No Subject

On Feb. 1, 1996, the US House of Representatives
voted to pass the Telecommunications Reform Act. 

This Act included the Communications Decency Act,
which sought to criminalize posting to the
Internet any material deemed indecent and patently
offensive, with no exception for socially
redeeming material. 

On Sept. 11, 1998, the US House of Representatives
voted to release the Referral of Independent
Counsel Starr on the Internet. 

365 individuals were Members of Congress during
these two votes, 196 Republicans and 169
Democrats. 

Of that total, 284, or 77.6%, voted Aye both
times. 

185 of the Republicans, or 94.4%, voted Aye both
times. 

96 of the Democrats, or 56.8%, voted Aye both
times. 

Had the Communications Decency Act withstood
judicial review (which it did not), posting the
Starr report to the Internet arguably would have
subjected the posters to fines of $250,000 and 5
years in prison. 

The question of who voted for both the CDA and the
release of the Starr report is not cut-and-dried,
because Congress did not record a roll-call vote
for the CDA in isolation, but only for its vehicle
the Telecommunications Reform Act. Also, the vote
Friday to post the Starr report was primarily a
vote to start up impeachment machinery. 

Nevertheless, if accountability to the voters
means anything in this democracy, the Congress
members who voted "Aye" on both February 1, 1996
and September 11, 1998 ought to come in for a bit
of uncomfortable public exposure. 


<href=http://www.tbtf.com/resource/hypocrites.html>http://www.tbtf.com/resource/hypocrites.html</a>

At 10:29 AM -0700 9/16/98, Anonymous wrote:

>Had the Communications Decency Act withstood
>judicial review (which it did not), posting the
>Starr report to the Internet arguably would have
>subjected the posters to fines of $250,000 and 5
>years in prison.

You're missing an important point: when has government not found ways to
exempt itself from laws? Whether the laws are about Social Security,
overtime, quotas for hiring, or even libel and slander, Congress and the
other branches exempt themselves. How convenient.

I don't know for sure if buried in Section 17, Paragraph 42  of the CDA was
an exemption for Official Government Documents, but I expect lawyers
would've found ample ways to publish what they want to publish. Amongst
other things, there would be many problems in forcing official documents,
court reports, executive findings, etc., to be bowdlerized to meet the CDA
requirements.

And the burrowcrats just _love_ to have laws which apply to the sheeple,
and not to them.

So I wouldn't make too much of this "apparent violation" of the CDA.

Don't forget that throughout history bluenoses and puritans have gotten off
on holding up examples of thoughtcrime.

--Tim May

(This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

Tim May wrote:
> Don't forget that throughout history bluenoses and puritans have gotten off
> on holding up examples of thoughtcrime.
> 
I suppose that allows them to enjoy the material under the guise of
saving the rest of us from it. Or maybe, just maybe, they want to punish
somebody because they are unable to partake of the feast without feeling
guilt strong enough to cause sphincter lockup.

Mike