Should *WE* Sue Under CDA

[tallpaul]

On Feb 18, 1996 22:15:00, '"E. ALLEN SMITH"
<EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>' wrote: 
 
 
>From:	IN%"declan+ at CMU.EDU"  "Declan B. McCullagh" 17-FEB-1996 18:07:51.71 
> 
>>A lawsuit against the atheist would not be effective and could result in 
>>a countersuit for abuse of process. 
> 
>	Huh? You seem to have misinterpreted what I said. The atheist, who has 
>a child that reads the net, sues a Christian Fundamentalist organization
(say, 
>one of the Southern Baptist seminaries) for having a copy of the Bible -
which 
>contains material that is among the "seven dirty words" or whatever -
online, 
>where the child can read it. The CDA essentially says that a child reading

>indecent materials is doing harm to the child (a nice bit of nonsense),
which 
>gives the government the (undeserved) power to regulate such interactions.

>A countersuit will be somewhat difficult, since the organization in
question 
>(the one with the Bible online) is breaking the law; while there have been

>burglar suing because of broken leg cases, I believe that such are
generally 
>thrown out - possibly due to laws on the subject. 
>	Now, the jury won't find the seminary or whoever liable... but it would 
>create some publicity and tie the sued organization up for a while. It's 
>something that I'd encourage an atheist organization to sponsor. 
>	-Allen 
> 
 
On a personal and emotional level I *love* the idea of watching a group of
pro-CDA fundie christers having to sweat in court explaining how their
support for things like incest and murder are protected under the First
Amendment but other people's speech is not. 
 
But on a logical level, should we use (or advocate) the court system under
CDA-related topics. 
 
I think not. 
 
Allen's post has great emotional appeal, but it creates at least one
danger. 
 
The first is the hypocrisy involved in advocating something with which we
disagree, like asking the courts to support CDA and use CDA to punish those
we don't like. 
 
The second is creating an Orwellian doublethink in politics where we first
advocate something, like useing the courts. Then, when challenged (about
hypocrisy or anything else) turn around and state that we really did not
adovate what we so clearly did advocate or that we did not "mean" what we
so clearly said. 
 
Ultimately, we reinforce a form of political behavior where nobody is
responsible for their political behavior and nobody expects to be held
accountable for it. 
 
Witness the behavior of people like Rep. Shroeder who voted for CDA etc.
including the anti-abortion aspects, but does not want this to count among
the pro-choice crowd because she didn't "really" vote for CDA etc. to get
it to limit abortions. 
 
--tallpaul 
"Encryption? It is a Satanic drug thing. You wouldn't understand."