Sure. I've done it before. They give weasel answers, small surprise there. Some (though not all) misrepresent the law, distort the truth, and flat out lie. Do I accuse them of being fascist censorhappy wackos? Yes. Motherfuckers? No; my editors generally don't go for it. I mean, the biggest problem with the CDA was overbreadth. It pulled a bait-n-switch maneuver: saying it protects children while restricting the rights of adults. Which is why the SupCt struck it down. -Declan On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Anonymous wrote:
A Challenge To Declan: Do you have the balls to contact all of those individuals pushing for fascist censorship in the name of "protecting children" and ask them if they would support the rights of adults to promote and access adult material on the InterNet if a way can be found to guarantee that minors will not be able to access it? Do you have the balls to refuse letting them dodge the issue with meaningless, bullshit, political rhetoric? Do you have the balls to tell them that if you don't get a straight answer, you will report that they are lying, fascist, censorist motherfuckers who are hiding behind children to disguise their hidden agenda of forcing their personal beliefs on others?