OFF: READ THIS AND SEND FWD

[Paul Mather]

On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Michael P Mccollum wrote:

> the free internet is dying- at least for us here in the U.S. unless
> we finally reach the apex of our nationalist idiology and demand the
> right to be members of the world- our damn government is gonna let us get
> left behind while the rest of the world moves ahead - all this censorship
> is patetic - if you don't want your kids to have cybersex with some
> congressman than don't buy them a computer!!! i don't need big brother
> to decide this for me - i hate that the most marvelous thing to evolve in
> the last 20 years is getting squashed by a buch of old farts!!

Hey, you forgot to suggest whipping up a torch-wielding mob of angry
villagers. :-)

The extreme sentiments you express above is hardly representative of the
actual situation on the ground, so to speak.  The sky is not falling.  I
repeat, the sky is not falling.  I find this idea that the "free internet
is dying" to be most amusing.  Was there ever a "free internet?"  Just
because the elitist club and free-for-all party it once was is now being
gatecrashed, the partyers are all starting to pout and cry, saying,
"we're special, and what you're trying to do is not normal (boo hoo
hoo)!"  Wake up, folks.  The "normal" world is here.  The parents have
come home. ;-)

One of the most common themes I encountered amongst the term papers I had
to critique on "Internet censorship" was the thought that the Internet
somehow had a "special status."  It was common for students to advocate
that "anything goes" on the Internet, because of "free speech" (or simply,
because "that's the way it is on the Internet").  My common response was
to ask why the Internet should be allowed to do things that would be
forbidden outside of it.  For example, people think that it "should be
allowed" to have pictures of young ladies sucking off donkeys freely
available on the Internet, and there should be no barriers whatsoever to
their access.  My usual response was to point out that the same pictures,
printed out, would not be allowed to be posted on departmental or public
noticeboards around campus, or around town.  Indeed, the retail outlets
for such merchandise are prohibited to those under the age of majority,
yet we are supposed to lift any and all barriers to access on the
Internet?  Under what justification?  In fact, those video rental outlets
that also carry "adult" videos often have them in a separate room,
segregated from those who are minors.  There are many other instances
where certain types of speech are regulated or prohibited by law; there is
no such thing as an absolute right to free speech in the USA, first
amendment or not.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves,
and should promptly join the more fashionable concensus reality most of
us inhabit.

Besides, think about it.  Nobody is able to stop the spread of this
material, so why the angst-ridden doomsaying?  If you want to get ahold of
pictures of Cindy Crawford taking on the Iditarod champion sled dog team,
then you can always exchange such pictures electronically with like-minded
people via the marvels of PGP.  And if that draws a blank, you can always
browse through the back pages of Computer Shopper et al and find listings
for oodles of CD-ROMs that cater to that market desire.  Or, if you want
to subscribe to nazi anti-semitic hate groups, I'm sure there are plenty
of e-mail lists out there.  Nobody said life was easy.

There are some stupid aspects of the CDA, but, like all new legislation
it will have wrinkles which need to be ironed out through challenges via
the Supreme Court.  (As is currently ongoing.)  So it goes in all walks of
life.  The Internet is no different.  No use fooling yourself it is.

> btw who are you kidding -do you think the president really reads his
> mail- hell no!!! it is first read by one flunky and put in the proper box
> -instant reply (thanks for your concern, etc..) or moved on up to the
> next flunky /analist etc..

Actually, when the White House e-mail link was first set up they actually
PRINTED OUT every piece of e-mail received, which was then forwarded to
the appropriate department for processing and reply, via normal internal
channels.  (For all I know, it could still be done like this, in which
case, I wonder how many forests went to fuel that stupid prank...:)

I don't remember either Deborah or I opposing a protest of the CDA.  In
fact, both of us commented on its potential importance.  It was the stupid
sophomoric implementation that baffled us (or at least it did me).  I have
nothing against swamping the White House e-mail with millions of letters
of protest, but let them be *individually crafted thoughts on the matter*.
It takes a robotic drone, what, about 30 seconds to bounce on a
pre-written message to someone?  Boy, that amount of effort is really
going to impress the recipient, isn't it?  I mean, they must REALLY CARE
about the issue to take 30 seconds out of their life to bounce on
something they didn't even write.  How much more meaningful, then, to have
millions of individuals each compose a letter sharing their OWN CONCERNS
about the CDA, and then send it to the government.  Better still, send it
to the representatives that actually voted for the CDA, or who originated
the legislation.  I think having millions of individual complaints carries
immensely more weight than a robotic mailbombing.  Heck, even a simple
script can do that... O-

> -just look to the subgenius for guidance...

Yeah, but what's the betting they push back X-day once 1998 rolls around? ;-)

Followups to appropriate high-noise usenet newsgroups...

Cheers,

Paul.

obCD: Frank Zappa, _Civilization, Phase III_

e-mail: paul at csgrad.cs.vt.edu                    A stranger in a strange land.