets are likely to have forgotten the details of their
last scam.
  CDT should take a lesson from the aluminum siding salesmen, and 
change their name when they start a fresh round of scamming. 
 ("No ma''m, we're the CD'T&A'. No connection to those scumbag, lying
ratfuckers that suck the dicks of the Fascist powermongers. No...that 
was _another_ Jonah Seiger. I am trying to atone for his sins against 
my name by offering you a special deal on a revolutionary new product
called VaporSiding."

  Right...
  What list subscribers need to understand is that the CDT recognizes
the need to compromise on important issues, so that 'reasonable' people
like themselves are not unjustly linked with terrorists like Tim May,
who threaten the lives of judges four or five times a day.
 (Which we know, because Little Bobby Hettinga has been pointing his
  finger at Tim eighty times per post, reminding us of Tim's death
  threats against the OKC bombing judge, who Tim plans to slaughter
  at 4 p.m. next Thursday.)

  Tim May, JUDGE KILLER, sent a post to the list that quoted the
passage that Louis F. Hettinga has been misrepresenting, only to
have LFH and other list members (some of who should know better)
continue to recycle/respond-to this misrepresentation of CONVICTED
JUDGE MURDERER Tim May's words.
  Naturally, 'reasonable' organizations, such as the CDT, will need
to distance themselves from CONVICTED JUDGE MURDERERS AND RAPISTS
like Tim May, in order to get at the life savings of increasingly
senile supporters, and be listened to seriously by those with whom
they are seeking to compromise our freedom and privacy as a good-
faith gesture to those who would frown on the CDT supporting those
freedoms and privacies for even CONVICTED JUDGE MURDERING, RAPIST
PEDOPHILE, DRUG-DEALING TERRORISTS such as Tim May.

  My respose to the CDT is thus: "Beat it, guys. The Electronic Fraud
Foundation is working this side of the street. The Georgia Cracker
remailer operators tried cutting our action on this list, but they 
quickly found that you can't type with broken fingers."

TruthMonger
"It's not VaporSiding until *I* say it's VaporSiding!"

Jonah, mon ami, I had almost forgotten the details of this little episode
in 1995 where CDT praises the "harmful to minors" version of the CDA.
Thanks for reminding me to refresh my memory. This excerpt is from a
document called "CDT-led Coalition letter to Telecomm Conferees, 11/9/95"
that lives at your web site.

http://www.cdt.org/policy/freespeech/1109_iwg_ltr.html
>"We believe it is possible to craft a criminal statute that punishes
>those who provide truly harmful material to children in a manner
>that both targets the serious offenses about which some conservative
>family groups are most concerned, and that also will withstand
>constitutional scrutiny. In particular, rather than relying on the
>vague and constitutionally suspect "indecency" standard, Congress
>should instead consider the "harmful to minors" standard within the
>framework of Title 18 of the United Sates Code. This standard is
>used in numerous state statutes and has been found constitutional
>by the United States Supreme Court."

-Declan

ObBillGates: Microsoft signed the letter too.

Jonah,

Contrary to what you claim, I'm not "trying to accomplish" anything except
report the facts. (Somehow you don't seem to like them very much.) You'll
remember that when I wrote about the Coats CDA II bill, I included one
paragraph about the history of "harmful to minors" legislation:

>Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not
>as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that
>Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and
>Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995.
>Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material
>that was "harmful to minors."

Then CDT responded to my article publicly, incorrectly claiming that CDT
did not embrace the harmful to minors "compromise." My post was to correct
those inaccuracies and clear the air -- and, you'll remember I concluded by
saying I hoped we could move forward to discussing Coats. You seem unable
-- or unwilling -- to do that.

So, if you insist, we'll revisit your "harmful to minors" compromise.
You're now denying that CDT's Jerry Berman stood up with Rick White and
Bruce "CDA" Taylor in a House hearing room to announce the "compromise?"
You're arguing that the three press reports I forwarded about CDT
supporting the "compromise" are inaccurate?

-Declan


At 08:21 -0400 11/13/97, Jonah Seiger wrote:
>At 10:59 PM -0500 11/12/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>[Got a note from a longtime Hill observer on CDT and their "harmful to
>>minors" compromise. --Declan]
>
>Will you give this up aleady? What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish?
>
>>>I remember a press conference, or a briefing, on the Hill in which
>>>White, AOL, ISA, CDT, et. al. were promoting the measure very
>>>heavily.  Jerry spoke out strongly in favor of it.
>
>This briefing was NOT about the "white compromise", it was about the
>Cox-Wyden "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act" in July of 1995.
>As you may recall, the Cox-Wyden bill, which passed the house 420-4,
>prohibited the gvt from imposing content regulations on the Net.  CDT did
>indeed strongly support the Cox-Wyden bill.
>
>The "White Compromise" was brought together and offered at the 11th hour of
>the conference committee negotiations in December of 1995.  There was never
>a press conference about it. And, for the record, CDT's policy post about
>the White bill can be found at http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp311204.html
>
>>>Memories in Washington are short, and distortions are the currency of
>>>the realm.
>
>Unfortunately, so is forwarding completely false and misleading information
>Declan.  This is just so foolish.
>
>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/

Declan McCullagh wrote: 
> Danny,
> Trying to deny that CDT supported the White harmful to minors "compromise"
> is a sad attempt at history revisionism. As Marc Rotenberg said, "CDT
> supported the White measure and went to great pains to blame the members of
> the conference committee who did not endorse it."

  Do people actually listen to the CDT and give them money, or do they
just give them money?
  Every time I have read one of the CDT's releases, I have to shake my
head and read it again in order to make certain it not is some kind of
spoof by a semi-retarded government spook. The releases are ofen not
even consistent within themselves, let alone when compared to their
other press releases and the claims of their employees in emails.
  I keep reading variations of "We're fighting for peace, and fucking
for virginity!" or some such nonsensical crap.

  Invariably, after the dust has settled, and the CDT embarks on some
new campaign, I look at their new releases, or the email of their
employees, and I see them claiming all kinds of things which I remember
as being the complete opposite of their claim.
  The last two times this happened, I checked the archives myself, but
this time I am going to just take the word of the other hundred people
who post to say that the CDT is full of lying, fraudulent fucks.

  Is it really that easy to make bucks in the 'Defenders of Freedom'
marketplace? Maybe I need to start an organization to save the rest
of you poor, pathetic creatures on the list from [Your Cause Here].
  What are the high-dollar buzzwords, these days? Liberal, Democracy,
Freedom? How about 'Free-Dumb' to get a little cash coming in from
slow Republicans, too?

  What is *really* scary is the thought that the people who give money
to the CDT probably vote, too.

TruthMonger

At 10:59 PM -0500 11/12/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>[Got a note from a longtime Hill observer on CDT and their "harmful to
>minors" compromise. --Declan]

Will you give this up aleady? What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish?

>>I remember a press conference, or a briefing, on the Hill in which
>>White, AOL, ISA, CDT, et. al. were promoting the measure very
>>heavily.  Jerry spoke out strongly in favor of it.

This briefing was NOT about the "white compromise", it was about the
Cox-Wyden "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act" in July of 1995.
As you may recall, the Cox-Wyden bill, which passed the house 420-4,
prohibited the gvt from imposing content regulations on the Net.  CDT did
indeed strongly support the Cox-Wyden bill.

The "White Compromise" was brought together and offered at the 11th hour of
the conference committee negotiations in December of 1995.  There was never
a press conference about it. And, for the record, CDT's policy post about
the White bill can be found at http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp311204.html

>>Memories in Washington are short, and distortions are the currency of
>>the realm.

Unfortunately, so is forwarding completely false and misleading information
Declan.  This is just so foolish.

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/

At 8:51 am -0500 on 11/13/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:


> Bruce "CDA" Taylor

Nit. It's not Bruce "CDA" Taylor. It's Bruce "Penis with a Blister on it"
Taylor.

A moniker assigned to Mr. Taylor for his continued repetition of the phrase
into a microphone, in order to drown the speech of someone on a panel with
him at CFP96.

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/
Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>