On Feb. 1, 1996, the US House of Representatives voted to pass the Telecommunications Reform Act. This Act included the Communications Decency Act, which sought to criminalize posting to the Internet any material deemed indecent and patently offensive, with no exception for socially redeeming material. On Sept. 11, 1998, the US House of Representatives voted to release the Referral of Independent Counsel Starr on the Internet. 365 individuals were Members of Congress during these two votes, 196 Republicans and 169 Democrats. Of that total, 284, or 77.6%, voted Aye both times. 185 of the Republicans, or 94.4%, voted Aye both times. 96 of the Democrats, or 56.8%, voted Aye both times. Had the Communications Decency Act withstood judicial review (which it did not), posting the Starr report to the Internet arguably would have subjected the posters to fines of $250,000 and 5 years in prison. The question of who voted for both the CDA and the release of the Starr report is not cut-and-dried, because Congress did not record a roll-call vote for the CDA in isolation, but only for its vehicle the Telecommunications Reform Act. Also, the vote Friday to post the Starr report was primarily a vote to start up impeachment machinery. Nevertheless, if accountability to the voters means anything in this democracy, the Congress members who voted "Aye" on both February 1, 1996 and September 11, 1998 ought to come in for a bit of uncomfortable public exposure. <href=http://www.tbtf.com/resource/hypocrites.html>http://www.tbtf.com/resource/hypocrites.html</a>
At 10:29 AM -0700 9/16/98, Anonymous wrote:
Had the Communications Decency Act withstood judicial review (which it did not), posting the Starr report to the Internet arguably would have subjected the posters to fines of $250,000 and 5 years in prison.
You're missing an important point: when has government not found ways to exempt itself from laws? Whether the laws are about Social Security, overtime, quotas for hiring, or even libel and slander, Congress and the other branches exempt themselves. How convenient. I don't know for sure if buried in Section 17, Paragraph 42 of the CDA was an exemption for Official Government Documents, but I expect lawyers would've found ample ways to publish what they want to publish. Amongst other things, there would be many problems in forcing official documents, court reports, executive findings, etc., to be bowdlerized to meet the CDA requirements. And the burrowcrats just _love_ to have laws which apply to the sheeple, and not to them. So I wouldn't make too much of this "apparent violation" of the CDA. Don't forget that throughout history bluenoses and puritans have gotten off on holding up examples of thoughtcrime. --Tim May (This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.) ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim May wrote:
Don't forget that throughout history bluenoses and puritans have gotten off on holding up examples of thoughtcrime.
I suppose that allows them to enjoy the material under the guise of saving the rest of us from it. Or maybe, just maybe, they want to punish somebody because they are unable to partake of the feast without feeling guilt strong enough to cause sphincter lockup. Mike
participants (3)
-
Anonymous -
Michael Motyka -
Tim May