Transcript of Hillary Clinton's comments on Net-regulation
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:54:55 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Transcript of Mrs. Clinton's comments on Net-regulation Here's what Hillary Clinton said this afternoon about regulation of the Internet during an otherwise routine press conference in the Map Room about the "Millenium Evenings." Tonight at 7 pm EST she and the president will cybercast the first one from the east room of the White House. It's hardly surprising that our elected officials don't like the ability of the Internet to provide everyone with a platform. Even Thomas Jefferson kvetched about the excesses of the press of his day and in 1783 and 1788 endorsed laws that permitted government prosecutions of the press for printing "false facts." Though I somehow suspect that the first lady has recently been more worried about media reporting facts that may turn out to be true... -Declan === Q I just wanted to ask you about something that Gregg said. He's obviously an Internet enthusiast. But when he talked about some of the aspects of the system -- the fact that you could say something and you can't take it back, how it's so available to everyone and instantaneous, he's raised some issues that have been issues for us in the last few weeks in our business. And I wonder if you think that this new media is necessarily an entirely good thing. And also, as somebody who has been through this crucible, in the next millennium how would you like to see this new and ever more interesting -- (laughter) -- handled of things like the issues like the personal lives of public figures. MRS. CLINTON: Well, Kathy, I think that's one of these issues that Dick was referring to, that we're going to have to really think hard about. And I think that every time technology makes an advance -- when you move to the railroad, or you move to the cotton gin, or you move to the automobile, or the airplane, and now certainly as you move to the computer and increasing accessibility and instantaneous information on the computer, we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are always competing values. There's no free decision that I'm aware of anywhere in life, and certainly with technology that's the case. As exciting as these new developments are -- and I think Gregg's enthusiasm is shared broadly by Americans and people around the world -- there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gate-keeping function. What does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation, or to respond to what someone says? There used to be this old saying that the lie can be halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. Well, today, the lie can be twice around the world before the truth gets out of bed to find its boots. I mean, it is just beyond imagination what can be disseminated. So I think we're going to have to really worry about this, because it won't be just public elected officials. We've seen some cases where somebody who had a grudge against a girl's mother because the family wouldn't let him date her put out on the Internet that the family were child abusers. Totally private people, never stuck their toe in public life. It can be done to anybody, and it can get an audience, and it can create a falsehood about somebody. And certainly it's multiplied many times over if you happen to be in public life. I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological -- out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to -- Q Sounds like you favor regulation. MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I don't know what I'm in favor of. And I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully. Q -- one of the balances, though, in this new digital age is that you can have direct communication. You're celebrating that tonight -- people can log on from anywhere. In that spirit, have you thought any more about a direct and frank conversation by the President with the country about these allegations? MRS. CLINTON: I'm not going to add anything to what the President has already said. And I think that any of you who think hard about this issue would have to agree that he's taken the right position. So I'm not going to add to that. ===
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological -- out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to --
pro-balance? JAFR --just another form of regulation. the concept of free thought for anyone outside of the inner circle has never occurred to Hillary. does Chelsea view Hillary as her "mother" or as an automan who conceived her before her clocked ticked out? all the show of family is a sham for Hillary; Hillary is straight out of "Logan's Run" and automated child care --the global village concept of procreation, child rearing, and education in a protypical defined environment to the party line.
Q Sounds like you favor regulation.
even Kathy picked up on that one!
MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I don't know what I'm in favor of. And I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully.
if you print a newspaper, you can not retract the comment (but the distribution is less). the government will attack the remailers on accountability, yet the courts have consistently ruled on the constitutionality of anonymous handbills. why do they not come out and state what their real agenda is? the internet is not the controlled media (the gatekeepers of Hillary's later comments --in fact that is the most direct reference to government leaning on the press I have seen in print by a high ranking power behind the throne. the issue is that the internet strikes fear in the hearts of the scalawags, bounders, and highwaymen posing as our elected representatives to what was _our_ republic. attila out... again
participants (2)
-
attila
-
Declan McCullagh