-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199602121313.IAA26828@UNiX.asb.com>, "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@UNiX.asb.com> wrote:

Know your enemies:

There's an op-ed in LI Newsday by Cathleen A. Cleaver ("directory of legal studies at the Family Research Council..." in LI Newsday today.

Serious pro-CDA spin here. Justifies the bust of Amateur Action BBS, ignoring that they were set up by the gov't, and then insists the CDA only prohibits making porn accessible to kids. Calls anti-CDA folx "free-speech zealots" and "friends of the porn industry", claims the courts can determine merit on a per-case basis, and claims objections to CDA are really from "arrogance and greed... Most Americans do not have access to the Internet. The on-line elite would like to keep it that way..."

No surprises here. Except for the "on-line elite" shot in the dark, the anti-sex censors have been talking this way for decades. What's interesting is that your report of this spokesperson's tone makes it sound *defensive* -- like a reaction to an onslaught rather than a celebration of victory. The battle for people's hearts and minds on this issue is far from over. ObMetzgerQ: What the hell does this have to do with cryptography? ObMetzgerA: Nothing! So there! Hahahahahahha! - -- Alan Bostick | "If I am to be held in contempt of court, Seeking opportunity to | your honor, it can only be because the court develop multimedia content. | has acted contemptibly!" Finger abostick@netcom.com for more info and PGP public key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMR+b5uVevBgtmhnpAQH62wL8CgSlQ7r6WsRkLZmWeQMPjuzuEoCxsdq6 Q2ZLE/6pOSd01ieK+5SzQhUZQQtIB2mCu6rhtAVK1zjJPUJ/eLuGWvLmdPnJAGZw cSPoVqoYW1XSas4ATzcnK9dC71ao9VOS =je58 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 14-Feb-96 Re: Spin Control Alert (LI .. by Sten Drescher@grendel.te

DBM> (I assume your Bible argument is just posturing. No DBM> U.S. Attorney, political appointees they, ever will prosecute DBM> someone who puts the complete text of the King James Bible DBM> online.)

You assume wrong. While I certainly agree that no U.S. Attorney would voluntarily prosecute such a case, what happens when an athiest files charges against someone for carrying the Bible? IANAL, but couldn't the U.S. Attorney be forced to prosecute? Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so, since it has been reported (on this list by Tim Philp from a Toronto Star article) that the Bible has been removed from at least one Web site, presumably due to fear of prosecution.

Since you don't understand the way Federal criminal charges work, there's no reason I should take your argument seriously. (Hint: The *U.S. Attorney*, or an AUSA, files charges, not you, me, or a random "athiest.") As for this mythical Bible being removed, that is irrelevant to this discussion, which centers around a Bible being *prosecuted*. If I had a Bible on my web site (perhaps the TCM Vernacular Translation!) I'd remove it just to make a point. As I suspect the owner of the web pages did. Many of us have engaged in lofty rhetoric saying what *could* be prosecuted -- the Bible, and Catcher in the Rye, and other works of literature. Now that the law's passed, let's talk about what *will* be prosecuted. It will be material that U.S. Attorneys think will get them a conviction. NAMBLA materials, stories about pedophilia, paraphilia, and bestiality, and images of hardcore porn -- preferably gay porn -- that are available to minors. This law is dangerous because it is so overbroad that prosecutions can be made exceedingly selectively -- depending on what a US Atty thinks will offend a jury composed of folks from his area of the country. -Declan

Excerpts from mail: 13-Feb-96 Re: Spin Control Alert (LI .. by Sten Drescher@grendel.te

As someone who would prolly be considered part of the 'religious right' (why don't we ever hear of the 'religious left', who are prolly just as much in support of banning porn?), I have to take exception to this. I'm appalled by the CDA, and, if you start pointing out to religious supporters of the CDA that it has already resulted in the King James version of the Bible being removed from (at least) one web site, I'm sure that some of them will be as well,

I do hope the religious right keeps fighting against GAK. However good their intentions may be on *that* issue, it is transcendently obvious to anyone who has been following the flux on Capitol Hill that they were behind the recent push to regulate the Internet. (I assume your Bible argument is just posturing. No U.S. Attorney, political appointees they, ever will prosecute someone who puts the complete text of the King James Bible online.) So you are trivially correct in asserting that not everyone who identifies as a member of the "religious right" supports all the actions of their lobbyists in Washington. However, that does not change the fact that conservative theocrats were the architects of the cyberporn scare and the accompanying "indecency" legislation. The selfsame theocrats, in fact, used Marty Rimm's cyberporn study and the TIME cyberporn cover as a vehicle to promote their agenda. The very conservative Sen. Chuck Grassley in July 1995 organized a hearing around Rimm's study to justify his anti-smut legislation. "Not a study by an advocacy group!" he crowed on the Senate floor. Of course, he neglected to say that religious right lobbyists *helped write* Rimm's study, and a member of his staff likely was involved. Let's see who the players are, as identified by Mike Godwin: 1) _The National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families._ Formerly the National Coalition Against Pornography, this organization renamed itself last year, perhaps in anticipation of its legislative compaign against online "indecency" (a broader category than pornography). 2) _The National Law Center for Children and Families._ This orgnization was formerly headed by antiporn activist Cathy Cleaver -- it is now headed by Bruce Taylor, formerly a prosecutor specializing in obscenity cases and formerly the general counsel of a an antiporn group based in Phoenix, Arizona, and founded under the name "Citizens for Decency through Law." The organization was founded by Charles Keating, himself a veteran of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (a.k.a. the Meese Commission). 3) _Enough is Enough!_ Presenting itself as a secular effort, this organization provides a platform for former party girl and ex-No Excuses-jeans model Donna Rice-Hughes, who has leveraged her fame from the Gary Hart candidacy into a career as an antiporn activist. (With almost suspiciously frequent meetings with Bob Dole.) Enough is Enough is headed by Dee Jepsen, who testified about the dangers of online nastiness at Grassley's cyberporn hearing. Bob Chatelle from the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression reports that Jepsen is Chairman of the Board of Regents of Pat Roberson's Regent University, is Cochair of Washington For Jesus, and has served on the Steering Committee of the Coalition on Revival, closely linked with the Christian Reconstructionist movement. Reconstructionists believe that Christians should "take dominion" and establish Old Testament law. Many Reconstructionists openly advocate death for homosexuals, preferably by stoning. I'd be happy to expand on the links between the religious right and the move to regulate the Net, but Mike Godwin has already done it quite eloquently, at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/ Some additional background about Donna Rice's censorship efforts, including recent media profiles of her: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=1178 http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=302 -Declan