response 51 of 83:

Feb 21 07:08 UTC 1996

The gov't "controls" the airwaves under the principle that they're a
scarce shared resource, and have to be regulated for the good of all.
Whether this is in fact the case is another question; it's not at all
obvious to me that the average commercial is in fact "better" than
_debby does dallas_.  The "7 words" principle also seems most dubious in
a land where most of the private conversations of one of its more
exalted leaders cannot be broadcast in their original form.  Still,
that's the theory, and the authority is at least a logical extension of
the powers granted under the constitution.

Bookstores don't have any such "scarce access" issue, and it is possible
for the consumer to exercise choice in a manner that simply is not
possible in a forum where there are only 3 broadcast channels.  The
justification simply does not exist for the form of regulation that we
tolerate in broadcast media, and I would like to think most people would
recognize any such effort as censorship of the worst form.

Cable TV is half-way inbetween, and with community access TV at least,
there are many people involved who who care about keeping this forum
free.  There's even a recent court case involving the KKK which is of
interest on this specific point.

I very much believe we are far more like a bookstore than like cable TV,
and that we are *very* unlike broadcast TV.  I believe the people who
are trying to regulate the internet are by and large ignorant and afraid
of what the internet could mean to them, and are panic'ing.  I think the
wildfire growth of the web is what has sparked this, and I wonder if the
recent discovery by many activist groups that they can put their message
across far faster via the internet than by any other means has not
escaped the attention of people who are far less interested in the truth
and far more scared of the public than they have any right to be.  All
of us here already know that that's already unstoppable; at worse, the
only thing these people can do is drive such efforts underground.
Unfortunately, these people do pose a greater risk to us, and that is
where we get the somewhat unsavory choice of either cowtowing to these
people, and becoming that which we have claimed to despise, or standing
straight, and risking the danger of being mistaken for an activist
group.

It's the devil's own choice, ain't it?

response 53 of 83:

Feb 21 17:41 UTC 1996

   It may not be impossible to change the system Arnold, but there are
one heck of a lot of people who've basically given up on it.  Just
looking at the voter turnouts for all elections is one indicator of that
I think.  I'm not there myself, because when I've lost all hope I think
I'll leave this country.  But many people just don't seem to care any
more--they figure that whatever they do is useless, and that if they
back someone who actually wins, they'll be so compromised at the end 
of their posts tenure, they'll not have accomplished much at all.

response 55 of 83:

Feb 22 07:09 UTC 1996

It is certainly reasonable to make an effort to apply pressure within
the system as well.  Writing letters & voting for the right candidates
are both worthy projects, and by all means, we should do them.  However,
that all begs the question of what we are to do here in the meantime.

Actually, if you ask me, CDA did crop up just like a mushroom.  It arose
out of the deadwood of people who no longer care, and people who are
ignorant of what freedom, personal liberty, and personal responsibility
really mean.  It arose out of fear and greed.  When it was proposed as
standalone legislation, it was defeated.  When it was snuck on via
parlimentary tricks, that was a bad thing.  When the president signed
this bill anyways, rumour has it he knew this part would not stand
muster in court.  Apparently he decided that our surety that the bill of
rights would be respected was less important than other matters
contained in this bill.  If that is how he felt, he certainly didn't
manage to communicate it to the justice dept., which proceeded to issue
a baffling series of announcements that gave nobody any confidence they
had the least interest in protecting the bill of rights.  It came up
through dark steaming shit, and it surely has a poisonous cap.  If that
isn't a mushroom, I don't know what is.

Even so, I do see a possibility of hope here.  It looks at this point
that it's been postponed more definitively by the courts.  Everything we
can do to educate our politicians concerning our fears & hopes is a good
thing.  Even more importantly, I think we need to educate ourselves,
that this is important, that this is something we can fight, and that we
should have the right, not just the privilege, of exercising this our
birthright.  As long as enough of us can keep that confidence, I believe
things will come out right in the end.  If we fail, and turn tail & give
in, then I am also sure we will end up deserving whatever fate befalls
us.

And that is why this item is important.  We cannot hope to conquer the
fear in others, until we can conquer it in ourselves here.

response 57 of 83:

Feb 26 22:28 UTC 1996

        According to the NYT, another suit was being filed today
against the CDA.  No action is expected on this suit or the earlier
one until after April 11, when a three-judge panel will rule.
        Until that time, the Feds have agreed not to investigate
or prosecute anyone.
        According to the plaintiffs, the focus of this new suit is
to make the argument that mdw made about the similarity of the Internet
to a bookstore rather than a radio station.
        The Arbornet Board really appreciated Scott's appearance at
our meeting!

response 59 of 83:

Feb 28 10:52 UTC 1996

Bookstore=You go look for things you want.
Cable TV=You look for a source of broadcast and pay to connect.
Broadcast TV=You look for the remote to see what they are throwing at you.
Internet=You look for a source so you can look for things you want.

Conclusion:  Internet activities require the most work by the
person.  People are free to abstain from that activity.  Internet
should apear at the top of that list as necessary and appropriate
regulation increases as one moves down the list.  Very simple, but
very scary to power mongers.

response 61 of 83:

Mar 5 12:00 UTC 1996

There is much more to the process than individual action. Money, organizing
groups, demonstrations, test cases, etc. etc. It takes real commitment to the
cause. Take a look at the history of the groups that support CDA, they got
the message, and their tqctics are instructive.

response 63 of 83:

Mar 5 19:09 UTC 1996

  Alternative cynical view: Congress is a spineless money-grubbing lot
that cares only about the legalized bribes needed for re-election.  The
religious right wants all pornography banned.  They pay Congress a lot
of money to further this goal, but Congress needs to use children as an
excuse to keep the laws palatable enough to avoid serious voter backlash.

response 65 of 83:

Mar 6 05:48 UTC 1996

hear, hear!

response 67 of 83:

Mar 6 07:14 UTC 1996

Re 64: "If I found a candidate who held every view I did and would vote
the way I would on every issue, I wouldnt vote for him because I'd
think he was an idiot"

Exactly what I was thinking, kerouac.  >8)

response 69 of 83:

Mar 6 09:48 UTC 1996

I've been to other countries.  I do agree there are some very unique
things about the US.  However, they aren't things like standard of
living, technology, or how "advanced" we are.  There are plenty of other
first world countries these days that match or even exceed us in all
these areas.  Actually, the internet these days *is* the best example of
how the US is different, and it's really easy to see: in this country,
there are dozens, even hundreds of ISP's in any major city.  Quite
ordinary people talk of surfing the net.  In most other countries,
internet access is ultimately virtually a government monopoly, and is
generally quite expensive.  There are only two sorts of people on the
net elsewhere, students at universities (who often have surprising
restrictions), & employees at various firms--usually large
multinationals.  No house wives, no small firms, and really, not 1 tenth
the innovation you see here in the states.  Something like Grex is
unusual even for the US.  It's literally inconceivable anywhere else in
the world.

And This is what bothers me about CDA - I see it as a pretty deliberate
effort by those in power, to *eliminate* what I think makes the US
unique, and what I believe has been The most important strength of the
US in the world.

Anywhere else in the world, diversity is a necessary evil.  It's
ill-tolerated at best; in France, "foreign words" are expunged by an
official organ of the government.  Canada is surprisingly
"christian"--and this shows up in all sorts of small ways.  Everywhere
but the US, the telephone company isn't just a monopoly, it's part of
the government.  We have a historic tradition of "innocent until proven
guilty"; only a few other places have that tradition, and the majority
of places hold with just the opposite view.  Even an institution such as
Hollywood, which few in the US would even bother to think of as being
more significant than crabgrass, or lint, are virtually unique in the
world; in most places, even france, the local movie industry is
practically an endangered species, while the locals respect & follow
american TV more avidly than we do.

On the other hand: infant mortality in detroit is *nothing* to be proud
of, and we have more people in prison per capita than anywhere else.
Clearly, we Do have problems.  I only wish we were addressing them.  Our
current efforts to reform health care seem calculated only to increase
the disaster we've fallen into.  Things like CDA seem designed only to
invent new classes of criminals.

response 71 of 83:

Mar 6 17:31 UTC 1996

Re 68 - (What's wrong with libertarian anarchy?)

response 73 of 83:

Mar 7 07:37 UTC 1996

Re #71: libertarian anarchy creates excessive social disorder (beyond
that contenanced by constitutional democracy), and serious environmental
problems.