Please reply to amp@pobox.com as this email address dies on the 14th. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- AEN News Commentary by Alan M. Pugh <mailto:amp@pobox.com> The Strange Sounds of Silence Has anyone else out there noticed the strange sounds of silence emmanating from the american print and broadcast media concerning the rider attached to the Telecommunications Act recently signed by President Clinton known as the CDA (Communications Decency Act)? Here we have a piece of legislation that has enormous ramifications to the free flow of information and ideas through various electronic media, and yet we hear hardly a peep from the "defenders of the 1st amendment". Many readers here have probably noticed the screams of censorship and gnashing of teeth that accompany any attempt to pass legislation or regulations that have even tangental relationships to the 1st amendment. The first amendment has, during this century, been greatly expanded from the protections it was widely recognised to afford at the begining of this century. It has been "incorporated" through the courts to bar states from infringing on our freedoms as well as the federal government. The definition of "speech" has been stretched to the point that the act of burning a flag is considered to be an act of speech, and not destruction of property. (I agree with the court wholeheartedly on this point.) We've so expanded its scope, and rightly so, that it is difficult if not impossible to win in court on a charge of slander or libel. The press in this country enjoys wide lattitude. They cannot be forced to divulge sources except under very specific and limited circumstances. They have recently been restricted more than in the past on military operations. These restrictions have garnered almost universal cries of "censorship!" from those news organizations affected. Why then, when almost all of cyberspace is up in arms over this provision is this story almost universally ignored or distorted to be merely an issue of "child pornography" or "protecting our children"? I recall several prominent news organizations across the country coming to the aid of Larry Flint, the publisher of _Hustler_ magazine a few years ago through amicus briefs filed with the court when an overzealous prosecutor was attempting to nail him for the distribution of material that violated his puritanical interpretations of local "community standards". Where are these papers now? Where is their outrage? I'd like to know what the difference is between a picture of Michelangelo's David displayed in an article by the _Smithstonian Institution_, and the same picture when displayed on someone's home page? Where is the outrage that someone who makes a copy of _Catcher in the Rye_ available to people who visit their home page who may very well now be open to prosecution by that same puritanical prosecutor? Where is it? Has the "free" press in this country suddenly discovered the virtues of censorship? Do these organizations not realize that the precidents that will soon be laid down on this issue will soon be affecting them as well? Any major publisher who is not looking at electronic media as a method of distribution is a fool. The _New York Times_ is now available on the World Wide Web. Perhaps they are living in a delusion that *they* will not be held to the same standards that will soon be enforced against the small publisher who sees the Web as means for cheap mass distribution. Perhaps for a time, they won't. Eventually, the bird will come home to roost. One would think that they would understand that the free flow of information is important enough that we will have to stand a little pornography and other distasteful material - the same way we allow magazines to be sold at the local convienience store. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. If you don't want to read racist material, go somewhere else. Noone will *force* you to consume that which you cannot abide. They also do not seem to recognise the international nature of the internet. It is not something that operates entirely within the confines of the united States. It is an international community that reaches nearly every corner of the globe. What is proper to be displayed in New York City or Los Angeles, is probably not something that, say the government of Saudi Arabia would like to see available to its subjects. By the same token, what is deemed to satisfy the "community standards" of Amsterdam, may very well not fly in many places in the united States. In order for any government to restrict access to any country that flaunts its standards, it would have to disconnect itself from the internet. It is not possible to build walls around a country and still have all the good benifits of the internet still available. Is it a bad thing for a group of children to be able to become electronic pen-pals with another group of students in Malaysia, or Russia? Do we not think that personal relationships with people from another culture helps personalize our understanding of their cultures? I think many wars could have been avoided in the past if each side knew each other better. How can someone claim that "all russians are evil" when they have a personal relationship with Ivan in St. Petersburg? For better or worse, the technology is now out there. The world will always be smaller than it once was. We are no longer limited in our circle of friends by distance or time. (Time could indeed be an issue if one were attempting to place a phone call to someone in Paris from Dallas. Many people don't want to talk at 4am their time.) We are also not limited by the delays and expense of postage. I've met good people around the world through electronic communications who have points of view that I would probably never have considered. Again I ask, "Where is the media?" Why is the censorship of individuals a good thing? Don't come crying to me when you find, a few years down the road that this camel's nose has snuck into the tent with its bad breath, prelediction to spit, and no potty training. Since this message is being transmitted electronically, I feel that it is my moral duty to include the following so this message will fall under the purview of the act I so abhor. Shit, Piss, Cunt, Fuck, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Teats. There they are. Come and get me Big Brother. =end of article= This article was digitally signed with PGP so as to further aid prosecutors. A signed document is hard to deny. amp <0003701548@mcimail.com> <alan.pugh@internetmci.com> PGP Key = 57957C9D February 10, 1996 15:23 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMRz+6YdTfgZXlXydAQG2qgf+Omae9/yVYvcyX1ADp6mmSHQJlQJ3qS4C AnT4VK4AepDHnqrh7gVsNPQB58QAWekY4IZBGws0mdxDQF9h3q8+pu+CNEFB2CDo Zi24IqjbCD2wYnovPOAZVmppOCoD0Au6XdUPdY2rLN/AEqo7H4H3RefTXDozu1J6 9QTOytuwLhaSlQ6BeBi2XhTrKFM7g1EtpA8O+B2tEOqvghQgq9f5SeY2kOY+5792 RY4EKlhcGIeT95pevnoQFPWTQA5wJghpXD1D4gfg7hULDZM1ZXLZRHF+XxlQImgZ SrxISrE1kDxlwHe4BYM4WXPH3OU0Gj4H9pH2J0YZA5H5pZS90u7mwA== =aNzy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- #!/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL $m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%Sa 2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print pack('H*',$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length$n&~1)/2)