OFF: READ THIS AND SEND FWD

[Ted O. Jackson]

>
> 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. :-)
>
At least a candlelight vigil, eh?


> 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

Absolutely.  Freedom of speech [or expression] carries with it a
certain responsibility to the rest of society.  we must use our
freedoms wisely and not to potentially hurt others.

> 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.
>

Right again.  It's unlikely that access to these wonderfully useful
'freedom-loving' bytes will ever be curtailed.  It will simply be
more difficult to obtain it.  If you really want porn over the net,
you;ll find alternatives that already exist.  It's unlikely that
censors would even consider most stuff that passes--they won't have
time.  Why do people want unrestricted freedom?  What do they plan on
using the net for?  There is a certain smarmy privacy that is
associated withthe net, something that has always alienated me from
being a full-fledged participant.  People will access material
through the net that they'd never have the balls to buy in person,
c.f porn, or sexually-oriented chat groups.  The net has greatly
expanded the potential for stuff that I'd just as soon not see
proliferated to grow.  Maybe when we all have demonstrated a
responsible concern for cyberspace, things will change.  So far, I
don';t see it.

> 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*.

Absolutely again.  The White house will just dismiss such idiotic
action as the work of cranks, or it may make washington all the more
determined to crack down.  Such childish action proves nothing except
stupidity and laziness.  If you're really concerned about intrusions
upon your rights, then write a thoughtful message expressing real
concerns, and get your ass on record!

> 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-
>
Right again.  Moronic chain letters rob any substantive movement of
its creedence.


> > -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.
>