OFF: READ THIS AND SEND FWD

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> 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.

ObRush: Ditto.

What should be worrying you guys in the US is that various States have
attempted to tax your payments to ISP's. The CDA will most likely be
repealed in the Supreme Court to be replaced by a more reasonable law
requiring WWW pages to be rated appropriately on a voluntary basis
backed by sanctions for obvious disregard such as rating adult material
in such a way that Protect-A-Kid software can lock out access.


> 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. ;-)

And they still want someone else to do their job for 'em.

> 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

As do I, but only with written permission from the donkey ;-)

> 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.

An argument which perhaps applies to Usenet, but not to the Web where
you must cause your machine to fetch the information from the machine
where it resides.

> 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?

Should the Internet be something that is safe for kids? If so then why
shouldn't roads? Make an 8mph speed limit everywhere?

A better solution is to say that the world is generally for adults and
it's up to parents to prevent their kids from walking into danger and to
educate them to avoid this. They need to tell 'em "Don't talk to
strangers" on the Internet just as elsewhere. Meanwhile there's software
that can stop 'em reaching the "top shelf" and ISP's who'll provide a
KiddieNet that's more or less Policed.

> 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.

Unless minors can view video without a VCR then that's hardly necessary.

> 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.

Yes, there's a deeper problem there: politicians seem to be unable to
understand the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law...." seems
pretty damn clear to me.

> Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves,
> and should promptly join the more fashionable concensus reality most of
> us inhabit.

To paraphrase someone more erudite than myself: if we all lived with the
consensus, we'd all still be living in caves.

> 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.

You think they won't have another try at making PGP illegal?

> 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.

Unless you're a parent of course....

> 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.

Which demonstrates more than anything the truly yawning culture gap that
exists here.

> (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...:)

Maybe they use hemp paper ;-)

> 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*.

Havta admit, I'm with Paul 100% on that one. Any Pol that's telling the
truth would tell you that it's more effective.

> Paul.

FoFP