At 10:35 AM 6/14/96 -0700, you wrote:

This is also at odds with what Clinton said. The full text of the statement is available on whitehouse.gov, among other places.

I don't see how necessarily. (1) He supports the bill, and (2) he thinks the bill is within the realm of constitutionality, his statement is rather weak, but I think if you take the two points above, their summation is obvious and _is_ contrary to the bravado of Gore's MIT commencement speech. This is not to say he could very well back off to save face, which is what he is starting to do, and I hope he continues to do... Statement by President Clinton in reaction to Court Decision THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ___________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release June 12, 1996 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT The Justice Department is reviewing today's three judge panel court decision on the Communications Decency Act. The opinion just came down today, and the statute says we have twenty days to make an appeal. I remain convinced, as I was when I signed the bill, that our Constitution allows us to help parents by enforcing this Act to prevent children from being exposed to objectionable material transmitted though computer networks. I will continue to do everything I can in my Administration to give families every available tool to protect their children from these materials. For example, we vigorously support the development and widespread availability of products that allow both parents and schools to block objectionable materials from reaching computers that children use. And we also support the industry's accelerating efforts to rate Internet sites so that they are compatible with these blocking techniques. -30-30-30- _______________________ Regards, Democracy is where you can say what you think even if you don't think. -? Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle@mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E