---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 07:58:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>
To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Response to PFF's O'Donnell on the CDA and moralists
Richard O'Donnell from the Progress and Freedom Foundation writes in an
essay attached below:
> The strategic error of civil libertarians in the fight over the
>censorship act was to lump together the statist moralists and the
>anti-statist moralists. The latter are natural allies of the free
>speechers (for the same reason the Christian Coalition and
>Libertarians call the Republican party home). The ACLU crowd was
>unable to create a free speech alliance with Christians because they
>failed to acknowledge that attempts to limit the availability of
>pornography is very American.
O'Donnell makes some good points elsewhere, but the above fails to
convince me. Trying to impose your moral code on others through the power
of law has a long history in America: Prohibition and sodomy laws. We also
have a long history of discrimination against gays, blacks, and jews. But
that doesn't make it right, or justified.
Gutting the First Amendment though state action, which the religious right
did in passing the CDA, is indeed "unAmerican." It goes against the very
principles of free expression and tolerance for political dissent upon
which this country was founded. There is a difference between arguing that
people should decline to purchase erotica or read "indecent" materials --
and calling for criminal laws to ban it.
I agree with O'Donnell that advocates of freedom need to work with
advocates of a reduced central government. One protection against future
threats like the CDA is to make the Federal government less subsceptible
to special interest lobbying. And certainly, House Republicans have
emerged this year as the staunchest defenders of civil liberties.
But I disagree with his assertion that "a small group of statist
moralists" supported the CDA. My question is: what major theocratic right
group publicly opposed it? Even PFF senior fellow Arianna Huffington
debated Esther Dyson and John Perry Barlow and defended the CDA.
The Christian Coalition certainly supported the act. Enough is Enough!
supported the CDA, with its leader Dee Jepsen testifing in favor of
Net-censorship. (Jepsen is on the board of regents of Pat Robertson's
Regents University and has impeccable religious right credentials.) Bruce
Taylor's group did -- and though Taylor isn't exactly a religious
moralist, he rarely crosses swords with them. The ACLJ -- the religious
right's response to the ACLU -- supported the CDA and even cited Rimm's
study this year as support for its constitutionality. The organizations in
the umbrella group National Coalition Against Pornography supported the
CDA. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family continue to argue
in favor of the CDA. Longtime Christian Coalition ally Sen. Charles
Grassley introduced a bill worse than the CDA. We all know what Rep. Henry
Hyde did with the final legislation.
Now, this is from memory. Perhaps some groups have changed their position
after the June ruling. But I'd be interested in hearing the answer to my
question above.
-Declan
----------
Freedom to Pray and Sin
The Internet is driving the ACLU and Christian Coalition Together
Richard F. O'Donnell
Prohibition became law because bootleggers, who stood to gain
economically from outlawing alcohol, quietly supported the
"religious" crusade against evil liquor. Today, the forces of state
control who want the government to regulate Cyberspace quietly
support the moral crusade against pornography on the Internet.
This modern day "Bootleggers and Baptists" coalition has driven a
stake through the traditional civil libertarian constituency and
left the ACLU crowd completely bewildered.
The Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress earlier this
year and now being challenged in court, criminalizes the
transmission and posting of indecent material on line. In the year of
the Republican Congressional Revolution a Democrat (James Exon of
Nebraska) was the prime sponsor of the censorship act. Opponents
were never able to label it purely a move by "Newt Gingrich's
radical freshmen" because so many Democrats supported it (and
Gingrich did not). For instance, a recent WIRED magazine article
entitled "The Rogues Gallery" that profiled "the legislators who
helped make government censorship a reality on the Internet"
didn't profile even one Republican.
Liberal legislators and President Clinton, who normally have few
problems with the ACLU and abhor the "radical Christian right,"
went right along with them in attempt to increase state control.
How is it legislators who voted against efforts to ban flag burning
on the grounds of free speech suddenly voted to ban dirty pictures?
Simply put, the Democrats saw in the censorship act a way to
assert government regulation of the Internet, the first step in letting
Washington bureaucrats regulate Cyberspace in the "public
interest." These liberal paternalists intuitively favor state control
in the mode of Senator Bob Kerry, who thinks that, because the
FCC regulates telephone and television transmission, it is a natural
extension of its powers to regulate the Internet. These are members
of an elite who believe that government is in a better position than
parents to determine the programming content of television
networks or in a better position than the market and to determine
the standards for emerging technology.
Defenders of free speech lost their battle over the censorship act
because, when their traditional Democratic allies abandoned
them, they were unable to get over their distaste for moralism and
recognize their new natural allies. The key to victory for civil
libertarians is understanding that moralists (e.g. "the Christian
right") are not a unified, monolithic front.
There is a small group of statist moralists who are seeking
government power in order to impose their views on the rest of
America. They may pose a threat to free speech. Yet most
"Christian activists" are not interested in imposing anything on
others. Instead, they are actively opposing a government that
is abridging their rights to freedom of faith. Statist moralists
advocate not just a silent moment in school but a school led prayer.
Anti-statist moralists just want schools to stop distributing condoms
because it undermines the lessons they are trying to teach their
children about abstinence until marriage.
The strategic error of civil libertarians in the fight over the
censorship act was to lump together the statist moralists and the
anti-statist moralists. The latter are natural allies of the free
speechers (for the same reason the Christian Coalition and
Libertarians call the Republican party home). The ACLU
crowd was unable to create a free speech alliance with Christians
because they failed to acknowledge that attempts to limit the
availability of pornography is very American.
The legacy of the Puritans remains strong in our nation. Throughout
our history Americans have been ready to demand conformity and
to impose through law moral standards (recall abolition - for
which America went to war). Foes of the Internet censorship lost
their battle by labeling their opponents "unAmerican." Steve
Guest, a network consultant who is party to a class action suit
against attempts to shut down on-line adult sites, summed up the
civil libertarian attitude when he said such actions were
"violating the basic principles on which this country was founded."
Calling attempts to regulate pornography "unAmerican" does not
sway many people - especially Congressmen. Moral crusades
against sinful material are as quintessentially American as
individual liberty. Civil libertarians need to acknowledge the
natural place of moralism in American life. Otherwise, they blind
themselves from recognizing their true enemy. Freedom isn't
threatened by moralism - we are free precisely because we are
moral beings. Freedom is threatened by the advocates of state
control.
Civil libertarians need to reach out to anti-statist moralists and
show them that it is no better to let the government in our computers
than our churches. The way to fight pornography is on individual
computer screens, with technology that empowers parents to
determine what their children see - not what some invisible
bureaucrat or court decides is appropriate.
-----------
Richard F. O'Donnell
Richard F. O'Donnell is Director of Communications at The
Progress & Freedom Foundation. He serves as editor of all
Foundation policy reports, books and articles. In addition, he is
responsible for media relations and public outreach. His editorials
have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, The Washington
Times and Commonsense.
Mr. O'Donnell is currently assisting former Congressman Vin
Weber on his book about the new political majority emerging in
American politics. He has also worked with columnist Arianna
Huffington, author Marvin Olasky, and numerous policy and
Congressional leaders in the telecommunications, health care,
energy, environment and welfare reform fields.
Mr. O'Donnell is a recognized authority on the nature and political
ramifications of the transition from the Industrial Age to the
Digital Age. Writing and speaking on the survivability of the
American Idea in the 21st Century, he is a columnist for the
cyberspace magazine Upside Online.
He was managing producer of a weekly television show, The
Progress Report , co-hosted by Heather Higgins and House
Speaker Newt Gingrich, and editor of the American Civilization.
Mr. O'Donnell has also worked at the National Policy Forum: A
republican Center of the Exchange of Ideas and at the Archer
Daniels Midland Company.
A native of Colorado, Mr. O'Donnell is a graduate of the Colorado
College, and has studied at Boston College and The London
School of Economics and Political Science.
###
