White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:23:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@MIT.EDU> Cc: jseiger@cdt.org, jberman@cdt.org, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting Below we see an excellent example of the naivete inherent in Net-libertarian and cypherpunk writing. Obviously the writer does not understand the complexities and challenges of Washington politics. In many ways, it is like sausage being made: disgusting to watch, but a process that results in the compromises so vital in a healthy democracy. Which is why it is inappropriate to criticize the White House's position on the CDA. If you speak your mind aloud, you run the risk of being marginalized like the ACLU. How can you serve your constituents then? Obviously, you can't. So I respectfully suggest that Mr. Finkelstein disabuse himself of radical notions like opposing regulation of the Internet. I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental liberties in the process. -Declan On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
At 11:35 PM -0400 7/15/97, Michael Sims wrote: ...But by lining up with those who intend to FORCE, by hook or crook, ratings on everyone, well, you're not sending the message I would think you would want to.
From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org> As far as I know, this is not what's happening and you are reacting to ghosts
"I am the ghost of RSACi past". Such as when it nearly became a contractual requirement for all ISP's in the United Kingdom last year. Of course they didn't *have* to join up, and they didn't have to not be raided as child pornographers either. Not a ghost, but a spectre.
Like you, CDT will be watching what the President says tomorrow very carefully and will have something to say once he has spoken.
I'm sure you will. And I'm also sure it's going to be along the lines of "Sign up to this program because it's not censorship and if you don't, the government will get you".
================ Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:23:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@MIT.EDU> Cc: jseiger@cdt.org, jberman@cdt.org, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
Below we see an excellent example of the naivete inherent in Net-libertarian and cypherpunk writing. Obviously the writer does not understand the complexities and challenges of Washington politics. In many ways, it is like sausage being made: disgusting to watch, but a process that results in the compromises so vital in a healthy democracy.
Which is why it is inappropriate to criticize the White House's position on the CDA. If you speak your mind aloud, you run the risk of being marginalized like the ACLU. How can you serve your constituents then? Obviously, you can't. So I respectfully suggest that Mr. Finkelstein disabuse himself of radical notions like opposing regulation of the Internet.
I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental liberties in the process.
-Declan
Declan: Did you forget your ;-) smiley face or can we quote you on that last sentence? As far as I'm concerned, if you are forced to give up fundamental liberties the "game" is over -- soon followed by "politics by other means". Our participation as citizens of this country is governed by contract. That contract is the constitution. This is no game. Either the employees adhere to the tenets of that contract or the employers will fire them for non-performance. Simple as that. Jim Burnes jim.burnes@ssds.com
At 08:03 AM 7/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental liberties in the process.
Declan, I think you made a phrasing error here. Perhaps you meant to say that you think it, "prudent to hold your tongue when speaking to the White House if you want a gold-engraved invitation back." To some people, it read like you were saying "give up fundamental liberties to free speech in order to 'protect the children.'" Either way, there's not much difference there: political speech MUST remain the 'most protected of all', and if someone is afraid of speaking their mind during a debate, then we've all lost. However, I think you've missed the ACLU point of NOT "playing the game". They're not trying to get on (or stay on) the short invitation list to whatever dog-n-pony show the White House trots out next. Their concern is for the Constitution, that it be followed BY EVERYONE, and that it doesn't get trampled completely by bad laws written by ignorant lawmakers. When the ACLU was not "invited" to a meeting where the entire purpose seems be that of passing another bad law to circumvent the first amendment without pissing off the same ACLU, don't you agree that perhaps the White House made a tactical error? IMHO, the ACLU should be a part of the lawmaking *process*. Rather than passing bad laws and checking for their constitutionality on the back end by people desperate enough to gamble on the outcome of a long, expensive legal process, I think we'd all be a lot better off checking for constituonal laws before we pass them at all. According to the Constitution, that's the President's job (it's what he said when he took the oath), but we all know that he only sees his job to be that of "the biggest congressman of all, gotta follow the polls of the whole nation." Perhaps the "three strikes and you're out" rule could apply to Congress: if you vote for three laws that are overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, you go to jail for 25 years to life, no parole. Debate the new laws all you want, but when it comes down to casting your vote, you'd better be certain you're not violating the Constitution. We need more accountability on the front end of the legal process, because the average among us can't afford to gamble on the back end. John -- J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code. Think of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in OLE sauce'." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work) mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of: | | Subject: get pgp key | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:23:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@MIT.EDU> Cc: jseiger@cdt.org, jberman@cdt.org, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
Below we see an excellent example of the naivete inherent in Net-libertarian and cypherpunk writing. Obviously the writer does not understand the complexities and challenges of Washington politics. In many ways, it is like sausage being made: disgusting to watch, but a process that results in the compromises so vital in a healthy democracy.
Which is why it is inappropriate to criticize the White House's position on the CDA. If you speak your mind aloud, you run the risk of being marginalized like the ACLU. How can you serve your constituents then? Obviously, you can't. So I respectfully suggest that Mr. Finkelstein disabuse himself of radical notions like opposing regulation of the Internet.
I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental liberties in the process.
-Declan
Why? Why does Mr. Finkelstein need to play be Washington's "game" rules? I understand why you need to play by the rules. As a Washington insider you are between a rock and a hard place. If you step outside the rules, you loose your connections, your influince, and you livelyhood. (No I do not consider being an insider to be bad. I apreciate the flow of news that we might not otherwise get). For those of us who are outside of the "game" (by choice or otherwise) it does not make since to play. Nobody in Washington listens to us (or that is the way it seems). To give up those fundamental liberties simply hurts us. Insted we change the system by playing outside of the "game" (such as writting strong crypto code and giving it away before Washington makes that illegal). -Doug
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Doug Peterson -
Jim Burnes -
John Deters