At 7:30 PM -0700 7/21/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
same way? Or perhaps the conflict arises because all groups would like to claim the mantle of "representing the interests of the Net" -- which brings with it some political currency here in Washington. And some might
Nope, not all groups would like to claim they are "representing the interests of the Net." And not all individuals, either. I don't recall any plausible consensus of the Cypherpunks claiming to represent the interests of the Net. I've never claimed to represent the interests of "the Net"--I just want anyone who tries to tell me what to do in violation of the strict limits of the Constitution (especially the Old Testament version, not the newfangled New Testament that says I have to hire some percentage of coloreds, for example) to _STOP_. And I don't trust legislation. Only way to STOP them is to use technological monkeywrenches. The stuff that should be well-known, even to Washington burrowcrats. And I'm not convinced the "alliance" against the CDA was terribly important. Had the Eagle Forum, or whatever, and the CPSR, or whatever, not been part of the suit, the ACLU lawyers would still likely have carried the day. The Supremes may have been willing to look the other way on some major constitutional issues the last several decades, but some things are just too clear cut violations of the First, even for them. (Similarly, I expect the "mandatory voluntary Net ratings" system to fail. It's not even clear if television networks have to "voluntarily self-rate," as the NBC refusal is likely to ultimately show, and these are networks ostensibly bound by FCC rules and the usual "scarce spectrum" arguments. The Net is exactly like print, and there is no plausible argument for demanding that all writers classify their writings according to some government standard. (Lest this not be clear, suppose that my value system argues that sex and profanity are necessary parts of a child's education, so I voluntarily rate my writings as "suitable for children of all ages." What then? And must I warn Muslims that my writings may be offensive to them? And so on, for literally hundreds or more everyday examples. The Supremes will strike this mandatory voluntary "Children's Protection and Safe Surfing Act" down pronto. Whether or not a Grand Alliance is formed.) By the way, I've attempted to comply with the spirit of Comrad Clinton's ratings system. See below. --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