Lynne L. Harrison writes:

At 07:08 PM 8/19/96 -0500, Igor Chudov wrote:

...

I personally find the web page very well and artistically done, and extremely funny. The guy who did it had a good taste.

I personally found the page to be offensive and disagree highly with the person having "good taste". Following the premise that another posted to this list, there were ways of focusing on opposing the CDA without insulting women and/or minorities. I also agree that this act is going to backfire by giving the DOJ fodder when the case reaches the Supreme Court. IMO, it was patently obvious that it was a kid or kids that did it who gave no substantial thought on the consequences of his/their act.

While I wouldn't say that the site was exactly "in good taste", there was nothing there that was offensive to me. And I don't really see why anything there should have offended women (the mere sight of female genitalia, presumably, is offensive to women? One wonders how women ever manage to get dressed in the morning without keeling over from self-induced mortification? Or is it hillaryshair.com that is offensive to women?), or minorities (simply because Hitler's name and picture were displayed, I guess?). Besides, I've seen no evidence that the page was actually created by an Evil Hacker who broke in; how do we know it wasn't just a low-level DoJ sysadmin following orders? After all, if the reaction you fear from the Supremes is so likely, why couldn't a pro-CDA staffer simply supply ready-made fodder. The web page is pure satire and not poorly done, IMO, at least from a political viewpoint. If this sort of display would be banned by the CDA, then I'd say we are all quite right to fear it This is exactly the kind of "speech" that the CDA must *not* be allowed to ban. The bottom line for the DoJ is that this merely proves the need for better security on their web site (if indeed it *was* a breakin by an Evil Hacker, of course). -- Jeff