- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Ruling in child porn 1st amendment challenge
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've placed a copy of Judge Conti's ruling in _Free Speech Coalition v. Reno_, the case challenging the Child Pornography Prevention Act on First Amendment grounds, on the web at: <http://www.parrhesia.com/cp.html>. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.

1 0

Text of Clinton's remarks on child safety locks for handguns
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT This week, Smith and Wesson -- the world's largest manufacturer of handguns -- announced that it is forging a partnership with the Master Lock Company to provide a child safety lock with every handgun sold for commercial use. I applaud both of these companies for their efforts to promote gun safety. I particularly want to commend Smith and Wesson for taking an important and responsible step for children's safety. Child safety locks are the right thing to do. In 1994, 185 children were killed by accidental gunshot wounds. That is why my anti-gang and youth violence legislation would require that all federally licensed gun dealers provide such safety devices with every handgun sold. And that is why on March 3rd I ordered all federal agencies to provide child safety locks with the thousands of handguns they issue to federal law enforcement officers. Child safety locks have garnered the wide support of law enforcement, the medical community, many local governments, and now a part of the firearms manufacturing industry. This fall the full Senate considers the anti-juvenile crime legislation. I hope they will include the child safety lock as part of the legislation. -0-

2 1

Re: Remailer hating Nazis
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:22 PM 8/15/97 +0200, The Remailer hating contradictory Nazi Cop wrote: >Some word-twisting asshole wrote: >> Sorry to hear you have such a low opinion of those who use >> anonymous remailers. Is your work on remailers an 'ego' thing, >> or are you a cop? > >I am a cop, but it boosts my ego too. HAHAHAHA!!!! Do you sodomize people with plungers since you're a cop? Kick the crap out of any potsmokers today?? I think your ego's so big it's going to give you back problems when you get older. >> So spam me, big boy. Spam me. > >Let the pros stick to that. Translated: I can't, I'm... I'm... a remailer hating coward!!! (sob sob)

1 0

Microsoft and Java
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

::Boots ------------ http://www.computerworld.com/news/970730javah.html The Paul Maritz interview that article links to has disappeared from Computerworld's site, but a copy is appended. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Formerly at http://www.computerworld.com/news/news_articles/970728moritz.html Microsoft Corp. last week indicated that it would essentially block efforts to make Java a cross-platform development language, stating that it wouldn't ship Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Java Foundation Class Libraries (JFC). Computerworld senior editor Carol Sliwa caught up with Paul Maritz, Microsoft group vice president, at a company reception in Seattle and asked him to explain the software giant's Java stance. CW: There's nothing in the license that requires you to ship those JFCs with Internet Explorer? Maritz: Correct. CW: Is that a contentious issue? Maritz: No. The only reason I brought it up is just that some people like to play hard and fast with the truth, and they like to say, 'Look, these JFC class libraries are going to be a standard because everybody has to ship them. Even Microsoft has to ship them.' And that's not the case. We were very careful when we did the deal to say that we could have the option of shipping them, but we do not have to include them in Windows. CW: Is there some reason you wouldn't want to ship them? Is there something inferior about them? Maritz: No. We don't want to put further bloat on top of the system. We think that basically there isn't a lot of end-user value in them. And Sun's trying to establish them as basically their platform. It's a competing operating system. CW: Do you feel your Application Foundation Class Libraries (AFC) are superior to their JFCs? Maritz: No. AFCs ... make it easier to write apps. But our real strategy is J/Direct. So our answer to JFC is not AFC. It's J/Direct. CW: It sounds like Microsoft is resentful at Sun for taking a dictatorial role. Maritz: The reason we brought it up is Sun likes to blur these two things together. They like to blur the notion of Java the language and Java the class libraries. They'd like to package them all into that concept. We're just saying, 'Hey, there is a difference between the two. Let's be clear on that.' " CW: Do you think you're going to end up fragmenting the language even more? Maritz: Not the language. You're making the mistake. You're falling into their mind-set -- [ignoring] the difference between Java the language from Java the class libraries. CW: But in the end result, a network manager will have to make sure he has both sets of class libraries. Maritz: Let me ask you this question: The fact that you can call Windows [application programming interfaces] from C++, did that splinter C++? It did not. It's the same issue. CW: But if Java's promise is that it'll be a cross-platform language -- Maritz: No. No. Sun's trying to make it that. CW: But say there's an electronic-commerce application that somebody wants to run cross-platform, and that's why they picked Java. And they use the JFCs to write it. Maritz: Good luck. CW: It's not going to run in Internet Explorer. Maritz: It may or may not. But the point is, that's Sun's problem. It's not our problem. CW: Does it end up being companies' problems, too? Are you saying they're foolish for buying into the theory that there can ever be cross-platform language? Maritz: No. We're saying it's no different from any other cross-platform [strategy]. This isn't the first one -- [there was] CBT, Appware, etc. We're just saying that, 'Hey, you should realize that when you're doing that, you're dependent upon Sun to get it to work.' CW: But if you bought into the JFCs, then you wouldn't be in this particular case. If you shipped JFCs, you'd help foster the idea of cross-platform. Maritz: And I don't want to ship another operating system on top of our operating system and burden every copy of Windows with all of that extra weight. CW: Do you agree that it makes developers have to make choices and it makes them have to do more work and it makes companies have to install both sets of classes? So in the end, it makes life difficult for everyone, doesn't it? Maritz: But we think that that's reality, because you either get this thing to become a heavyweight thing, in which case it's going to perform badly. Or you have to make it something very small. So we're not trying to be parties to perpetuating the myth.

1 0

RSA shaken down for cash?
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:51:56 -0400 From: Kris Millegan RoadsEnd <RoadsEnd(a)AOL.COM> Subject: CTRL-Softwar To: CTRL(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM from:http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ <A HREF="http://www.aci.net/kalliste/">The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe - ------ VP Gore Strong-Arms Crypto Company, then Demands Donation Between 1995 and 1996 Al Gore called 44 people from the White house to solicit money for his re-election. Those calls netted the DNC over $2 million dollars. The Vice President placed these calls from the White House on his DNC credit card. One person Mr. Gore called was Sandford Robertson, part owner of the San Francisco investment banking firm Robertson, Stephens and Co. The Vice President's call obtained $142,000 from "Sandy" Robertson for the DNC. Yet, Sandy was already well known in the DNC camp. Between 1993 and 1997, Sandy Robertson or his wife donated over $700,000 to various campaigns, including $100,000 for Clinton's 1993 inauguration. Robertson, Stephens and Co. are also major financial backers of Security Dynamics, the present owners of RSA Inc. It was Robertson, Stephens and Co. that filed the agreement documents with the SEC (Security and Exchange Commission) for the merger of RSA and Security Dynamics in April of 1996. Of course, Robertson, Stephens and Co. were well paid to sponsor the RSA/SDI merger deal. Robertson and Stephens not only wrote the merger agreement between RSA and SDI they also underwrote the first two public offerings of SDI stock. "Robertson, Stephens & Company has provided certain investment banking services to Security Dynamics from time to time, including acting as an underwriter for each of the two public offerings of shares of the common stock of Security Dynamics. In addition, Robertson, Stephens & Company maintains a market in shares of the common stock of Security Dynamics. Furthermore, Robertson, Stephens & Company has acted as financial advisor to Security Dynamics in connection with the Merger for which a portion of our fees is due and payable upon delivery of this opinion and the remaining portion of our fees is due and payable contingent upon the closing of the Merger." SEC Merger Document April, 1996 ROBERTSON, STEPHENS & COMPANY LLC Edwin David Hertz Jim Bidzos, RSA chairman, stated that Al Gore personally lobbied him to sell the RSA crypto patents to the US Government. It is reported that Al failed and Bidzos walked out. Al Gore has never denied nor confirmed Mr. Bidzos's remarks about his effort on behalf of the US government. Yet, Jim Bidzos also took a trip to Beijing in late 1995. The result of that trip was second trip to Beijing in February of 1996 and a deal with the Academy of Science to sell encryption technology directly to the PRC government. The Clinton administration, quick to prosecute anyone who sold encryption outside the US, did nothing to stop the RSA deal with China. Al Gore tried to buy the rights to encryption technology from RSA for the US government. That was an official act performed by the Vice President. Al Gore has also played a major role in the Clinton Administration's Crypto policy. He was fully briefed early on about Clipper and later would lobby hard to push the draconian controls sought by the government. Yet, despite the obvious conflict of interest, Al Gore did not hesitate to solicit donations from the very same company he had just tried to strong-arm. Al dialed for money from the same company that needed the administration's approval for export. In the end... Money was exchanged and services were rendered. China now has the RSA crypto technology, Al Gore got the donation money and "Sandy" Robertson stands to become even richer. 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR - ----- Aloha, He'Ping Om, Shalom, Salaam. Peace Be, Amen. Roads End Kris ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Private Idaho source
by Roger J Jones 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If anyone has been successful in downloading the source code and or knows how to make the 32 bit release work with Windows NT 4.0 please either mail to me or give me a good FTP or URL address. Thanks

1 0

McVeigh on McVeigh
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The letter convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh sent to U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, released Thursday: June 22, 1997 Dear Judge Matsch, I am writing to you with the understanding that you are responsible for assigning my appellate attorneys. It has been represented to me that you are aware of the problems and difficulties I have had with my appointed counsel in the past. With this letter I do not waive anything with respect to those concerns - but if I have any voice in who represents me on appeal, I would prefer Richard Burr, Randall Coyne, and Robert Nigh, Jr. If Stephen Jones must be appointed, I would at least request that Richard Burr and Robert Nigh, Jr. be appointed as co-appellate counsel and that Randall Coyne be authorized to assist Richard Burr. Thank you for your time. Timothy J. McVeigh APTV-08-14-97 1833EDT

1 0

"Morphed" child porn case ruling text (FSC v. Reno)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[My report is at: http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1287,00.html --Declan] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THE FREE SPEECH COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JANET RENO, et al., Defendants. No. C 97-0281 SC ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED AUG 12 1997, Richard W. Wieking, Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs in this action consist of a trade association that defends First Amendment rights against censorship, the publisher of a book "dedicated to the education and expression of the ideals and philosophy associated with nudism," and individual artists whose works include nude and erotic photographs and paintings. Plaintiffs have filed a pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 ("CPPA"), alleging that they are vague, overbroad, and constitute impermissible content-specific regulations and prior restraints on free speech. Both plaintiffs and defendants have moved for summary judgment. II. BACKGROUND Congress has passed several laws(1) in an ongoing attempt to combat child pornography, the market that such pornography has created and maintained, and the harms that such pornography wreaks on children's physical, psychological, emotional, and mental health. S. Rep. No. 104-358, at 8 (1996) ("Sen. Rep."). The most recent of these laws was passed in 1996, and was enacted specifically to combat the use of computer technology to produce pornography that conveys the impression that children were used in the photographs or images. In passing the legislation, Congress recognized that the dangers of child pornography are not limited to its effect on the children actually used in the pornography. Additionally, child pornography "stimulates the sexual appetites and encourages the activities of child molesters and pedophiles, who use it to feed their sexual fantasies." Sen. Rep. At 12. Child pornography is also used by child molesters and pedophiles "as a device to break down the resistance and inhibitions of their victims or targets of molestation, especially when these are children." Id. at 13. "A child who may be reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult, or to pose for sexually explicit photos, can sometimes be persuaded to do so by viewing depictions of other children participating in such activity." Id. Congress recognized that computer technology is capable of "alter[ing] perfectly innocent pictures of children. . . to create visual depictions of those children engaging in any imaginable form of sexual conduct." Id. at 15. These computer-generated pictures are often indistinguishable from photographic images of actual children. "Computer generated images which appear to depict minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct are just as dangerous to the well-being of. . . children as material using actual children." Id. at 19. Thus, Congress passed the 1996 Act in order to prevent the effects that such computer-generated images might have, even if no children were actually used in the creation of the images. Specifically, the CPPA defines child pornography as: any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -- (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that such an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. . . . 18 U.S.C. 2256(8). The CPPA goes on the define "sexually explicit conduct" as actual or simulated: (A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (B) bestiality; (C) masturbation; (D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. 18 U.S.C. 2256(2). The CPPA also provides an affirmative defense for violations of the Act if: (1) the alleged child pornography was produced using an actual person or persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (2) each such person was an adult at the time the material was produced; and (3) the defendant did not advertise, promote, present, describe, or distribute the material in such a manner as to convey the impression that it is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c). Plaintiffs contend that the CPPA "sweeps within its purview materials that involve no actual children and that traditionally and logically have never been considered to be child pornography." Pls.' Mem in Supp. Of Mot. For Summ. Judg. at 3. They argue that the CPPA, by prohibiting images that appear to be of children, actually criminalizes the production and sale of legitimate works that include images that look like children, but that in reality were made using adults, not children. They allege that the CPPA's "use of overbroad and vague language criminalizes forms of expression in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments." Pls.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 4. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Standing Defendants first argue that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a claim in this Court, as they have not suffered "actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant." Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982). Defendants contend that plaintiffs' activities fall squarely within the affirmative defense set out in 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c), as plaintiffs have admitted that their works involve the depiction only of non-minors(2) and that they do not market their works as child pornography.(3) Plaintiffs counter that they have indeed been injured by the CPPA, as plaintiffs have, in some cases, discontinued the production, distribution, and possession of the certain materials for fear of prosecution under the CPPA. The CPPA, therefore, has had a chilling effect on their speech which is sufficient to constitute standing. See, e.g., San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996)(holding that a chilling effect on speech is a sufficient basis to establish standing in overbreadth facial challenges to government actions involving free speech); Stoianoff v. Montana, 695 F.2d 1214, 1223 (9th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, plaintiffs contend that they have standing to bring their suit because the affirmative defense set out in 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c) does not protect consumers and distributors who possess the potentially illegal materials but who are not involved in the production of sexually explicit materials, and who therefore have no way of knowing whether or not the persons depicted are real and are not minors. Plaintiffs have set forth affidavits of businesses and individuals engaged in distributing, selling, or renting sexually explicit materials who have withheld or stopped distributing certain of plaintiffs' products that plaintiffs argue should fit within the statutory defense, out of fear that they will be prosecuted under the CPPA for possession of the materials. Plaintiffs are no longer marketing or sending those products to its distributors. See Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass'n., Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 393 (1988)(harm resulting from speech regulation may be one of self-censorship). The Court finds that plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to establish the requisite standing to bring their claims before the Court. B. Standard of Review In evaluating the constitutionality of legislation that infringes free speech under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has identified the appropriate criteria by which the language of the act and the purposes underlying the passage of the act shall be judged. "[T]he government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, reh'g denied, 492 U.S. 937 (1989)(internal quotations omitted). In order to determine whether a regulation is content-neutral, "the principal inquiry. . . is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys." Id. A "regulation that serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others." Id.; see also City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 47-48, reh'g denied 475 U.S. 1132 (1986)(upholding ordinance prohibiting adult motion picture theaters within 1,000 feet of residential zones, churches, parks, or schools on basis that regulation was content-neutral because it was aimed at the secondary effects of such theaters on the surrounding community). If it can be shown that the regulation is justified without reference to the content of the speech, then it is deemed content-neutral. Renton, 475 U.S. at 48. The contested provisions of the CPPA are content-neutral regulations. They have clearly been passed in order to prevent the secondary effects of the child pornography industry, including the exploitation and degradation of children and the encouragement of pedophilia and molestation of children. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has afforded "greater leeway" to regulations of child pornography. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756 (1982). The Supreme Court has "sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected rights." Id. at 757. Given the nature of the evils that anti-child pornography laws are intended to prevent, the CPPA can easily be deemed a content-neutral regulation. For even if no children are involved in the production of sexually explicit materials, the devastating secondary effect that such materials have on society and the well-being of children merits the regulation of such images. Plaintiffs' contention that the CPPA is content-specific is unpersuasive. They claim that the terms of the CPPA clearly target materials that convey certain ideas to their viewers. The Court finds that the CPPA is designed to counteract the effect that such materials has on its viewers, on children, and to society as a whole, and is not intended to regulate or outlaw the ideas themselves. If child pornography is targeted by the regulation, it is due to the effect of the pornography on innocent children, not to the nature of the materials themselves, especially if that pornography contains computer-generated images of children. See, e.g., Am. Library Ass'n v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78, 86 (D.C. Cir. 1994)(legislation requiring producers of sexually explicit material to document the names and ages of the persons portrayed was content-neutral, as it was intended "not to regulate the content of sexually explicit materials, but to protect children by deterring the production and distribution of child pornography"); Chesapeake B&M Inc., v. Hartford County, 58 F.3d 1005, 1010 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 116 S.Ct. 567 (1995). According to the Supreme Court, "[a] content-neutral regulation will be sustained under the First Amendment if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests." Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 117 S.Ct. 1174, 1186 (1997). The CPPA clearly advances important and compelling government interests: the protection of children from the harms brought on by child pornography and the industry that such pornography has created. It is beyond debate that the protection of children from sexual exploitation is an important governmental interest; indeed, the Supreme Court has deemed the protection of the physical and psychological well-being of minors to be a "compelling" interest. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 756-7; see also Sen. Rep. At 9 (There is a "compelling governmental interest [in prohibiting] all forms of child pornography.") Furthermore, the CPPA burdens no more speech than necessary in order to protect children from the harms of child pornography. As stated aforesaid, the CPPA specifically defines "sexually explicit conduct" as "sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." 18 U.S.C. 2256(2). It also defines "child pornography" as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct where the production involves the actual use of minors engaging in such conduct, the depiction is or appears to be of a minor engaging in such conduct, the depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that a minor is engaging in such conduct, or the depiction is advertised, presented or promoted in such a way as to convey the impression that minor is engaging in such conduct. 18 U.S.C. 2256(8). Although there may be a degree of ambiguity in the phrase "appears to be a minor," any ambiguity regarding whether a particular person depicted in a particular work appears to be over the age of eighteen can be resolved by examining whether the work was marketed and advertised as child pornography. Given that the goal of the CPPA is to prevent the digital manipulation of images to create child pornography even when no children were actually used in the production of the material, the CPPA meets that goal by regulating the narrowest range of materials that might fall within the targeted category and including an explicit definition of the prohibited conduct. Congress certainly intended to exclude from the CPPA's reach materials that do not involve the actual or apparent depiction of children: "[The CPPA] does not, and is not intended to, apply to a depiction produced using adults engaging in sexually explicit conduct, even where a depicted individual may appear to be a minor." Sen. Rep. At 21. The affirmative defense laid out in 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c) limits even further the scope of the CPPA by removing from the range of criminal behavior the exact type of activity in which plaintiffs claim to engage. Plaintiffs contend that their works do not involve actual children, and that their works are not marketed or advertised as works featuring sexually explicit conduct by children. Their behavior, then, falls squarely within the category specifically set out by Congress as beyond the scope of the CPPA. The Court finds that the incidental harms laid out by the plaintiffs as support for their assertion of standing in this action do not amount to the CPPA's regulating "substantially more speech than necessary to further" the goal of preventing the dangers of child molestation and pedophilia.(4) See Pls.' Opp. to Defs.' Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 7-8. Although the effects of a content-neutral speech regulation may be substantial, if they are incidental and largely unavoidable, they will pass constitutional muster. Am. Library Ass'n. v. Reno, 33 F.3d at 87-8. Also, "[t]he mere assertion of some possible self-censorship resulting from a statute is not enough to render an antiobscenity law unconstitutional." Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana 489 U.S. 46, 60 (1989). The contested provisions of the CPPA survive the intermediate scrutiny set forth by the Supreme Court for content-neutral regulations. The instant case is quite similar to that which the Supreme Court confronted in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). In Ferber, the Court upheld a New York statute that prohibited person from knowingly promoting a sexual performance by a child under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such a performance. The Court concluded that the statute did not violate the First Amendment. According to the Court, the unprotected nature of the works involved permitted the state to prohibit the particular category of works from distribution, especially given the compelling state interest in protecting children from the harms of child pornography. 458 U.S. at 765. The final inquiry this Court must make is whether the regulations leave open alternative channels for communication of the information at issue. Defendants contend that "plaintiffs are free to communicate any substantive message they desire, through any medium they desire, as long as they are not depicting actual or computer-generated children engaged in sexually explicit conduct." Defs.' Mem. In Supp. of Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 20. The Court finds this argument persuasive. Because plaintiffs allege that their materials are not produced using minor children, and that they do not market their materials so as to suggest that they are child pornography or to exploit the sexual qualities of the work as child pornography, plaintiffs should have no trouble conforming their activities to fit within the confines of the text of the CPPA or to escape the reach of the law altogether. C. Overbreadth and Vagueness Plaintiffs contend that the CPPA is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. First, regulations that prohibit constitutionally protected speech as well as activity that can legitimately be prohibited are considered to be overbroad. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97 (1940). Plaintiffs base their overbreadth argument on the assertion that the CPPA "impermissibly suppresses material that is protected under the First Amendment" by defining child pornography as including visual depictions of adults that appear to be minors. Pls.' Mem. In Supp. of Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 12. In doing so, plaintiffs argue, the CPPA "bans a wide array of sexually-explicit, non-obscene material that has serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value." Pls.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 13. Finally, plaintiffs cite the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Reno v. ACLU that the governmental interest in protecting children "does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults." 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4037 at *54 (striking as unconstitutional two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that prevent the transmission of "indecent" and "patently offensive" materials over the Internet). The Court finds that the CPPA is not overbroad. It specifies that only materials that do not use adults and that appear to be child pornography, even if they are digitally produced, are prohibited. By plaintiffs' own admission, plaintiffs' products do not fall into these categories and are also exempt under the CPPA's affirmative defense provisions. It is highly unlikely that the types of valuable works plaintiffs fear will be outlawed under the CPPA -- depictions used by the medical profession to treat adolescent disorders, adaptations of sexual works like "Romeo and Juliet," and artistically-valued drawings and sketches of young adults engaging in passionate behavior -- will be treated as "criminal contraband." As long as a work does not depict children, or what appears to be children, engaged in sexually explicit conduct as defined by the statute, and the work is not marketed as child pornography or in such a way that exploits its sexual nature as child pornography, then there is no likelihood that the work will be prohibited by the CPPA. The CPPA is not overbroad because it prohibits only those works necessary to prevent the secondary pernicious effects of child pornography from reaching minors. Plaintiffs contend that the CPPA is also unconstitutionally vague because it does not give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited so that he may act accordingly. Grayned v. City of Rockford 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). However, the CPPA does exactly what the Supreme Court has required of child pornography legislation as set out in Ferber: it must (1) adequately define the prohibited conduct; (2) be limited to visual depictions of children below a specific age; and (3) suitably limit and describe the category of forbidden "sexual conduct." 458 U.S. at 764. The CPPA clearly and specifically defines the prohibited conduct as the depiction of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. It is limited to visual depictions of minors, but simply redefines the term "depiction" to include images of children that were produced using computers or other artificial means. Finally, it suitably limits and describes the category of forbidden conduct. As long as the person portrayed in the work is an adult, and the work is not marketed or advertised as child pornography and does not convey the impression that it is child pornography, then the CPPA's affirmative defense applies and removes the work from the scope of its provisions. The Court finds that the CPPA is not unconstitutionally vague, as it gives sufficient guidance to a person of reasonable intelligence as to what it prohibits.(5) D. Prior Restraint Plaintiffs contend that the CPPA imposes a prior restraint on speech by enacting a complete ban on material that contains sexually-explicit depictions of adults who appear to be minors and by chilling the expression of "artists, photographers, film makers, publishers, and merchants" by preventing them from disseminating such depictions. Plaintiffs also contend that the CPPA places unbridled discretion in the hands of government officials and deals an unnecessarily severe punishment for an incorrect determination of whether or not an adult appears to be a minor. The Court agrees with defendants that the CPPA neither completely bans depictions of adults who appear to be minors nor punishes producers or distributors who create works in which adults appear who might be mistaken as minors. Indeed, the affirmative defense laid out in 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c) clearly permits the use of adults, even if they look like minors, as long as the works in which they appear are not marketed as child pornography. In addition "[n]o government official is vested with authority to permit or deny plaintiffs the right to produce these works, and thus the [CPPA] imposes no unconstitutional prior restraint on speech." Defs.' Opp. to Pls.' Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 17-18. The CPPA represents no more of a prior restraint on speech than the New York statute at issue in Ferber, and the CPPA comes within the rationale of the Supreme Court's holding in that case. Because the CPPA does not require advance approval for production or distribution of adult pornography that does not use minors, and does not effect a complete ban on constitutionally protected material, it does not constitute an improper prior restraint on speech. IV. CONCLUSION Therefore, this court finds that the CPPA meets constitutional standards and is therefore constitutional as written. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 1997. /s/ Samuel Conti United States District Judge --- 1 See Am. Library Ass'n v. Barr 956 F.2d 1178, 1181-85 (D.C. Cir. 1992) for a discussion of the history of national anti-child pornography legislation. 2 Pls.' Opp. to Defs.' Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 1. 3 Defendants also contend that plaintiffs lack standing because, in their complaint, plaintiffs allege that they do not produce the type of "hard-core" sexual images that would be subject to regulation by the CPPA. As a result, defendants argue, plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a real and immediate threat of injury and therefore cannot bring this claim. See Barr, 956 F.2d at 1187. The Court rejects this argument. The parameters of pornography are difficult to define, and dismissing plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing is not appropriate in this case, given the variety of the plaintiffs' products. 4 These incidental harms include the depiction of images created within the imagination of the artist. If the images depicted are of children, albeit imaginary ones, and not of actual adults or imaginary people who unequivocally appear to be adults, then the evils associated with child pornography cannot be avoided. 5 For examples of other cases that have upheld similarly worded child pornography statutes against vagueness challenges, see, e.g., U.S. v. Smith, 795 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1032 (1987); U.S. v. Lamb, 945 F. Supp. 441 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

4 3

Re: Remailer hating Nazis
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Platypus blithered this out: >Flaming via Anon reamilers is bad, not because its done via an anon >reamiler but because Flamming is mostly bad. If anything, flaming Anonymously is good, since you can say anything you damn well please without a care. It relieves stress.

3 2

Bill Gates and Gun laws
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, October 14 1997 Volume 02 : Number 031 > cdn-firearms-digest(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [mega-snip] > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:43:32 -0600 > From: Dave Hammond <DHammond(a)novatel.ca> > Subject: FW: USA - Bill Gates wants your guns > > Don't like Bill Gates or his octopus like grip on the software market? Been > looking for a reason to give Microsoft the finger and shop elsewhere? Well, > here it is......... > > > by HUNTER T. GEORGE > OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A gun-control measure on the Washington ballot has > turned into a Western shootout in this state, where nearly one out of > five residents owns a pistol. > In this gun battle, the two sides are armed with cash and > soundbites. > On one side is the state medical association, law enforcement > leaders, religious groups, the state's largest teachers union and > Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, among other Seattle-area business > leaders. > They back the measure, which would require handgun owners to > pass an exam or take an eight-hour safety course to get a license. > It would also require trigger locks on all handguns sold or > transferred in the state. > On the other side are gun rights organizations, like the > National Rifle Association, and police groups, which say the > measure is an invasion of privacy, an infringement of the right to > bear arms and a smokescreen for a hidden agenda: registration and > eventual confiscation of handguns. > ``What they're doing is basically using children and hiding > behind a phony handgun safety ballot title,'' said Alan Gottlieb, > chairman of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to > Keep and Bear Arms. ``These people don't want education. They want > to make it very hard for people to buy a handgun or use one, and > that's exactly what this initiative does.'' > If voters OK the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot, Washington will pass some > of the strictest gun laws in the nation. > Only a dozen states require some sort of handgun permit or > license, and just two - Massachusetts and Connecticut - have passed > laws requiring trigger locks, but only at the retail level. Washington's > would require them on all guns sold, even person to person. > Nine of the nation's largest gun makers announced Thursday that > they would provide childproof locks with all of their new handguns > - - about 80 percent of those sold in the United States. President > Clinton has pushed for legislation requiring the locks, but House > and Senate committees rejected the provision earlier this year. > No public polls on the measure have been released so far, but > some of the richest people in the state back it: Gates gave > $35,000; his father, lawyer William H. Gates, donated $150,000, and > philanthropist Harriet Stimson Bullitt contributed $50,000. > The safety requirements, they say, would be like taking a > driver's test before getting a license. The goal is to reduce > accidental shootings, particularly those involving children who find > loaded guns in the home. > A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found > that 30 people 19 or younger died in unintentional shootings in > Washington state between 1991 and 1995. And 211 others were > hospitalized for gunshot wounds. > `I'm personally unwilling to tolerate that kind of carnage in > our state,'' said Dr. Roy Farrell, campaign spokesman and a gun > owner. ``Terrible tragedies happen that shouldn't happen if the gun > was stored properly.'' > > ------------------------------ [snip] > Mailing List Commands: majordomo(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca

1 0