---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 07:58:58 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@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. ###