|
|
|
This is the item for continued discussion and news posts about an issue of great importance to every user on grex, The communications decency act. Currently in federal court in Philadelphia, PA, the CDA, which was signed into law earlier this year, is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a coalition of big-name 'net providers and users groups, most notably the Microsoft Corporation. This also includes 34,000 individual 'net users who have signed on as plaintiffs, including some people here on Grex. So far in the trial, several of the new "screening" software packages, that allow parents to block indecent 'net screens from their kids, have been displayed in court. The good news is that the Judge seemed impressed with what he saw. The bad news is that the court's computer system crashed when the first proposed software was loaded. So it goes. Anyway, the argument being made by the ACLU is that congress had a responsibility to find the means to their ends that is LEAST intrusive to citizens' first amendment rights. That is the law, not an ideal, and its a persuasive argument, in my view anyway, that in an overzealousness to pass judgement on the cyberporn problem, lawmakers didnt look for the best alternatives. In any case I strongly encourage everyone to follow this trial. There are several websites with complete coverage and when I have a complete list I will post it.
43 responses total.
I am going to continue to post my comments into the old item, not here. I am reading it as "cyberpunk 43" but it was also in winter's agora.
Why not here? Boycotting unbloated agoras, steve?
This item now linked to cyberpunk as item 47. Cyberpunk your one stop conf for CDA info and debate (see items 39-47 in cyber).
re #1...srw, cyberpunk is a topical conf and few people are going to be reading winter agora as it has expired. This is appropriate, unless you wanted to link the old agora item.
Well even if srw has no interest in keeping the readers of the current agora conference updated with his informative posts, I will do so. The best web site for cda info seems to be the webpage of the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC), which is the coalition of 'net users that has brought this court challenge-- www.cdt.org The national journal's political page, http:\politicsUSA.org also has excellent coverage. The trial is in adjournment until next Monday, April 1st. Friday's session was interesting. The court heard from Donna Hoffman, a 'net expert from Vanderbilt, who described the Internet as the most democratic communications medium in the world, and the most important communications technology developed since the printing press The Justice Department lawyers, seeking to show that it is easy for children to access sexually explicit material by accident, did a search on Infoseek for info on the book LIttle Women (as a child reading the book might do) Among the links generated from this search was one titled, "See hot pictures of Naked Women" The DoJ says the simple threat of the cda has resulted in good faith efforts by people to clean up their sites, seemingly implying that the enforceability of the law is less important than the fact that it is on the books. The next CIEC witness was Robert Croneberger, the librarian at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, who stated that the CDA threatens the ability of libraries to place material online. He pointed out that the texts of many Shakespeare plays would be flagged as sexually explicit and thus minors barred from reading them. He stated that it would be technically unfeasible to label every single item in the entire catalogue of his library to ensure minors couldnt access the objectionable ones. This was just a summation. SRW's posts in cyberpnk are more detailed.
Incidentally, you too can join this lawsuit. The CIEC is still asking people to put their name on the plaintiff list. Just fill out the information screen on the CIEC page (www.cdt.org) with your personal info. I personally was proud to attach my name to this. As of today, there are 26,750 or so individual members of the coalition.
I am the 26776th person to join the CIEC plantiff list.
I will post the next CIEC mailing I get wherever you like, actually. I just wanted to post them in only one place. I figured the old item was best, as there already were the earlier ones in there. I also figured it would get linked to agora. I don't really care, though. So far no new meddages have come in from CIEC. I'm a little surprised. I wonder what's going on in the trial.
(messages)
(Isn't the trial in recess now, until April Fool's Day?)
(I believe so.)
I made a contribution pledge through the ACLU's CDA web page and
got back the following automated reply from Ira Glasser, the ACLU
chairman. The second paragraph is interesting--this is not the
first time a government has reacted with panic to the power of a
new communication medium:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Remmers,
Thank you very much for your recent contribution to help the ACLU
Foundation fight the censorship provisions of the Communications Decency
Act.
This all reminds me of Parliament's reaction to the printing press in
15th - century England. That regime of censorship produced struggles over
freedom of speech that eventually produced the First Amendment in 18th
century America. Now we have to fight that fight again.
We are, of course, confronting the Christian Coalition, and the
politicians who pander to them, across a wide range of civil liberties
issues. But this lawsuit challenging Internet censorship is as important
as any, and we very much appreciate your support.
Thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely,
Ira Glassser
I tried to join the CIEC coalition via the web, but got an error message (not the "busy" one), so I sent e-mail, and got an automated reply that they were momentarily too busy to read their mail. I can believe it.
true .. adn i like it too. What was the email address? Or can i lynx
out of here now ---lemme see before i get in too deep ...
ahhhhhh, i am the 29,194th ppl to join ... lynx did the trick
lynx http://www.cdt.org/ciec
works quite nicely, thankyouverymuch
but i didin't get on the emailing list to reduce TinyLink traffic, so would someone keep posting the email here? tnx in advance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _
|__ __| (_) | | | _ \ | | | | | (_)
| |_ __ _ __ _| | | |_) |_ _| | | ___| |_ _ _ __
| | '__| |/ _` | | | _ <| | | | | |/ _ \ __| | '_ \
| | | | | (_| | | | |_) | |_| | | | __/ |_| | | | |
|_|_| |_|\__,_|_| |____/ \__,_|_|_|\___|\__|_|_| |_|
Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Trial Update No. 7
Evening Update - April 1, 1996 10:00 pm ET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
ciec-info@cdt.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIEC UPDATES intended for members of the Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the
Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This
document may be reposted as long as it remains in total.
------------------------------------------------------------------
** 30,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. **
* The Fight To Save Free Speech Online *
Contents:
o Evening Update - Recap of Last Day o f CIEC/ACLU Testimony
* How is the CIEC case fairing so far?
* Preview of DOJ defense - Don't worry, CDA's not too broad..
* Summary of today's testimony
o Subscription Information
o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) EVENING UPDATE - RECAP OF FINAL DAY OF CIEC/ACLU TESTIMONY
Testimony in the battle to overturn the Communications Decency Act resumed
Monday (4/1) before a three judge panel in the Philadelphia federal court.
Witnesses for the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition and the ACLU gave
the court an overview of the availability of parental controls on
Commercial Online Services and the further illustrated the concerns of
commercial and non commercial content providers that the CDA threatens the
free flow of information and the free exchange of ideas online.
Witnesses testifying today included:
- Bill Burrington, Director of Public Policy for America Online (CIEC)
- Andrew Anker, CEO of HotWired Ventures Ltd. (CIEC)
- Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director, National ACLU (ACLU)
- Howard Rheingold, Author (ACLU)
- Stephen Donaldson, President of Stop Prisoner Rape (ACLU)
A summary of the testimony is included below.
Monday was the third and final day of testimony from Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) and ACLU witnesses. Testimony resumes on April
12 and 15 when the Justice Department will call witnesses to defend the
constitutionality of the CDA. CIEC and ACLU lawyers will have an
opportunity to rebut the DOJ testimony during a final session scheduled for
April 26.
HOW IS THE CIEC CASE FAIRING?
The first three days of testimony have established a solid record for the
basis of the legal challenge. The CIEC legal challenge to the CDA is based
on two arguments:
* The Internet is a unique communications technology, different from
traditional broadcast mass-media, and
* The content regulations imposed by the CDA are not the "least
restrictive means" of protecting children online, and is therefor
unconstitutional.
The court has heard testimony from Internet businesses, access providers,
and Libraries, and commercial and non commercial content providers
describing the nature of the Internet and how it functions (including a
live demonstration of the Net and parental control technologies), as well
as numerous examples of constitutionally protected materials which would be
prohibited under the CDA. The Judges, while giving little indication of
their positions, are asking numerous questions and appear to have taken a
keen interest in the Internet.
DOJ: DON'T WORRY, THE BILL AINT THAT BAD...
After 3 days of hearings and cross examination by Justice Department
attorneys, a picture of the government's strategy for defending the CDA is
beginning to emerge. Although we will learn much more when testimony
resumes on April 12, the government appears to be arguing that CDA will
restrict only the most extreme sexually explicit material, and that the
defenses to prosecution are broad and do not place undue burdens on content
providers. In other words, the terms "indecent" and "patently offensive"
should be construed narrowly, and the defenses construed broadly.
Under this argument, the government appears to be overlooking several
fundamental aspects of past indecency cases and the actual language of the
CDA. In past indecency cases, including the Pacifica case which the
authors of the CDA cite as precedent for the legislation, the term
"indecent" has been read very broadly to prohibit material even if it has
redeeming social, literary, educational, or scientific value. In addition,
during the debate on the CDA, Congress explicitly rejected the "harmful to
minors" standard, which includes a test for redeeming value.
The government also appears to be arguing for a broad interpretation of the
CDA's defenses. The defenses available under the CDA provide immunity for
content provides who take "good faith, reasonable steps", including adult
access codes or credit card verification, to restrict minors access to
"indecent" material. Throughout the course of the testimony, the DOJ has
asked questions of witnesses implying that implementing PICS standards or
other HTML tags would be relatively easy for content providers, suggesting
that they believe content labeling would be a "good faith" defense under
the CDA. Here again however, it is important to note that the House/Senate
Conference committee rejected parts of the White amendment which would have
created a more explicit defense for content labeling.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
CDT will continue to provide updates on the case when testimony resumes on
April 12. In addition, transcripts of the first 3 days of testimony will
be available on CDT's web page later this week. Please continue to visit
http://www.cdt.org/ciec for more information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) SUMMARY OF TODAY'S TESTIMONY
Bill Burrington, Director of Public Policy for America Online, told the
Court that while AOL can and does exert some control over content on its on
network, it is impossible for service providers to control content on the
global Internet. Testifying both on behalf of AOL as well as the entire
commercial online services industry (including Compuserve, Prodigy,
Microsoft Network, etc.), Burrington stated that while some online material
may be inappropriate for children, "... effective protection of children
from exposure to inappropriate material can only occur at the level of
individual users".
Burrington outlined the various parental control measures available on
commercial online services. On America Online, parents have the ability to
restrict their children's access to Usenet newsgroups, binary downloads,
chat rooms, and other features of the service. He also argued that the
"indecency" restrictions imposed by the CDA will effectively ban
constitutionally protected speech for adults and reduce online-speech to
information and discourse only appropriate for children. Burrington argued
that fear of criminal liability under the CDA could motivate AOL to remove
health related information, online forums, and other content from the
service.
HotWired CEO Andrew Anker testified that some of the material available on
HotWired, including a recent stories on the poet Allen Ginsburg and the
atl.sex.bondage newsgroup could be considered "indecent", but that it would
be impossible and extremely expensive for the company to verify the age of
every visitor to the site. In response to a question from the Justice
Department, Anker stated, "I don't understand what indecent and patently
offensive mean, or what community's standards apply". As a result, Anker
stated, HotWired fears criminal liability under the Communications Decency
Act.
Stephen Donaldson of Stop Prisoner Rape, a group dedicated to educating the
public about prison rape and helping victims recover, testified that
because some of the content on his World Wide Web site uses sometimes
explicit images and "street language" to describe prison conditions, he
fears criminal liability under the CDA.
Similarly, Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU testified that some of the material
on the ACLU's web site, including the '7-dirty words' in the text of the
Pacifica Decision, and because the ACLU hosts chat sessions on America
Online, the ACLU could face huge fines and prison terms unless it censors
itself and its members. When asked if he felt that the text of the bible or
Shakespeare's Hamlet could be considered "indecent" under the CDA,
Steinhardt argued that community standards vary throughout the United
States and that in some places, "That kind of material ... has been the
subject of censorship" in parts of the US, and "there are many people who
regard that material as Indecent."
Howard Rheingold, author and expert on the subject of Cyberspace
Communities, described some of the many benefits the online world can bring
to education and a sense of community. Rheingold argued that, although it
is technically possible to restrict minor's access to MUDs and MUSEs, it is
difficult to determine what material should be would be illegal under the
CDA.
sounds like anothere April fool item!
This whole CDA should be an April Fool's item, but alas there are people who are very serious about it, and who lack the understanding of how the internet works to be able to see what CDA legislation will do. The CIEC is educating the court. I hope the lesson is learned well, as our fate is in their hands. So pay close attention from India, rust, at American politics and government in action. It is not April Fools -- it is deadly serious. (But some of the participants may be fools all year round.)
sorry guys! ... seriously! .... it doesnot seem fool proof though!
I just became the 29424th to join. Nice to see there are things which unite people all around the world still. Shame they tend to be the bad things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _
|__ __| (_) | | | _ \ | | | | | (_)
| |_ __ _ __ _| | | |_) |_ _| | | ___| |_ _ _ __
| | '__| |/ _` | | | _ <| | | | | |/ _ \ __| | '_ \
| | | | | (_| | | | |_) | |_| | | | __/ |_| | | | |
|_|_| |_|\__,_|_| |____/ \__,_|_|_|\___|\__|_|_| |_|
Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Trial Update No. 8
Pre-Trial Update - April 11, 1996 12:00 noon ET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
ciec-info@cdt.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIEC UPDATES intended for members of the Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the
Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This
document may be reposted as long as it remains in total.
------------------------------------------------------------------
** 40,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. **
* The Fight To Save Free Speech Online *
Contents:
o Pre-Trial Update - Government To Present Its Defense of CDA
Beginning Friday April 12
* List of Government Witnesses Expected to Testify
* Schedule for Remainder of Trial
o Transcripts of the Frist Two Days of Testimony Now Online!
o Subscription Information
o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) GOVERNMENT TO BEGIN ITS DEFENSE OF CDA BEGINNING FRIDAY 4/12
The fight to overturn the Communications Decency Act will enter its second
phase on Friday April 12 with testimony from witnesses called by the
Government in defense of the CDA. The government is expected to call
several witnesses (listed below) who will argue that the Communications
Decency Act is necessary and is the "least restrictive means" of protecting
children from "indecent" and "patently offensive" material on the Internet.
Although the government has given some indication of its strategy for
defending the CDA during the first three days of testimony (see CIEC Trial
Bulletin No.7, 4/1/96), over the next two days we will learn a great deal
more about the government's position. The government is also expected to
conduct its own Internet demonstration, and is likely to try and show the
court examples of sexually explicit material available on the Internet.
Witnesses scheduled to testify on Friday April 12 and Monday April 15:
* Howard Schmidt, Supervisory Special Agent, Director of Air Force
Office of Special Investigation, Computer Crime Investigations
(Government Witness)
* Dan Olsen, Professor of Computer Science, Brigham Young University
(Government Witness)
* Albert Vezza (Associate Director, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science and
Chairman of the World Wide Web Consortium), on behalf of the Citizens
Internet Empowermnet Coalition. Vezza was unable to testify at the April
1 hearing due to scheduling conflicts.
Government witnesses will be cross examined by CIEC and ACLU lawyers. CIEC
and ACLU lawyers will also have an opportunity to present rebuttal
testimony during a hearing scheduled for April 26, and again in closing
arguments scheduled for June 3.
OVERVIEW OF EXPECTED TESTIMONY FOR APRIL 12 AND 15
Albert Vezza, the last witness to be called on behalf of the plaintiffs,
will explain to the court how PICS works and why it offers parents the
ability to protect children from unwanted material in a less restrictive
means than the CDA.
Howard Schmidt is expected to conduct a live Internet Demonstration in
which he will show the court some of the 'good' material on the Internet,
as well as some of the sexually-explicit material available to minors.
Dan Olsen is expected to testify that the PICS standards (which enable
multiple, third party labeling and content selection) are too cumbersome
and will not be effective. Based on his declaration, Olsen will instead
propose his own system under which content providers would tag material
with a code (-L18) indicating that the material is not appropriate for
those under 18.
The government is expected to argue that such a content labeling system
would be an appropriate "good faith defense" to prosecution under the CDA.
Interestingly, it is not clear from the language of the CDA that such
system would constitute a "good faith defense" to prosecution, or what
material would require a tag. These issues will be raised by CIEC and ACLU
attorneys during cross examination.
SCHEDULE FOR REMAINDER OF THE TRIAL
April 12 - 15 Government Witnesses (and final CIEC witness)
April 26 Plaintiff's Rebuttal Testimony
May 13 Post-hearing briefs and proposed findings of law and
fact from both sides will be filed
June 3 Closing Arguments (each side is given 2 hours)
CDT will post a summary of Friday's testimony shortly after the testimony
concludes for the day (and after we travel back down to Washington DC).
Previous issues of CIEC Trial Bulletins are available on CDT's world wide
web page (http://www.cdt.org/)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Transcripts of 3/21 and 3/22 Hearings Available Online
Transcripts of the first two days of testimony are now available online.
Transcripts of the 4/1 hearing will be posted soon.
To view the transcripts, visit:
http://www.cdt.org/ciec/transcripts/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just wanted to remind people who don't have any other way of looking at the Web, that thos URLs can be viewed on Grex with Lynx. You don't have to be a member. Just run lynx, and when you get the startup screen, type g, and type in the URL. You can bookmark a link with the "a" command, and view your bookmarks with a "c" command.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _
|__ __| (_) | | | _ \ | | | | | (_)
| |_ __ _ __ _| | | |_) |_ _| | | ___| |_ _ _ __
| | '__| |/ _` | | | _ <| | | | | |/ _ \ __| | '_ \
| | | | | (_| | | | |_) | |_| | | | __/ |_| | | | |
|_|_| |_|\__,_|_| |____/ \__,_|_|_|\___|\__|_|_| |_|
Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Trial Update No. 9
Pre-Trial Update - April 13, 1996 5:30 pm ET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
ciec-info@cdt.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIEC UPDATES intended for members of the Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the
Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This
document may be reposted as long as it remains in total.
------------------------------------------------------------------
** 40,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. **
* The Fight To Save Free Speech Online *
Contents:
o Government Argues CDA is Necessary and Not Overly Restrictive
* Government Witness Proposes Content Labeling Standard
* SurfWatch Blocks Government Expert
o How To Unsubscribe from this list
o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the Day: "Come on line with us, and your kids won't see
what is in [DOJ lead attorney] Mr. Coppalino's book"
of sexually explicit images found online.
-- Judge Stewart Dalzell, suggesting how service providers might market
PICS compatible Internet services
(1) GOVERNMENT ARGUES CDA IS NECESSARY AND NOT OVERLY RESTRICTIVE
The second phase of the legal challenge to the Communications Decency Act
began on Friday as the Department of Justice presented its defense of the
new law before the three judge panel in Philadelphia. Although basic
outline of the government's defense has been known for some time, Friday
marked the first time that the Government has presented witnesses in
defense of the CDA.
Based on Friday's testimony, the basis of the government's defense appears
to be that sexually explicit material is easily available to minors on the
Internet, and that the CDA, combined with a system for labeling sexually
explicit material, is necessary to prevent minors from accessing sexually
explicit material online.
Three witnesses testified at the Friday hearing:
* Howard Schmidt, Special Agent, Director of the Air Force Office of
Special Investigations, Computer Crime Investigations, and
* Dan Olsen, Chair of the Brigham Young University Computer Science
Department
* Albert Vezza, of MIT and the World Wide Web Consortium. (Vezza was
called by the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition).
DOJ EXPERT CLAIMS THAT SPEAKER-BASED LABELING IS AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTION
The government also called Dan Olsen, form Brigham Young University, who
testified that a content labeling system he has developed can effectively
prevent minors from accessing sexually explicit material online. Olsen
proposed that content providers who offer sexually explicit material should
include a "-L18" (for under 18) tag on their sites, and that World Wide Web
browsers should be programmed to recognize this tag and prevent minors from
accessing tagged sites.
Despite Olsen's academic affiliation and research credentials, his standing
as an expert on Internet standards setting is questionable at best. Olsen
does not sit on the Internet Engineering Task Force or any other body
charged with developing protocols for the Internet, nor does he have any
other direct experience with the Internet standards process. This fact was
challenged by CIEC attorney's, who initially objected to Olsen's testimony.
The court overruled the objection, stating that they would hear Olsen's
testimony "for what it's worth".
Olsen, who admitted he came up with the idea for a -L18 tag only since the
government asked him to testify in this case, suggested that the burden of
preventing minors from accessing objectionable material online should fall
primarily on content providers, rather than the recipients of the material.
During cross examination by CIEC attorney Bruce Ennis and ACLU attorney
Chris Hansen, Olsen admitted that his proposal contains several critical
shortcomings. Among these:
* The standard for what material should receive a -L18 tag is difficult
to determine.
* Relying on speakers to label their material requires that listeners
trust the judgment of the speaker, and limits the ability of listeners
to make decisions based on their own personal or family values.
* The -L18 proposal contains no flexibility - it is either on or off.
* It is basically impossible for a content provider to determine who is
an adult and to ensure that only adults have access to adult-oriented
materials.
Ennis argued that, as a result, the only effective method to prevent minors
from accessing inappropriate material online is to rely on end users and
parents to control what material comes into their homes using parental
control technologies such as SurfWatch, CyberPatrol, AOL's Parental Control
features, PICS, etc.
Interestingly, although Olsen's proposal is conceptually similar to
KidCode, a content labeling standards proposed by Nathaniel Borenstein last
summer. Olsen stated he didn't know what KidCode was nor had he ever heard
of it.
Finally, Olsen testified that, because the government was involved in the
initial development of the Internet, he believes that the government has a
role in determining appropriate technical standards for content labeling.
This testimony was particularly striking because it in many ways represents
the worst nightmare of CDA opponents -- that the law will permit Government
will dictate technical protocols and standards for content on the Internet.
Although this remains a significant concern, CIEC and ACLU attorneys
effectively demonstrated that Olsen's proposed solution is poorly conceived
and impractical.
SURFWATCH FOILS GOVERNMENT EXPERT
Howard Schmidt conducted a live demonstration of the Internet, taking the
court on a tour of world wide web sites devoted to legal issues, a site
promoting the City of Philadelphia, and several search engines. He then
showed the court several usenet newsgroups and decoded pictures of ducks
from the alt.binaries.pictures.animals newsgroup. Schmidt then showed the
court sites containing sexually explicit images, although no he did not
actually display any sexually explicit materials.
Schmidt's demonstration was intended to show how easily a child can access
sexually explicit materials online. Throughout the course of the court
proceedings, the government has sought to show that minors can
inadvertently stumble upon "indecent" or "patently offensive" material in
the normal course of using the Internet, particularly through search
engines, and that parental control software such as SurfWatch and
Cyberpatrol are not effective at preventing minors from accessing such
material.
While Schmidt claimed that minors can "inadvertently" stumble upon sexually
explicit material on the Internet, the Judges appeared unconvinced and
asked several pointed questions. Judge Sloviter repeatedly asked "Can one
inadvertently come across this material?".
Schmidt's claim that minors can inadvertently access sexually explicit
material on the Internet highlights a critical issue in this case. If the
government can demonstrate that minors can easily and inadvertently receive
indecent or patently offensive material on the Internet, the gvt. can argue
that the Internet is a "pervasive medium" similar to television and radio,
and that broad content regulations like the CDA are the only way to protect
minors.
In his testimony, Schmidt cited examples of sexually explicit web sites
which were not blocked by SurfWatch. Schmidt testified that he had found
these sites by searching for terms such as "sex" and "xxx" on popular
Internet search engines. During cross examination by CIEC attorney Ann
Kappler however, Schmidt revealed that he had run his initial searches
WITHOUT SurfWatch running. Kappler noted that SurfWatch prevents searches
for terms like "sex" or "xxx", and that had Schmidt been running the
program when he conducted his initial search, he would have been unable to
access any of the sites he claimed SurfWatch didn't block.
In response to relentless questioning by Kappler, Schmidt reluctantly
admitted that "SurfWatch would not have allowed the [initial] search".
PICS - AN EXAMPLE OF A LESS-RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO THE CDA
In addition to the two government witnesses, the CIEC called Albert Vezza
of MIT and the World Wide Web Consortium to explain the Platform For
Internet Content Selection (PICS) to the court.
PICS is a set of protocols which will permit voluntary multiple,
independent third party rating systems to operate on the Internet and
commercial online services, as well as permit content providers to rate
their own material. The PICS standards are being developed at MIT through
the World Wide Web Consortium with the support of most of the online
industry, including America Online, Prodigy, Netscape, Microsoft, Apple,
and others.
Vezza explained to the court that PICS, unlike Dan Olsen's "-L18" tag, will
allow for tremendous flexibility in rating content, and that many ratings
systems are possible. And, because PICS would be controlled at the user
level, parents and other users would have tremendous control over what
material they access.
Vezza also testified that PICS is far less restrictive and far more
effective at preventing children from accessing inappropriate material than
the Communications Decency Act. Vezza testified that because a substantial
amount of sexually explicit material is available on sites outside the
United states, and because PICS allows parents to utilize trusted
third-party rating systems, it is inherently more powerful and flexible
than the broad restrictions imposed by the CDA.
Vezza also pointed out that the PICS standards will allow parents to block
access to all unrated sites if they choose. As a result, Vezza said,
"children could be protected without mandating any one rating system, from
foreign sites, and from sites with indecent or patently offensive material
that has not been rated".
The Judges appeared extremely interested in Vezza's testimony, and asked
numerous questions. Judge Stewart Dalzell, who has taken a keen interest in
the case, stated for the second time since the trial began that the world
wide web has developed almost entirely because the government has stayed
out of the way. At one point, Dalzell stated "There must be powerful
market forces driving this process". Dalzell then stated rhetorically that
he could imagine a marketing advantage for implementing PICS standards and
that providers would sell their services by saying, "come on line with us
and your kids won't see what is in Mr. Coppalino's book", referring to the
book of evidence containing sexually explicit images found online.
TESTIMONY TO RESUME MONDAY APRIL 15
Testimony will resume on Monday April 15 with Government witness Dan Olsen.
The trial is proceeding more quickly than initially expected, and it is
possible that all testimony from both sides will be concluded on Monday.
It is possible that the hearing originally scheduled for April 26 will be
canceled, and that the closing arguments, scheduled for June 6, will be
moved to up to mid-May. CDT will post an update as more information
becomes available.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
More information on the case, including the text of the complaint,
supporting documents, transcripts from the first three days of testimony,
and back issues of CIEC Trial Bulletins can be found on the Citizens
Internet Empowerment Coalition Web Site:
http://www.cdt.org/ciec
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Subscription Information
As CIEC members, you have been invited to join this list in order to
receive news updates and other information relevant to the CIEC challenge
to the Communications Decency Act. To subscribe, visit
http://www.cdt.org/ciec and join the Coalition.
If you ever want to remove yourself from this list, send email to
ciec-members-request@cdt.org
with 'unsubscribe ciec-members' in the SUBJECT LINE (w/o the 'quotes').
Leave the body of your message blank.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) For More Information
For more information on the CIEC challenge, including the text of the
complaint and other relevant materials:
* World Wide Web -- http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
* General Information about CIEC -- ciec-info@cdt.org
* Copy of the Complaint -- ciec-docs@cdt.org
* Specific Questions Regarding the
Coalition, incuding Press Inquiries -- ciec@cdt.org
* General information about the
Center for Democracy and Technology -- info@cdt.org
--
end ciec-update.9
4/13/96
I posted the whole thing, instead of truncating off parts (2) and (3) which are the same every time. The reposting rules require this. I may go back to leaving them off of future updates if they are unchanged, but I did not want to violate the *spirit* of the requirement. I hope that these reports aren't being unduly optimistic in their interpretation of reactions by the judges.
It sounds like the the defense is doing a very effective job.
Actually, I'm not sure which side is the defense, so I guess I mean, "Our guys are doing pretty good."
It reads that way to me, too, but I worry that the reporter is biased in our favor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _
|__ __| (_) | | | _ \ | | | | | (_)
| |_ __ _ __ _| | | |_) |_ _| | | ___| |_ _ _ __
| | '__| |/ _` | | | _ <| | | | | |/ _ \ __| | '_ \
| | | | | (_| | | | |_) | |_| | | | __/ |_| | | | |
|_|_| |_|\__,_|_| |____/ \__,_|_|_|\___|\__|_|_| |_|
Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Trial Update No. 10
Pre-Trial Update - April 15, 1996 6:30 pm ET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
ciec-info@cdt.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIEC UPDATES intended for members of the Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the
Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This
document may be reposted as long as it remains in total.
------------------------------------------------------------------
** 40,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. **
* The Fight To Save Free Speech Online *
Contents:
o Testimony Concludes in CDA Legal Challenge
* Government Only Calls Two Witnesses
* Closing Arguments Set for May 10
o How To Unsubscribe from this list
o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) TESTIMONY ENDS IN COURT BATTLE TO OVERTURN THE CDA - CLOSING ARGUMENTS
SET
FOR MAY 10
Hearings ended today in the constitutional challenge to the Communications
Decency Act with the cross-examination of government witness Dan Olsen. The
court also announced today that closing arguments in this landmark case
will be heard on May 10 (the hearing had originally been scheduled for June
3).
Dan Olsen, Chair of the Department of Computer Science Brigham Young
University, testified on Friday April 12 about a scheme he developed two
weeks ago for rating sexually-explicit content on the Internet. Olsen's
proposal would require content providers to label their sites with an
"-L18" tag if the site contains sexually oriented material. During cross
examination on Friday and again today, CIEC and ACLU lawyers criticized
Olsen's proposal as inflexible and extremely difficult to implement.
All three judges presiding over the case -- Dolores Sloviter, chief judge
of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. District Judges
Stewart Dalzell and Ronald Buckwalter -- questioned Olsen for almost 45
minutes about his proposal, and seemed unconvinced by his presentation.
At one point, Judge Sloviter asked, "I am wondering if whether in essence
your scheme requires some material to be blocked in advance, and if you can
think of any time in our history when we have blocked material in advance
in an organized fashion?"
Olsen replied that he believed newspaper editors did this routinely. In
response to another question from Judge Sloviter, Olsen admitted his plan
would "make it easier for the government to censor material" on the
Internet if it one day chose to do so directly.
GOVERNMENT RESTS ITS CASE AFTER CALLING ONLY TWO WITNESSES
The government rested its case today after calling only two witnesses in
defense of the Communications Decency Act. The CIEC and ACLU cases called
a total of 13 witnesses. Interestingly, over two days of hearings, neither
witness offered testimony explicitly defending the CDA as written. Instead,
the testimony appeared designed to convince the court that the CDA is
narrowly drawn and therefore satisfies the "least restrictive means" test.
In short, the government witnesses testified:
* That sexually explicit material is available to minors on the Internet
(a claim that neither the CIEC nor the ACLU challenges dispute).
* Requiring content providers to label content will prevent minors from
accessing sexually explicit material on the Internet.
CIEC and ACLU attorneys argue that the content labeling scheme proposed by
Olsen is would not be a "good faith defense" under the CDA, and is
therefore irrelevant, and that the Government has not proven that the
Communications Decency Act is the "least restrictive means" of protecting
children from inappropriate material on the Internet.
Speaking to reporters at the end of today's hearing, CIEC lead attorney
Bruce Ennis summarized the last two days of testimony by saying, " ... in
the final analysis parents have the ability and the technology to control
what kids see ... without reducing all content on the Internet to the level
appropriate for an eight-year-old." Ennis added, "This law is
unconstitutional."
CLOSING ARGUMENTS SET FOR MAY 10
On May 10, the plaintiffs and the government will each present two hours of
closing arguments. A decision is expected from the three judge panel in
mid-June. Any appeal of the ruling will be made directly to the Supreme
Court under expedited review provisions of the Telecommunications Reform
Act.
For more information, including the text of the transcripts from the first
3 days of testimony (remaining tow days will be posted soon), the text of
the complaint, and information on how you can join this historic legal
battle, visit the CIEC World Wide Web page at:
http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
goodbye
But you *don't* go...
How does the government distinguish internet services from cable. Note that the regulation of cable is very different from that of broadcast TV, and that kids can see all sorts of things....
They are answering that very same question in this court case.
The question in particular is whether the internet should be regulated in the
same fashion as TV ( as opposed to, say, newspapers).
It has been a long while since a CIEC missive arrived, but one came in today,
and it's a good one. Please read:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _
|__ __| (_) | | | _ \ | | | | | (_)
| |_ __ _ __ _| | | |_) |_ _| | | ___| |_ _ _ __
| | '__| |/ _` | | | _ <| | | | | |/ _ \ __| | '_ \
| | | | | (_| | | | |_) | |_| | | | __/ |_| | | | |
|_|_| |_|\__,_|_| |____/ \__,_|_|_|\___|\__|_|_| |_|
Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Trial Update No. 9
Pre-Trial Update - April 13, 1996 5:30 pm ET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
ciec-info@cdt.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIEC UPDATES intended for members of the Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the
Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This
document may be reposted as long as it remains in total.
------------------------------------------------------------------
** 40,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. **
* The Fight To Save Free Speech Online *
Contents:
o Hearings Conclude in CDA Challenge - Decision Expected Soon
* A Newspaper Decency Act?
o How To Unsubscribe from this list
o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the Day: "You are asking us to re-write the statute, to put
words in the statute that aren't there. We want you
to tell us what words to put in"
-- Judge Doloris Sloviter, to DOJ lead counsel Tony Coppolino during a
series of
questions on the government's interpretation of the term "indecency"
HEARINGS CONCLUDE IN CDA CHALLENGE -- DECISION EXPECTED SOON
Hearings in the historic legal battle over the future of freedom of speech
on the Internet concluded Friday (5/10) with both sides presenting final
oral arguments before a three judge panel in a Philadelphia Federal Court.
A decision in the case is expected within the next month, after which
either side can appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
As expected, the Government lawyers argued that the court should read the
Communications Decency Act's (CDA) prohibition of "indecent" and "patently
offensive" materials online to apply only to hard-core, sexually explicit
material.
The Government asked the court to essentially create a new definition of
the term "indecent", designed specifically for the Internet. While DOJ
lead attorney Tony Coppolino stated that the government believes the term
"indecent" in the CDA should have the same meaning as used by the FCC ,
and in the Pacifica and Sable cases, Coppolino also repeatedly argued that
the term "indecent" under the CDA would not apply to serious works of
fiction, art, or other materials with social value. This argument is
inconsistent with every application of the "indecency" standard in past
court cases and regulatory proceedings before the FCC.
The Government summed up its case by arguing that the content regulations
imposed by the CDA, combined with parental control technologies, are
necessary in order to protect children from sexually explicit material on
the Internet. The Government argued that technology alone will not protect
children from sexually explicit material on the Internet. As DOJ lawyer
Jason Baron stated, the law must "put the burden on content providers to do
something" to prevent minors from accessing objectionable material online.
CIEC lead counsel Bruce Ennis urged the court to overturn the
Communications Decency Act on the grounds that the law is overly broad,
unconstitutionally vague, and effectively restricts all speech on the
Internet to that which is appropriate only for children. Ennis further
argued that the CDA's defenses to prosecution are not available to the vast
majority of speakers on the Net. While commercial content providers may be
able to utilize credit card age verification schemes, non-commercial
speakers, who comprise the majority of speakers on the Internet, have no
way of complying with the statue.
Ennis argued that the CDA is "substantially overboard", meaning that in
most circumstances there is simply no way for Internet users to comply with
the law. "Substantial over breadth", one of several standards the CIEC
has asked the court to consider in evaluating the constitutionality of the
CDA, requires that the court consider whether the law is overly broad in a
"substantial number" of its applications. In this case, Ennis argued that
the CDA can only be considered constitutional in one application:
commercial content providers who charge for their services. In every other
application, including posts to Usenet Newsgroups, IRC or other online chat
forums, electronic mail sent to public mailing lists, and non-commercial
web sites, the defenses to prosecution under the CDA are not available to
Internet users. As a result, non-commercial speakers on the Internet only
have one way to avoid potential liability under the CDA - self censorship.
As expected, the Judges adjourned the Hearing without reaching a decision,
but promised that a decision would be forthcoming. CDT will provide an
update as soon as a decision is reached (check http://www.cdt.org/ciec/)
for updates). A decision is expected before the end of May.
RECENT FBI 'NON-INVESTIGATION' OF COMPUSERVE BECOMES A MAJOR ISSUE
In what is perhaps the most interesting twist yet in this case, the recent
newspaper reports that the FBI was considering an investigation of
Compuserve for potential violations of the CDA were raised by CIEC lawyers
and Judge Dalzell. The reports were sparked by calls from the conservative
American Family Association, though the FBI and Justice Department have
since clarified that no investigation is underway.
During the presentation of Government attorney Jason Baron, Judge Dalzell
asked numerous questions about a recent letter from Assistant Attorney
General Keene to the Judge in a parallel CDA challenge in New York. In the
letter, Keene states that labeling content, registering a URL with a "URL
registry", and using content selection standards would be considered
"substantial evidence" that a defendant has complied with the defenses
under the CDA.
The Government's position that labeling content would only be considered
"substantial evidence" and not an outright defense to prosecution (as a
literal reading of the CDA suggests) raises serious questions about the
ability of any content provider to comply with the CDA, and adds further
weight to the CIEC arguments that the CDA is overly broad and
unconstitutionally restrictive.
THE NEWSPAPER DECENCY ACT?
In numerous, often pointed questions throughout the hearing, the Judges
pressed the government on whether the Internet is, as the CIEC and ACLU
cases argue, a unique communications technology distinct from traditional
broadcast mass media.
At one point Judge Dalzell, holding up a copy of the Philadelphia Inquirer,
noted that the previous day's issue contained a graphic image of a man
being shot on the front page above the fold. Dalzell said that his 10 year
old son had seen this picture while looking for the scores from the
previous day's Philadelphia Phillies game, Dalzell was concerned that the
Image was not appropriate for a young child to view. Dalzell asked
Coppolino if Congress were to pass a "Newspaper Decency Act" requiring that
Newspapers publish graphic images below the fold (so that minors do not
inadvertently see them) would the law be unconstitutional.
When Coppolino agreed that the hypothetical Newspaper Decency Act would
indeed be unconstitutional, Dalzell asked if Congress similarly has the
power to control the Internet. Coppolino argued that the Internet is much
more similar to broadcast mass media than print. Coppolino further argued
that the Internet is a pervasive medium, and that because the Internet can
deliver text, graphics, video and sound, and that because of this
convergence the Internet is much closer to the broadcasting model than it
is to the print medium.
The question of the nature of the Internet and its similarity to the print
or broadcast medium is a critical issue in this case. If the Judges find
that the Internet is substantially different from broadcast mass media,
they are more likely to rule that the broadcast-style content regulations
imposed by the CDA are unconstitutional. Although Judge Dalzell revealed
little about this position on this issue during the hearing, his
hypothetical questions were none-the-less encouraging.
WHAT IS INDECENT?
While the judges asked pointed questions of both sides, the most piercing
questions were reserved or DOJ lead attorney Tony Coppolino on the meaning
of the term "indecent".
Before Coppolino had finished the first sentence of his opening statement,
he was interrupted by Judge Doloris Sloviter, who asked, "What is the
Government's position about what the statute covers?". Sloviter was
referring to the Government's position on the meaing of the terms
"indecent" and "patently offensive", which is a critical question in the
case.
Coppolino responded that the government believes the terms refer to
sexually explicit material which lacks any serious literary, artistic,
social or scientific value. Judge Solviter responded by asking whether
excerpts from the Broadway play "Angles in America" (which deals with
AIDS), might be considered indecent in some jurisdictions. Coppolino
responded that "it is possible that some material with value might be
considered 'indecent'", and that "the application depends on the
communication and its context".
A skeptical Judge Stewart Dalzell wondered aloud whether the definition of
the term would be left up to the 94 US attorneys throughout the United
States, each with a potentially different interpretation, citing the
example of the controversial photographer Robert Maplethorp, whose exhibit
was celebrated in Philadelphia and subsequently picketed in Cincinnati Ohio
several years ago. Dalzell noted that a Web site at the University of
California Riverside has placed an explicit Maplethorp photograph online,
and asked Coppolino what advice he would give the University if he were
their lawyer.
Coppolino responded that he would not necessarily advise the University of
take the materials off-line, and suggested that they could further protect
themselves from liability under the CDA by providing the ability for
parents to block the site. Judge Sloviter appeared unconvinced with
Coppolino's explanation, stating, "Isn't there a chill factor [here]? This
is a criminal statute. People are entitled to know what they can be
prosecuted for. If people have to keep running to their lawyers, isn't
that a problem?"
NEXT STEPS, POINTERS TO OTHER INFORMATION
Due to the breadth of topics covered at Friday's hearing, only a small
portion of the issues raised are covered in this trial bulletin. The full
transcript form the hearing will be available at the CDT/CIEC web site in
the next few days. Please continue to visit http://www.cdt.org/ciec. An
announcement of the Courts decision will also be posted to this list and on
the CIEC web site as soon as it is available.
In addition to the text of the original CIEC complaint, transcripts of the
first 5 days of hearings, and other background information, several new
CIEC court filings, including our post trial brief, are available at the
CIEC web site.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As before, i have suppressed the final sections where you are told how to
unsubscribe. -srw
Thanks for the update, Steve. On the basis of these reports, I'm cautiously optimistic that the outcome will be favorable. One thing that bothers me about these CIEC bulletins is that the reporting seems one-sided. It's indicated that the judges have asked pointed questions of both sides, but we only hear about the ones directed toward the Justice Department that they've fielded awkwardly. I'm curious about the interchanges between the judges and the CIEC/ACLU side as well, wonder if there has been any awkwardness there that hasn't been reported, and worry that we might be getting a false impression of how the judges are leaning.
I understand your feelings John. But if its of any consolation to you, my friend who has contacts with the AFA and others (he being the only non-christain non-rightwing person in a HUGE family of them and being rabidly rightwing on everything) has told me that people on the "other" side have kinda quit with the reports, because they see it as depressing, the direction that the judges were taking things. Now, I haven't seen any of the other sides reports, so I can't accurately gague it.
I have earlier expressed the same concern about the one-sidedness of these reports. I am not as optimistic as these reports are. I am somewhat optimistic, however.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _
|__ __| (_) | | | _ \ | | | | | (_)
| |_ __ _ __ _| | | |_) |_ _| | | ___| |_ _ _ __
| | '__| |/ _` | | | _ <| | | | | |/ _ \ __| | '_ \
| | | | | (_| | | | |_) | |_| | | | __/ |_| | | | |
|_|_| |_|\__,_|_| |____/ \__,_|_|_|\___|\__|_|_| |_|
Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Trial Update No. 12
Special Update -- May 16 1996 5:56 pm ET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
ciec-info@cdt.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIEC UPDATES intended for members of the Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the
Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This
document may be reposted as long as it remains in total.
------------------------------------------------------------------
** 40,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. **
* The Fight To Save Free Speech Online *
Contents:
o Court Orders DOJ to Halt "Reviews" Under the CDA
o Transcripts from All 6 days of Court Testimony Now Online
o How To Unsubscribe from this list
o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Court Orders DOJ to Halt "Reviews" Under the CDA
In response to a complaint filed last week by the CIEC, a Federal Judge in
Philadelphia Wednesday ordered the Justice Department to stop all "reviews"
of complaints under the Communications Decency Act until the three-judge
panel rules on the constitutionality of the law. The order was issued by
Judge Stewart Dalzell, one of the three judges presiding over the case.
CIEC and ACLU attorneys filed the compliant after several national
newspapers reported last week that the FBI had opened an investigation of
Compuserve for violations of the CDA. The FBI has since denied that any
investigation is or was underway, though the stories sparked a great deal
of confusion and created a significant public relations problem for the
commercial online service.
In the order Judge Dalzell stated that "the government's conduct in
subjecting a content provider to private and public scrutiny for displaying
material that is neither obscene nor child pornography clearly runs afoul
of both this Court's orders and the government's promises."
Closing arguments in the case concluded on Friday May 10, and a final
decision on the constitutionality of the CDA is expected soon. While
Wednesday's ruling by Judge Dalzell provides little insight into which way
the court will rule on the constitutionality of the CDA, the speed with
which the order was issued does show that the court appreciates the
tremendous free speech and commercial concerns riding on this case.
The full text of the seven page order, tramscripts from Friday's oral
arguments, and with other relevant information, is available at the
Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition web page:
http://www.cdt.org/ciec
BACKGROUND ON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT/AFA FOLLIES
After a Philadelphia federal judge granted a temporary restraining order
against the CDA in February, the government agreed not to prosecute or
investigate anyone for violations of the CDA until the court challenge had
been completed. However, recent events have called the government's
commitment to the February agreement into question.
In early April, the conservative American Family Association (AFA) filed a
complaint with the Justice Department accusing Compuserve of violating the
CDA for material in a forum called MacGlamour, despite the fact that the
site was labeled for adults only and Compuserve provides its users free
software to block access to unwanted material.
Last week in response to pressure from the AFA, acting Chief of the DOJ
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section Terry Lord sent a letter to AFA
director Patrick Truman indicating that the Department "has referred [the
AFA] letter and accompanying materials to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for further review."
The FBI denied it was investigating, which would have been a violation of
the February court agreement, but said it was "reviewing" the AFA
complaint. CIEC attorneys asked the court to clarify if such a "review"
violated the government's promise not to investigate or prosecute under the
CDA.
In granting the motion for clarification, Judge Dalzell ordered Attorney
General Reno, the Justice Department, and the FBI to stop all "reviews" of
online indecency complaints pending a decision regarding the
constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Hearing Transcripts for All 6 Days of Testimony Now Online
Transcripts for all 6 days of hearings, including last Friday's (5/10)
closing arguments, are now available online at the CIEC web site:
http://www.cdt.org/ciec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got another trial bulletin, but it is essentially content-free. I'll spare you. It says only that a decision is expected soon (Monday) and that there will be a live internet chat on HotWired (crank up your realaudio player) so everyone should go visit http://www.hotwired.com/wiredside Look here for announcements http://www.cdt.org/ciec and I expect we'll have a chat here on Grex in ASCII. (None of that newfangled realaudio stuff for us -- we can't handle the bandwidth).
so far, and also unconfirmed, is the july aacs meeting with panel and moderator covering cda & etc. we know that the mttlr ppl did a panel in ?april, and we might be building off that content as wellas the intervening fuss in the courts. oh, that aacs meeting will be the 2nd (!) wed of july, not first wed.
The CDA biz has spawned (at least I *assume* that's where the impetus came from) a new "cottage" industry: [web-based/on-line] adult verification services. The scheme seems to be that a web page "provider" will allow you access to his for-adults-only material if you can provide a password from one or more of these adult verification services. Each of these services seems to require you to provide a credit card number - through "secure" means or not, your choice - against which they'll apply a ~$10 service charge. This will provide you with a password which is good for one year (as if your adult status might run out by then :-), the assumption being that only adults would possess valid charge cards.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss