Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention

Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will
never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has
highlighted the tensions between the different types of
Net-advocacy groups here in Washington.

The civil liberties groups (ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CPSR), and
journalism, publishers, and media groups have lined up on
one side [http://www.ifea.org/] saying the government
shouldn't pressure the Internet to self-censor (or be
censored by the Feds). They held a counter-summit press
conference yesterday. Even the libertarian Cato Institute
is in this corner.

On the other side, the Center for Democracy and Technology
[http://www.cdt.org/] is participating in the summit along
with antiporn groups, high tech firms, and "censorware"
vendors. CDT says that the Net needs to self-regulate or
face the wrath of the U.S. Congress. (Folks at CDT
generally take pro-industry positions and have been
involved in many compromises in the past: wiretapping,
"harmful to minors," and jail time for use of encryption in
a crime.) CDT, however, has called for the development of
multiple rating systems.

You could easily tell the difference between the two
outlooks today. ACLU associate director Barry Steinhardt
and CDT director Jerry Berman debated this afternoon. "If
we sit back and we offer nothing... that's not a solution
for the American public," Berman said. He said that CDT is
"looking to balance free speech rights" with other values.

-Declan


At 11:04 -0400 12/2/97, Michael Sims wrote:
>What "they" are saying:
>
>SF Chronicle:
>
>"Internet Self-Regulation Draws Wide Praise But advocates for free
>speech call for extreme caution
>
>Jon Swartz, Chronicle Staff Writer
>
> Civil libertarians and porn peddlers yesterday praised the Internet
>industry's attempt at sweeping self-regulation to keep smut out of
>the hands of children and the government at arms' length. ..."
>
>
>Civil libertarians praised sweeping self-regulation, eh?  I hope
>everyone realizes this is CDT that is doing this.  They continue to
>claim they are a civil liberties group, and continue to push for
>restrictions on civil liberties.  Has the ACLU considered setting up
>a group which describes itself as "conservative and pro-family" in
>its press releases and pushes continually for the elimination of
>censorware and ratings?  Such a trojan horse group could hardly do as
>much damage to the censor crowd as CDT continues to do to the
>free-speech crowd, but perhaps it would achieve some measure of
>compensation.
>
>"Pros: [of "filtering"]  Filtering does block out almost all
>inappropriate material."
>
>I sure am glad our message is getting out.
>
>"Education. A series of TV spots and school-sponsored programs
>touting filtering software will debut next fall."
>
>What a treat.  Bennett?  Know anything about this one?
>
>
>Plenty more to come on this subject, I'm sure.
>
>
>-- Michael Sims

At 10:00 AM -0700 12/3/97, David Honig wrote:
>At 12:46 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will
>>never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has
>>highlighted the tensions between the different types of
>>Net-advocacy groups here in Washington.
>
>
>I'm sure the Feds are happy that their Good Cop (Clinton) / Bad Cop (Freeh)
>routine
>is having the divisive effect they planned, and making sacrifices seem
>acceptable.

And made many people clamor for self-policing software.

I have always advocated filtering and self-selection of articles,
magazines, television, movies, restaurants, etc. As such, Web filters are
fine things. If one _only_ wants to read articles favorable to Scientology,
or critical of Catholics, or catering to certain sexual interests, hey,
find some filter services or program your own....

However, the drumbeat is being heard that such filter services may not be
fully "voluntary," inasmuch as the Government is "assisting" in their
development, as the current confab shows. (One wonders what the reaction
would be if Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and other government officials
helped organize a conference on how *religions* can help police themselves
and avoid incorrect thoughts? "Churches must learn to police themselves and
avoide heresies, so that government action will not be needed.")

And there are some who want "mislabelling" made a crime. Thus, if I claim
that my site and my words are suitable for children, and someone (like
Janet Reno) disagrees, I could be charged with "misrepresentation."

This is a wedge to demolish free speech, this "accuracy in labelling"
business. Religions could be forced to "accurately label" their messages.
Speech could be shut down while courts debate whether "misrepresentation"
occurred. As the saying goes, "What is truth?"

And even if truth can be determined, truth is not a requirement for free
speech. (Truth in courtrooms and in contract situations are of course
different situations than ordinary free speech, in speaking, writing,
publishing, and broadcasting.)

(Yes, I am opposed to FDA and SEC rules on truthful speech, unless
contracts are involved. If Joe wants to advertise his Magic Elixir, let
him. Reputations and ratings services (truly free ones, that is) are the
key to bad speech.)

So, the government should just bow out completely, as it is inappropriate
for government to be involved in any way with speech rating.

"Congress shall make no law..." should really be interpreted as "Government
should not get involved at all in...."

But of course government has wiggled and connived its way into speech in
many ways. From the catch-all excuse of "regulating commerce," to the
increasing number of restrictions on commercial speech, on speech in
violation of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, to selective prosecution for
threats and RICO conspiracy and on and on....


--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

On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Tim May wrote:

> And made many people clamor for self-policing software.
> 
> I have always advocated filtering and self-selection of articles,
> magazines, television, movies, restaurants, etc. As such, Web filters are
> fine things. If one _only_ wants to read articles favorable to Scientology,
> or critical of Catholics, or catering to certain sexual interests, hey,
> find some filter services or program your own....
> 
> However, the drumbeat is being heard that such filter services may not be
> fully "voluntary," inasmuch as the Government is "assisting" in their
> development, as the current confab shows. (One wonders what the reaction
> would be if Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and other government officials
> helped organize a conference on how *religions* can help police themselves
> and avoid incorrect thoughts? "Churches must learn to police themselves and
> avoide heresies, so that government action will not be needed.")

I believe I've been beating the drum for that one for a couple months.

Now all we need is to talk to a winsock geek and find out how we
can wedge our software into the winsock layer so that we could release
roll your own censoring software.

We then sell it to all know religious organizations (including those not
necessarily claiming to be ;-).  A small royalty from every thousand
copies sent out is then put into the retired cypherpunks relief fund. 

seriously.  rather than complaining that many people find some
material objectionable to their tastes we should take advantage 
of it...and make it widely available.

All those millions of dollars sent to churches could then be spent
on services delivered to the member families to babysit their kids.

Net effect...Clinton/Bore/Freeh/etc fascist dreams of controlling
the net go up in smoke..

worth it?

jim