---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:29:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: "James S. Tyre" <j.s.tyre@worldnet.att.net> Cc: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: Fight-each-other Some random thoughts: It's no surprise that pro-CDA folks are on f-c. Paul Cardin from OCAF subscribed about a year ago. Bruce Taylor and lawyers for Enough is Enough and the Family Research Council have been known to frequent the list, along with a variety of Hill staffers. They do a better job of keeping their disagreements under wraps, though if you ask the right questions you'll learn about some of the riffs that split their community over CDA I. We're not as organized -- nor should we be. Netizens, by their very nature, can't march in lockstep together. Sure, the pro-CDA I forces will hear our squabbles, smell our dirty laundry. But this debate won't continue forever, and perhaps some common ground will emerge. Maybe it was naive to think that the anti-CDA coalition would hang together after the Supreme Court decision. After all, the current fault lines are split along some of the same divisions that existed for a year and a half in two lawsuits: the one organized by the ACLU and the one organized by CIEC. I've heard some say that the current dispute was inevitable. Or, think of it this way: when privacy groups ally with the religious right on database legislation, they don't expect their alliance to last forever. Or when librarians join with Sony, Bell Atlantic, and Sun on copyright lobbying. Or when the ACLU joins the Eagle Forum on crypto. Or when the Cato Institute joins Ralph Nader on opposing the CDA. These are issue-by-issue alliances, and everyone involved understands that from the start. Perhaps we should have thought of the CDA alliance the same way? Or perhaps the conflict arises because all groups would like to claim the mantle of "representing the interests of the Net" -- which brings with it some political currency here in Washington. And some might say the tussle comes from long-standing personality conflicts. Again, these are stream-of-consciousness thoughts, typed in while watching that excerable new TV show "Roar." I haven't thought this through as much as I'd like. -Declan On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, James S. Tyre wrote:
The note below was sent to me privately earlier today. I will respect the author's privacy by not revealing who s/he is, but y'all might take heed of what the author says.
I am familiar with the author from elsewhere, and many on f-c might well agree with the self-characterization (which, in this context, has nothing to do with Libertarianism, pro or con).
At 7:30 PM -0700 7/21/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
same way? Or perhaps the conflict arises because all groups would like to claim the mantle of "representing the interests of the Net" -- which brings with it some political currency here in Washington. And some might
Nope, not all groups would like to claim they are "representing the interests of the Net." And not all individuals, either. I don't recall any plausible consensus of the Cypherpunks claiming to represent the interests of the Net. I've never claimed to represent the interests of "the Net"--I just want anyone who tries to tell me what to do in violation of the strict limits of the Constitution (especially the Old Testament version, not the newfangled New Testament that says I have to hire some percentage of coloreds, for example) to _STOP_. And I don't trust legislation. Only way to STOP them is to use technological monkeywrenches. The stuff that should be well-known, even to Washington burrowcrats. And I'm not convinced the "alliance" against the CDA was terribly important. Had the Eagle Forum, or whatever, and the CPSR, or whatever, not been part of the suit, the ACLU lawyers would still likely have carried the day. The Supremes may have been willing to look the other way on some major constitutional issues the last several decades, but some things are just too clear cut violations of the First, even for them. (Similarly, I expect the "mandatory voluntary Net ratings" system to fail. It's not even clear if television networks have to "voluntarily self-rate," as the NBC refusal is likely to ultimately show, and these are networks ostensibly bound by FCC rules and the usual "scarce spectrum" arguments. The Net is exactly like print, and there is no plausible argument for demanding that all writers classify their writings according to some government standard. (Lest this not be clear, suppose that my value system argues that sex and profanity are necessary parts of a child's education, so I voluntarily rate my writings as "suitable for children of all ages." What then? And must I warn Muslims that my writings may be offensive to them? And so on, for literally hundreds or more everyday examples. The Supremes will strike this mandatory voluntary "Children's Protection and Safe Surfing Act" down pronto. Whether or not a Grand Alliance is formed.) By the way, I've attempted to comply with the spirit of Comrad Clinton's ratings system. See below. --Tim May Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article (U.S. Statute 43-666-970719). Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense, and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself not contain material in violation of the Act. ** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** : Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up. Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh? --Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture, regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering. --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article. **SUMMARY** Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1 Composite Age Rating: 45 years
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes: (reasonable stuff)
** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** :
Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up. Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh?
--Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture, regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering. --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article.
**SUMMARY** Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1 Composite Age Rating: 45 years
This is hilarious. It also gives me an idea for a project, if anyone wants one: Put out your own .RAT file with shit like "advocates censorship" or "opposes use of crypto". Put out PICS ratings against the material on the net using this .RAT file. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Maybe it was naive to think that the anti-CDA coalition would hang together after the Supreme Court decision. After all, the current fault lines are split along some of the same divisions that existed for a year and a half in two lawsuits: the one organized by the ACLU and the one organized by CIEC. I've heard some say that the current dispute was inevitable.
Or, think of it this way: when privacy groups ally with the religious right on database legislation, they don't expect their alliance to last forever. Or when librarians join with Sony, Bell Atlantic, and Sun on copyright lobbying. Or when the ACLU joins the Eagle Forum on crypto. Or when the Cato Institute joins Ralph Nader on opposing the CDA.
These are issue-by-issue alliances, and everyone involved understands that from the start. Perhaps we should have thought of the CDA alliance the same way? Or perhaps the conflict arises because all groups would like to claim the mantle of "representing the interests of the Net" -- which brings with it some political currency here in Washington. And some might say the tussle comes from long-standing personality conflicts.
I think something more is going on, at least with the "conserative movement", but I also watch National Empowerment Television :). Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional authority to be in. They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon. I would number Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group. The other side (e.g. Concerned Women For America) wants to "tame" or turn the dragon and assume they can make the power to kill and imprison work for good when they are in control, and will even let Bill & Hillary run things if they "will only save our kids from cyberporn". The first group are deserting the Republican party as such in droves (look for a Libertarian party pickup if the party avoids being too libertine). The Republican coalition is based on shrinking the power and cost of government and the people they have proved to be ineffective or even against shrinking government in practice. Principled losses would be welcomed over compromised victories, but even worse, they stand on principle for two weeks, and when it looks like they are about to win, but are getting a media barrage only inside the beltway, they cave in suffering all the scars of battle without anything to show for it. The next (1998) election should be interesting. The CDA brought the differences into clear view. I usually ask if they would like Joycelyn Elders to decide what gets censored (Who do they think Bill & Hillary would appoint?), or if the same courts that they say can't tell up from down in their judicial abuse alerts will be able to decide on whether an anti-abortion site is "indecent". What I cannot understand is why people who spend a great deal of their content cataloging abuses from all branches of government and otherwise say it is too intrusive believe that in the instance of net censorship that it will suddenly turn into a wise and beatific force when every other bit of evidence would indicate otherwise. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
Mismatched NFS IDs writes:
I think something more is going on, at least with the "conserative movement", but I also watch National Empowerment Television :).
Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional authority to be in. They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon. I would number Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group.
Sure, *they* want to be left alone, but I wouldn't trust these groups to leave the rest of us alone. They'll want to make sure that we're not ingesting any controlled substances, and that we're not shacking up with an unmarried partner, and that we're not peeking at porn or engaging in "abnormal" sexual practices, and that we pray to the right god at the right time, and so forth. These groups are not friends of liberty. Like the traditional "liberals", they seek not so much to slay the dragon as to replace it with their own. If they currently happen to agree with "us" on net issues, fine. Otherwise, give me true libertarians anyday. [snip]
The first group are deserting the Republican party as such in droves (look for a Libertarian party pickup if the party avoids being too libertine).
Hah! Can anyone imagine the Libertarians supporting an Anti-abortion amendment, or a school prayer amendment or a flag-burning amendment? No, I don't think these folks will be joining the Libertarian party anytime soon. -- Jeff
Regarding the subject, Q.E.D. On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Jeff Barber wrote:
Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional authority to be in. They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon. I would number Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group.
Sure, *they* want to be left alone, but I wouldn't trust these groups to leave the rest of us alone. They'll want to make sure that we're not ingesting any controlled substances, and that we're not shacking up with an unmarried partner, and that we're not peeking at porn or engaging in "abnormal" sexual practices, and that we pray to the right god at the right time, and so forth. These groups are not friends of liberty. Like the traditional "liberals", they seek not so much to slay the dragon as to replace it with their own. If they currently happen to agree with "us" on net issues, fine. Otherwise, give me true libertarians anyday.
You either missed or paraphrased my second paragraph. My point is precisely that the rift is between those who want to use government to regulate the things you mention, and those who don't think it is the government's business, whether they consider them good or bad. The organizations I mentioned here specifically don't want the federal government trying to control these things. In general, sacrificing one's own liberty in an attempt to limit someone else's behavior when it doesn't affect anyone else, even if it is self-destructive, is silly. Both France and the United States had revolutions at about the same time. One eventually established liberty and the other a reign of terror, but both thought they were "true libertarians".
The first group are deserting the Republican party as such in droves (look for a Libertarian party pickup if the party avoids being too libertine).
Hah! Can anyone imagine the Libertarians supporting an Anti-abortion amendment, or a school prayer amendment or a flag-burning amendment? No, I don't think these folks will be joining the Libertarian party anytime soon.
Political parties are defined by their members and a membership change would result in a policy change. I can imagine a 10th ammendment style anti-abortion ammendment which would overturn Roe v. Wade and remove the federal government from the debate. I can also imagine a similar ammendment returning us to "public schools" instead of the current "government schools" which would have prayers or not as part of their local policy. And I have heard many "conservative Republicans" say that they should trivially alter the constitution for something like flag descration. But I will even go further. There is such an organization as Libertarians for Life - where you stand on the abortion question is dependent on when you think a human life becomes a person with constitutional protections, not on whether you think there should be laws against murder, or whether people who want medical procedures should be able to have them, which there is almost unanimous agreement on. The rift in the Republican party will cause a similar one in the Libertarian party, between the Actonite and Libertine and even the anarchical wings. Even libertarinaism is not a point, but a continuum. True libertarians all agree that my rights end where yours begin, but not on exactly where that line is, and rights are only one side of the equation. Liberty is precious and a delicate balance which is why it is so rare. Liberty has a cost of personal responsibility. Ingesting controlled substances can affect me if they drive or work for me. Remember that the other side of this is that I would be able to personally evaluate all these things when deciding to hire someone I intend for a long term position - they can have all their privacy but no job, or would have to act under my definition of responsibility - and you would be equally free to hire people who met your standards. Or to update the old joke, A socialist is a libertarian who has overdosed or injured someone during a blackout, had a child out of wedlock, or has contracted a STD. They probably start praying too :).
Nobody writes:
Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional authority to be in. They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon. I would number Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group.
Sure, *they* want to be left alone, but I wouldn't trust these groups to leave the rest of us alone. [snip] These groups are not friends of liberty. Like the traditional "liberals", they seek not so much to slay the dragon as to replace it with their own.
You either missed or paraphrased my second paragraph. My point is precisely that the rift is between those who want to use government to regulate the things you mention, and those who don't think it is the government's business, whether they consider them good or bad. The organizations I mentioned here specifically don't want the federal government trying to control these things.
OK, let's look at one of these organizations. Here's certain bullets from the mission statement from Eagle Forum's web site, followed by my annotations. I've omitted most of their bullets, some of which I actually agree with. o Supports a strong national defense and the protection of American sovereignty and jobs against encroachments by international agreements. We support using the newest technology to build a strong ballistic missile defense. We oppose weakening the military by putting women and open homosexuals in combat assignments. We oppose "New World Order" interventions -- a government that can't protect our safety in America's cities has no business trying to police the world. Protection of jobs by government as implied here does not reflect a perception of government as "an intrinsic evil". o Supports a health care system that puts control of spending in the hands of individuals -- not the government. We support individual medical savings accounts plus tax fairness, so that all Americans can buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars. Again, a government solution, not a clear "keep the government out of the health care system." o Supports conservative and pro-family policies at every level of government. There's that G-word again. o Opposes government subsidies for offensive "art," elective abortions, or immoral lifestyles. But implicit in this is that they *would* give government subsidies to art they don't find offensive, and would support "moral" lifestyles (for their definition of moral). Otherwise, why don't they come out and say "we oppose ALL government subsidies for art" and "we think the government ought not promote any lifestyle"? o Opposes violence, pornography, and attacks on traditional family values by the entertainment industry. An implicit threat to use government to regulate the industry. I could do the same thing with the Progress and Freedom Foundation or the National Empowerment TV group you mentioned, but what's the point? These people are not libertarians! And grouping them into something called the "leave-us-alone" coalition is a fraud. -- Jeff
At 10:06 -0400 7/23/97, Jeff Barber wrote:
An implicit threat to use government to regulate the industry.
I could do the same thing with the Progress and Freedom Foundation or the National Empowerment TV group you mentioned, but what's the point? These people are not libertarians! And grouping them into something called the "leave-us-alone" coalition is a fraud.
PFF would like to be more libertarian than conservative, though they've been quieter recently after many of their staff members left. I'm thinking of going to their Aspen conference next month, but I hear that it's been going downhill. I've been on National Empowerment TV a few times, and they're hardcore conservatives, not libertarians. The Family Research Council's Cathy Cleaver has her own show on there where she rants about how we need more government censorship of the Net. -Declan ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/
Last night (7/24/97), on National Empowerment Television, the hosts of Endangered Liberties honored Phil Zimmerman for his work on PGP, and they even had an employee of PGP there to discuss the program and the policy problems. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
participants (7)
-
Declan McCullagh -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Jeff Barber -
Mismatched NFS IDs -
Nobody -
nospam-seesignature＠ceddec.com -
Tim May