Conference 7.286::digital

It really bugs me when some corporate PR type (from any corporation, not
just this one) expects me to beleive this kind of baloney.

By issuing this statement, Digital is not taking a neutral stance on this
topic.  Their policy is that no officially run web pages are going to particpate
in this protest.  If they were neutral, they would have made it
the corporate policy that every Webmaster/organization running those pages
would make their own policy.

BTW, as a broad disclaimer, I don't read this file normally, I don't
run a web page anywhere, and because I'm still running some ancient
version of NCSA mosaic as a browser, I'm basicly off-line at this point.
If I did run a web page, I probably wouldn't bother messing with it
for the protest...

Regards,

Dave

> By issuing this statement, Digital is not taking a neutral stance on this
> topic.  Their policy is that no officially run web pages are going to 
> particpate
> in this protest.  If they were neutral, they would have made it
> the corporate policy that every Webmaster/organization running those pages
> would make their own policy.

Not that way I'd see it. If a DEC-hosted web page went black on "Black 
Thursday", it would be seen as direct Digital sponsorship of the protest, not 
neutrality.  I don't see a position of neutrality could be claimed with 
official pages participating in the protest. These pages are not the free 
speech domain of their individual webmasters, they are vehicles to present 
Digital as a corporation to the Internet.

    Is it not obvious that Digital would not support an anti-government (US
    anyway) protest to prevent losing any gov't business?
    Am I missing something?
    D

    It isn't really all that unusual - as an entity responsible to the
    stockholders a corp. will avoid any issue of contention,  no matter how
    great, if it might adversely  impact the quarterly profits.
    
    If a law becomes a burden, they just hire 
    a Washington lobbist to get the law changed
    in their favor, and the burden shifted somewhere
    else. 
    
    Actually, it is the first example of DEC, er, Digital
    behaving in a manner consistent with a corporation in recent
    times.
    
    Publius

    Microsoft took a stand and put the blue ribbon on their home page.
    

    
    
    face it.   
    Digital == neutral
    
    neutral: 3. belonging to neither extreme in type, kind, etc. without
    strongly marked characteristics. 
    
    

Can somebody explain, for the sake of people outside the US, what this is all
about ?

We all got the mail, but none of the papers in the UK ( even the computer press)
made any mention of what the US Telecommunications Bill is all about.

Chris 

The Telecommunications bill is a huge bill with a lot of stuff in it, mostly 
dealing with deregulation (removing regulations that prevented the same company 
from offering, say, Cable TV and Telephone access services). I may not have the 
details right in that example, but that's the gist.

One clause that was added is intended to restrict access to pornographic 
materials on the Internet by minors. The wording of the provisions has some 
first-amendment (freedom of speech) advocates concerned about a slippery slope 
of censorship, so there is an organized effort to reverse that part of the bill 
through the courts and through protests on the Internet itself.  The "Black 
Thursday" provision was to have the background color of Web pages go black in 
protest.

...and the wording issue has to do between the legal distinctions of the
words "obscene" (part of the original bill) vs "indecent" (as the bill was
finally passed).  While some free speech advocates would prefer even the
"obscene" clause (generally accepted to refer to pornographic materials)
be deleted, the less restricitve "indecent" clause (as passed) arguably makes
many discussions and newsgroups on the internet illegal, beyond the "alt.sex"
hierarchy that originally provoked all the outrage.

What's even scarier about the bill is the wording. You can be in
violation of the law not only by actively disseminating "indecent" material
but by *allowing* such material to be distributed.

So if someone puts objectionable material on your bulletin board
system (without your knowledge), you can be charged with a violation
under this law.

They have:
Bill Gates Speaks Out about Freedom of Speech on the Internet                    
And:
Bill Gates participates in HotWired's 24-hour web site
   supporting Internet's freedom of speech. 

The latter page includes a link to the site (24 Hours of Democracy):
http://www.hotwired.com/staff/userland/24/

					Trace

    Two interesting things struck me about this memo. 
    
                                     ---
    
    The first was that the "Black Thursday" protest (aka "A Thousand Points
    of Darkness") was actually held two weeks ago beginning shortly after
    President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law
    and then continuing for forty-eight hours. 
    
    [Among other places to read about the "Black Thursday" protest is:
     http://www.cdt.org/]
    
    Today, the "24 Hours in Democracy" even is occurring on the Web so
    there might have been some confusion.  I haven't been able to find a
    single reference to a "black page" event occurring today, though.
                                           
    [Information on "24 Hours in Democracy" can be found at:
     http://www.hotwired.com/staff/userland/24/] 
    
    The "blue ribbon" protest is ongoing. Web sites and individuals are
    encouraged to support blue ribbons as a statement of support of freedom
    of online speech and association (and against the provisions of the
    so-called Communications Decency Act, the relevant portion of the
    Telecommunications Act.) I have seen blue ribbons sported on many
    individual sites and commercial sites that are strongly associated with
    the Web (Web index services, for instance) but very few commercial sites.
    (More on this in a moment.)
    
    [Information on that protest can be found at:
     http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html]
    
    
                                     ---
    
    The second thing that struck me was the nebulous reference to "working
    with industry groups". I tend to be skeptical, especially given the first
    item, so I am trying to find out which groups Digital is working with.
    
                                     ---
    
    The history of the so-called Communications Decency Act has had several
    (American style) political bumps and twists and turns. There have been
    two major versions of this Act. The first version that received the most
    publicity was sponsored by Senators Exon and Gorton. This piece of
    legislation would have held internet service providers and other
    services liable for the content that passed through their services. In
    other words, both the originator and the service provider would both
    have been guilty of a federal felony. 
    
    That version died of its own weight. A few other attempts surfaced but
    the current version of the legislation was slipped into the
    Telecommunications Act during a conference committee (Senator Hyde was
    one of the introducers, I can't get to my notes on the others) that
    modified several of those provisions regarding service providers but
    left other (I and others assert) unconstitutional provisions on
    originators in place.
    
    Two provisions in the law, very broadly paraphrased, make certain broad
    and (I assert) vague categories of speech illegal over computer
    networks (because it may potentially annoy someone) and make these same
    categories illegal when it is available (somehow) to a minor (someone
    who is under 18 years of age in the U.S.A.).
    
    It is these provisions that civil libertarians and other groups in the
    U.S.A. are protesting about. Lawsuits have been filed and a temporary
    restraining order on the U.S. Government has been issued, preventing
    federal enforcement on a part of the objectionable provisions. (More
    information can be found by following the links I mentioned above.)
    
    [There is a third provision that involves the pro-life/pro-choice
    debate which I won't go into and is being addressed by completely
    separate efforts with which I'm not familiar. However, that gets lumped
    into the protests against the so-called Communications Decency Act in
    some media reports.]
    
    All in all, the lumping of legislation alleged by its supporters to
    restrict online pornography reaching minors and new regulations and
    elimination of certain other barriers on telecommunications businesses
    into one big act is a (to me) typical American legislative compromise.
    
                                     ---
    
    I'm of two minds about whether Digital should be participating on the
    online protests in some way. If there are appropriate efforts being
    made from "Corporate", that's at least sufficient in my mind. The
    so-called Communications Decency Act affects individual expression,
    however, and it is individuals that have to have the greatest voice.
    Digital as a corporate entity is "safe" by my reading of the so-called
    Communications Decency Act. (At least, unless someone decides that
    "butt-kicking"* is an obscene word.) A blue ribbon wouldn't hurt, though.
    
                                     ---
    
    * A word I recall being used in one of our more aggressive Digital UNIX
      advertisements.

re .12

>    Digital as a corporate entity is "safe" by my reading of the so-called
>    Communications Decency Act. (At least, unless someone decides that
>    "butt-kicking"* is an obscene word.) 

I do not believe we are safe.  Alta Vista (a web site made public by, and 
paid for by, Digital) is filled with dirty words and phrases describing 
thousands of sexual activities.  Even a fairly innocuous search can turn up 
some indecent (and hence illegal per the CDA) language as a result.

-Steve
    

    
    Here's the legaleze:
    	http://thomas.loc.gov		gets you to library of congress
    
    Search: 104th Congress, "enrolled bills", and "Telecommunications
    	Act of 1996".
    
    Also:
    	http://www.eff.org
    
    
    	Rick
    

    re: .13
    
    Extracting from the act, as passed: (SEC. 502)
    
    `(e) In addition to any other defenses available by law:
     `(1) No person shall be held to have violated subsection (a)
      [the provisions in question] ... solely for access or connection
      to or from a facility, system, or network not under that person's
      control, including transmission, downloading, intermediate
      storage, access software, or OTHER RELATED CAPABILITIES THAT ARE
      INCIDENTAL TO PROVIDING SUCH ACCESS OR CONNECTION THAT DOES NOT
      INCLUDE THE CREATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION.
    
    
    [parenthetical comments and all-caps emphasis are mine]
    
    By my reading, as long as no one at Digital created it, Digital isn't
    liable when Alta Vista pops with "The hottest page on the Internet!!!"
    Statements like these were not in earlier versions of the so-called
    Communications Decency Act. A later provision could be read as to hold
    Digital liable if a link to "The hottest page on the Internet!!!" was
    deliberately placed included in our home page, since that would be a
    deliberate, knowing action.
                               

    This is a pointless exercise anyway, all people will do is move the
    stuff to another country where such ridiculous laws don't exist.
    
    Laurie.

    Not the way the law seems to be written. Even if I maintain a WWW site
    of material that might be construed to be covered by the Act on a
    computer physically located on an iceberg floating off of Antarctica
    and connected to the net via a sattelite uplink (and it was somehow
    found out that I was the one that created and/or provided the material)
    I could be prosecuted under the act. The first few lines read:
    
      `(a) Whoever--
              `(1) in interstate or foreign communications--
    
    Non-U.S. citizens might not be affected...but I'm not that good a
    non-lawyer to guess.

Re 4434.17: with the capture and trial of Manuel Noriega, the USA has tried
to establish the claim that it may lawfully seize and try even non-citizens
for ostensible crimes committed entirely outside the United States.  You
don't have to like Manuel Noriega to find this idea unpalatable.

And I'd be surprised if our enterprising legislators haven't already
thought of it in relation to the Internet.

___Pete

    In the case of the original German requests to block news groups, I
    have seen a statement in industry papers that state that Germany has a
    law that says it can prosecute people who transmit banned material into
    Germany in any way, regardless of where they are, and have already
    started proceedings to extradite someone from another European country.
    (I don't have the paper any more so I can't remember any more specific
    details.)
    
    The best comment I've seen so far is an editorial by Bruce A. Bennet in
    "EDN Products Edition" for January 16.  It starts out:
    
    "Let's see if I've got this straight.
    
    Our country is facing the biggest budget deficit in the history of
    civilization, our troops are going off to fight on foreign soil and our
    health care system is collapsing around us. So, what are our elected
    officials doing? They're busy trying to figure out how to protect our
    children from too much violence on TV and how to keep dirty pictures
    from flaoting around in cyberspace. Aren't these the same elected
    officials who worked side-by-side with Bob Packwood for years and
    claimed to know nothing about what he was doing?  I ask you, what's
    wrong with this picture?"
    
    He goes on to point out that the REAL reason behind all of this is that
    people in power want to limit and control your access to information,
    and nothing else.  And I think he's correct.

re Note 4434.19 by STAR::PIRULO::LEDERMAN:

>     He goes on to point out that the REAL reason behind all of this is that
>     people in power want to limit and control your access to information,
>     and nothing else.  And I think he's correct.
  
        It certainly attempts to legitimize the principle of content
        control, and may be used to justify the creation of the basic
        mechanisms (in the spirit of the Clipper chip, or the V-chip)
        that could one day be used arbitrarily.

        Bob

    And don't forget the pirate radio ship busted in international waters
    off the coast of Florida by the Coast Guard.  The rights and privileges
    granted by the Constitution are being trounced daily.  Laws are ignored
    as a matter of convenience by the government (people running it,
    non-partitson).  The people in power want to limit and control
    EVERYTHING that you do.  Nice little sheep...

    > And don't forget the pirate radio ship busted in international waters
    > off the coast of Florida by the Coast Guard. 
    
    Those guys were breaking FCC regs by broadcasting into America on
    illegal (i.e. set aside for other purposes/people) frequencies.
    (Or are you talking about another situation?)

    
    	The Coast Guard is out of their jurisdiction in international
    	waters.
    

re -1
	
	Is that why they were in the Dominican Republic doing 
search and rescue during a recent plane crash?  They were German
passengers...

What intrigues me the most is people are up in arms about
trying to stop smut/porn whatever in an electronic form.

What is wrong with that?  Are you saying you wouldn't mind
having a neighbor opening up a XXX book store next door? 
That is what it amounts to.

What has happened to common decency in this day and age?

    Given that kids were denied access to the "kid page" of the whitehouse
    because it contained the "indecent word" couple on the page, I think
    there is some serious overreacting but by netnanny software and the
    people who write it.  Remember AOL users who included breast cancer
    survivor were denied profile access because "breast" was picked up as
    an indecnet word.  
    
    I don't turn my kids loose on the internet without at least the same
    level of supervision that I give their TV watching habits.  People that
    do and then complain about what John or mary found out on the web have
    only themselves to blame.
    
    meg

    Re: .18, and .21-.24
    
    There are certainly scenarios where U.S. officials might try to enforce
    this law outside the country. Should the so-called Communications
    Decency Act survive its challengers, I would hope federal officials will
    have their hands full just trying to shut down domestic violators.
    
    Of course, I believe they won't. The letter of those provisions will
    only end up being enforced where it is politically convenient or timed
    for a major media spectacle. The fact that a law is impossible to
    uniformly enforce is not the best argument against it. One could make
    the same argument about speed limits.
    
    Re: .24
    
>What intrigues me the most is people are up in arms about
>trying to stop smut/porn whatever in an electronic form.
    
    That is *not* what people are up in arms about although I'm not
    surprised that some people think so. I suggest reading the latter half
    of my reply .12 in this conference for one viewpoint and following the
    pointers to find out why people really are opposed to the so-called
    Communications Decency Act before trying to allude motives to them.
    
    Re: .25 
    
    Excellent point. In fact, the prerogative of parental supervision is
    one thing this legislation obviates. On the other hand, I would
    encourage technologies like Net Nanny, Surfwatch, Cyber Patrol to
    continue their work. The "goofs" you point out are just the bugs being
    worked out of those kinds of systems. (And the systems don't replace
    parental supervision but can augment it.)

Re. .25
    ...
    people who write it.  Remember AOL users who included breast cancer
    survivor were denied profile access because "breast" was picked up as
    an indecnet word.  
       ^^^^^^^^
          
Now, there's an interesting concept for you...  :-)

Lew

>    Given that kids were denied access to the "kid page" of the whitehouse
>    because it contained the "indecent word" couple on the page, I think
>    there is some serious overreacting but by netnanny software and the
>    people who write it.

Not by the courts and not by prosecutors.   CHICKEN LITTLE.

>   Remember AOL users who included breast cancer survivor were denied profile
>   access because "breast" was picked up as an indecent word.  

What does that have to do with courts and prosecutors.  CHICKEN LITTLE.

/john

>    Excellent point. In fact, the prerogative of parental supervision is
>    one thing this legislation obviates. On the other hand, I would
>    encourage technologies like Net Nanny, Surfwatch, Cyber Patrol to
>    continue their work.

You haven't read the legislation then, which specifically encourages the
implementation of systems to make it easy for parents to control what
their children do.

Parents can't watch their children every minute of the day even if we were
to go back to a system of only one parent working outside the home.

/john

>
>You haven't read the legislation then, which specifically encourages the
>implementation of systems to make it easy for parents to control what
>their children do.

It also allows the Big Parent (aka government) to also control what the kids
do/see/think.

>Parents can't watch their children every minute of the day even if we were
>to go back to a system of only one parent working outside the home.

Aren't there laws that basically say that they should/must be aware?  How
about the cases where the parents leave the kids unattended for 20 minutes?
Where parents are held liable if their kids are not actually at school when
they should be etc etc.

I am not sure when people started thinking government was an expert at these
things but considering the mess the country is in, I am surprised they still
believe it.

    Sure John, I may be "chicken little" but when would-be guardians of
    the web believe that JPEG and GIF are code words for kiddie cyber-porn,
    who is to believe that the cyber-patrol won't take and lockout people
    for completely innocent information.  The fact that discussion of
    reproductive organs and certain surgical procedures is also referred to
    as indecent worries me.  
    
    meg

    Re: .29 (and .28, .30 and .31 passim)
    
    I've read the Act and all of its aborted predecessors, John.
    
    While the new legislation [SEC. 230 (b)(4) of the amended Title II of
    47 USC 201, set forth in SEC. 509 of the Act] states the policy is to
    "remove disincentives" for such filtering technologies (which is not
    the same thing as "encouraging implementation") a later portion of that
    same section [230(d)(1)] says that this will have no effect on the
    enforcement of the earlier provisions [from SEC. 502 of the Act, which
    modifies 47 U.S.C. 223] that are under contention.
    
    I probably should have said "seems to obivate" instead of "obviates".
    in my reply .26. My concern is that those who fail to think things
    through and believe that the so-called Communications Decency Act will
    somehow clean up the Internet or stop "porn/smut whatever" (a reference
    to .24) will have less motivation to a) be a parent and establish
    boundaries and values or b) invest in any of these technologies for
    those times you can't be there as a parent.
    
    The Act does state that the FCC will not recommend or require any
    particular filtering technology, which is a good thing since that would
    be a very long way down that slippery slope of censorship. But the
    effectiveness (from not very to really really overenthusiastic) of the
    existing technologies, while an interesting subject for information
    consumers, is tangential to the basic free speech issues affecting
    information creators.

    Regarding attempts to enforce American law outside the US ... recently
    there were measures taken in the US to ban any foreign company that did
    business with Cuba from doing business with the US.  In other words, if
    we did not comply with the US laws concerning trade with Cuba, we
    outside of the US would be prevented from doing business with the US. 
    We weren't breaking any of our laws by trading with Cuba, there is no
    U.N. embargo on Cuba, but nonetheless we were having US laws imposed in
    a less than indirect fashion.
    
    If the measure was aimed only at American subsidiaries it might be
    tolerable, but when theses are foreign firms that you trying to exert
    you laws on ....

    My only observation is that we wasted a lot of bandwidth sending this
    memo around.
    
    Why was it necessary for Digital to "take an official position" other
    than just not blacking out our web pages?

re Note 4434.34 by USPS::FPRUSS:

>     Why was it necessary for Digital to "take an official position" other
>     than just not blacking out our web pages?
  
        Worse yet, the statement of our neutrality as appeared on the
        Alta Vista home page was positively wimpy.

        Bob

|<<< Note 4434.26 by REGENT::LASKO "Blue Ribbon - http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html" >>>
|
|    Re: .18, and .21-.24
|    
|    There are certainly scenarios where U.S. officials might try to enforce
|    this law outside the country. Should the so-called Communications
|    Decency Act survive its challengers, I would hope federal officials will
|    have their hands full just trying to shut down domestic violators.
|    
|    Of course, I believe they won't. The letter of those provisions will
    
    Certainly they won't.  They don't enforce the law now.
    
    How many "Make Money Fast" chain letters have you received, or seen in
    Usenet News?  How many of the people sending them have been prosecuted?
    Ponzi schemes are clearly illegal, and transmitting them electronically
    is also illegal: the government has home pages and written documents
    clearly stating so.  Yet they don't prosecute any of the people
    involved, though potentially millions of dollars of fraud could be
    involved.
    
    Check any newsgroup or hobby group dealing with radio (amateur, short
    wave, commercial broadcasting, etc.).  They'll tell you the FCC no
    longer investigates most cases of radio interfearence, even though it's
    clearly illegal (ever seen any of those "Class A" or "Class B" labels
    on our equipment?).  They don't even investigate most pirate stations
    anymore.  But they do go after Howard Stern for a few questionable
    words.  (Personally, I dispise the man, and his show, and think it
    should be broadcast when children aren't likely to listen, but he
    should have the same right to free speech as anyone else, and it does
    show how lopsided law enforcement is now.)
    
    In the near future the only thing the FCC will be doing is conducting
    lotteries to sell of public resources (EM spectrum) to the highest
    bidder to raise money for the government.

>     Why was it necessary for Digital to "take an official position" other
>     than just not blacking out our web pages?
  
_Internally_ it was necessary in order to communicate to all the different
groups who maintain externally-visible pages that they were not to go black.

>        Worse yet, the statement of our neutrality as appeared on the
>        Alta Vista home page was positively wimpy.

I didn't see it, but _that_ was silly.  Here we should have just not gone
black.

/john

>    Regarding attempts to enforce American law outside the US ... recently
>    there were measures taken in the US to ban any foreign company that did
>    business with Cuba from doing business with the US.

After the events off the coast of Cuba this weekend, you are likely to see
the U.S. unilaterally cutting off all air, telephone, and banking links
to Cuba from Canada and other countries.

/john

The point about the comm bill for me is this: It seems to imply that if
something I create for adults to read is somehow made available to a
child, I will be prosecuted. I'd rather have the law state that I, or
anyone, can't deliberately SEND or otherwise force this information on a
child.

But beyond all that is the level of what might be considered "indecent".
I'd wager my views don't coinside with that of a fundamentalist preacher
from a small town in Tennessee. And whose community standards are used?
Boulder Colorado (a very liberal town) or Colorado Springs (a very con-
servative toen)? liesl

re Note 4434.37 by COVERT::COVERT:

> >        Worse yet, the statement of our neutrality as appeared on the
> >        Alta Vista home page was positively wimpy.
> 
> I didn't see it, but _that_ was silly.  Here we should have just not gone
> black.
  
        Yes, we should have kept our "mouth" shut:

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 23:29:45 -0800
From: Sim Graves <gravessim@tui.edu>
To: internet@digital.com
Subject: Feedback
X-Url: http://www.digital.com:80/info/email.html

Your search engine, AltaVista, is the best on the Web.  I have found it 
especially useful is the searching the academic world.  I was suggesting 
this site to all of my students and recomending it to other faculty.  You 
can imagine how disappointed I was to discover that you would not take a 
stand on censorship.

There is a line from a famous Russian author that goes something like 
this:
"They came for the Jews and I said nothing.
 They came for my neighbor and I said nothing.
 When they came for me, there was no one left to speak."

Being neutral is no virtue.  I am the father of three boy and do have 
some concern about pornogrphy on the Net.  But, to risk or hard fought 
for liberty in a quest for moral values is dangerous.

I will no longer be recomending this site and will be telling others of 
how ashamed I am of your lack of courage.  My oppinion of the advertizers 
on your site has also been colored by your behavior.  I think that you 
will find that taking no stand is in itself a stand on the side of the 
fearful and weak.

Sincerely,

Sim Graves

310 Bower Hill Road
Mt. Lebanon, PA 15228
Phone: 412-344-3618

    Has the mail in .40 been forwarded to Digital officers?  If not, I'll
    send it to Bob Palmer.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    go ahead, the guy spamm'd it to all the Digital Email addresses in
    http://www.digital.com:80/info/email.html
    
    Mark

>My oppinion of the advertizers on your site has also been colored by your
>behavior.

??????????????????

When did we start advertizing, or does this guy think AltaVista is an
independent company advertizing Digital?

/john

    I think this guy has a reserved seat on the Gerry Springer show.
    r
    

I think the guy makes a valid point. We tout ourselves as being leaders on the 
Internet. We were the first commercial domain registered. Now, when the 
freedom of this incredible technology is threatened, we take no stand.

I'm not saying we should have blacked-out our web pages, but there was much 
more we could have done than issue the spineless press release.


Jim

    Putting the neutrality statement on the Alta Vista page brings to
    mind the quote (Mark Twain?) 
    
    	'Tis better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool
    	than to open it and remove all doubt.
    
    I don't disagree with the policy, off-hand, but mouthing off about
    it seems particularly naive.

re .45

I don't think the 'freedom of this incredible technology is 
threatened'.   Also, Digital is in business to make money,
not pander to a few bleeding hearts.  How would have 'taking
a stand' added to our bottom line?  I think deregulation will
increase competition in telecommunications, which should
generate more business for us.

    
    Re .47:
    
    The issue is not telecomm deregulation --  it is the fine and
    inappropriate print in that deregulation that limits free speech to the
    level appropriate for pre-schoolers.
    

This was extracted from this mornings VNS.  Apple has joined in as well.  I 
think our stance, both in public and internally, has been positively wimpy.  
Digital DOES have a stake in the outcome of this issue.  If the global users 
of the internet are bound by laws of one country, then it ties the hands of 
internet users all over the world and makes it a far less effective means of 
communication and commerce.

-Steve

 Communications Decency Act - Coalition led by Microsoft and Apple sues
	{The Boston Globe, 27-Feb-96, p. 47}
   A coalition that includes Microsoft and Apple filed a federal lawsuit to
 overturn the new law restricting indecency on the Internet.  The Citizens
 Internet Empowerment Coalition argues that there are less restrictive means,
 such as in-home blocking software, to protect children or other users from
 offensive material.

>I don't think the 'freedom of this incredible technology is 
>threatened'.   Also, Digital is in business to make money,
>not pander to a few bleeding hearts.  How would have 'taking
>a stand' added to our bottom line?  I think deregulation will
>increase competition in telecommunications, which should
>generate more business for us.

I'm sure many will disagree with me, but the book "Built to Last", is about 10
of the most successful companies in their markets compared with the second best.
The key differentiators were vision, culture and all that other 'touchy-feely' 
stuff!  To a company, those who put profits second came out on top!  That's not
to say they don't care about making money, but that's not all they're about. 

-mark

    Re: .47
    
    Again you have missed the point. Did you even bother to read my
    response to your earlier comment (.26 to your .24) before showing with
    your words that you don't understand the issue?

re .51

Yes I did bother to read your very important notes on this issue.
I didn't realize you think you are the sole opinion on this topic,
I guess that's your problem.  The topic of this note is 'Digital's'
position on 'black Thursday'.  My -opinion- on Digital's position
is 
	1) Digital should follow the law like anyone else, and
	   shouldn't take political positions unless it affects
	   the bottom line (note .47).  Recently within the last
	   year, DEC published a position on a tax referendum on
	   the ballot in Mass.  A political postition that affected
	   its bottom line.  The telecom bill will help us make
	   more revenue, I hope you agree that is good.

	2) I agree/am glad DEC didn't take a strong position on this.
	   This was the jist of note .24.

Hit and run noting?  Is that when someone doesn't agree with you?

    re .52
    
    A couple of points:
    
    - Yes, the telecomm bill, as a whole, is GOOD for Digital.
    - The small section of the telecomm bill called the Communications
      Decency Act (CDA) is, I believe, BAD for Digital.
    - Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, and others aren't fighting the CDA just for
      the heck of it.  They believe it's BAD for them, both financially and
      for their image as leaders in the internet community.
    - We were stupid to make a public statement about it IF that statement
      was that we were going to remain neutral.  We should have either kept
      our mouths shut or joined in with Microsoft, Apple, and others against
      it.
    - We can fight against the CDA without fighting against the entire
      telecomm bill.  It is not all or nothing.
    
    -Steve
    
    
    
    

    re: .52
    
    I have to disagree with you - the Act in question, as written,
    if enforced, will cause a lot of companies to go out of business.
    The first to go would be small internet service providers,
    followed by companies which provide systems and services to the
    ISPs.
    
    Having read the judges statement regarding the injunction,
    I'm incensed that the legislative arm of this nation believes
    that the very first amendment to the constitution is null and
    void in the context of a computer network.
    
    If congress writes laws contradicting the first amendment,
    how long do you think it will be until they wipe out some of
    the other amendments?

re .54

"Chicken Little says the sky is falling!"

    Free speech ought not be negotiable.  Why is that such a
    hard concept to understand

    Because some people are afraid of words and images.

    imho, Chicken Little was right.  I saw the HUAC hearings on
    TV last night and it is UGLY.

    Tom

    Hmmmmm.
    
    Censorship vs free speech.
    Just to add a dimension to this little rat hole, where do age
    restrictions in general fall into this mess. If I tell a 9 year old
    (s)he can't go to a movie because it is X rated; does that violate your
    free speech ammendmant? We all agree it is censorship, do we not?
    
    ...I suppose it is just "Common Decency".
    
    Rob.
    
    [I'm not taking sides here because I really don't know the specifics,
    just trying to spin it a little.]
    
    Oh yeah, re: "hit and run noting" ...is that when you take a shot and
    don't sign your name? 8^)
    r
    

I just saw in the Boston Globe today that there is some effort going into
adding extensions to web pages to give them 'ratings' and then extensions to
browsers could check them to see if they should be shown to kids.  The piece
I guess I'm missing is what would prevent an enterprising kid from simply
downloading a non-censored version of the browser?  Also, how would the  browser
even know the kid was a kid? How old would a kid have to be to figure this out?
I'd expect a number of 10 year olds could, and maybe even end up selling their
services to their friends (or younger siblings) who don't know how! 

-mark

    re: .52
    
>	2) I agree/am glad DEC didn't take a strong position on this.
>	   This was the jist of note .24.
    
    I reread your reply .24 and certainly didn't take that to be the gist
    of your statement. Your words seemed to be a tar-and-feathering of the
    motives of the people and organizations lining up against the so-called
    Communications Decency Act who do indeed believe the "freedom of this
    incredible technology is threatened" by suggesting that they might want
    to open up adult bookstores or promote "smut/porn whatever" (whatever
    that is, again your words from .24).
    
    Since in .47 you seem to now refer to us as "bleeding hearts" instead
    of "smut/porn whatever" merchants, you may have changed your mind a
    bit. But I have little patience for people who claim that only
    pragmatic or business issues should be discussed while in the same
    sentence belittling those that seem to fall on some other side.
    
    And I'm not sure there is an "other side" with respect to the vast
    majority of the text of the Telecommunications Act of 1996--I will
    agree with you that Digital could gain significant revenue from the
    business opportunities opened up by that legislation. One could
    dispute the type and amount of revenue--or even whether Digital is able
    to capitalize on the potential--but there is certainly a good chance
    for big bucks.
    
    But that's not what the "Black Thursday" protest is about. [As other
    respondents have pointed both prior to and after your reply .52.]
    
>Hit and run noting?  Is that when someone doesn't agree with you?
    
    No, I call it 'hit and run' when someone who seems to be missing a
    point instead uses inflammatory language to keep a conversation going.
                                                               
    With your explanation in .52, I see that you were trying to make a
    different point.

re: .53   
    
>    - The small section of the telecomm bill called the Communications
>      Decency Act (CDA) is, I believe, BAD for Digital.
>    - Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, and others aren't fighting the CDA just for
>      the heck of it.  They believe it's BAD for them, both financially and
>      for their image as leaders in the internet community.

That's because they (and I assume you (representing Digital) are afraid
they will be held accountable for what's running around their wires and
computers.  They should be, however, a well written business use policy
of equipment and networks should go along way to protecting them in court
as long as they make a reasonable effort to keep offensive material off.
Generally, companies are not liable for employee private actions as
long as they don't sanction or condone it.  I will get to ISP's/AOL later.

>    - We were stupid to make a public statement about it IF that statement
>      was that we were going to remain neutral.  We should have either kept
>      our mouths shut or joined in with Microsoft, Apple, and others against

Obviously, I side with DEC on this one, 
that's why we are having this discussion.
================================================================================
re .54   

>    I have to disagree with you - the Act in question, as written,
>    if enforced, will cause a lot of companies to go out of business.
>    The first to go would be small internet service providers,
>    followed by companies which provide systems and services to the
>    ISPs.

You have no basis for this opinion.  I agree that small ISPs will go
out of business, but not for this reason.  They will never be able
to compete with the cable and phone companies (capitalism).
    
>    Having read the judges statement regarding the injunction,
>    I'm incensed that the legislative arm of this nation believes
>    that the very first amendment to the constitution is null and
>    void in the context of a computer network.

Then how do you draw the line on obscene material?

>    If congress writes laws contradicting the first amendment,

The first amendment is not an anything goes amendment.
================================================================================
re .55 

Which side of the argument is that directed at?
================================================================================
re .56   

>    Free speech ought not be negotiable.  Why is that such a
>    hard concept to understand

Recently in Lan Times, (I think), they discussed the many hate web sites that
are springing up,  KKK, neo-Nazi etc.   I don't think it is a hard concept to
understand that these ideas are ideas we as a nation oppose.

>    Because some people are afraid of words and images.

No, see above, use your imagination with what people will do with XXX stuff.
================================================================================
re .57   

>    Oh yeah, re: "hit and run noting" ...is that when you take a shot and
>    don't sign your name? 8^)

Guilty as charged, I'm Brad, pleased to meet you.   
================================================================================
re .58   

>I just saw in the Boston Globe today that there is some effort going into
>adding extensions to web pages to give them 'ratings' and then extensions to

Well maybe outside this conference I am not alone in my concern, even if the
method seems misguided.

Brad.

re .59   

>    I reread your reply .24 and certainly didn't take that to be the gist
>    of your statement. Your words seemed to be a tar-and-feathering of the
>    motives of the people and organizations lining up against the so-called
>    Communications Decency Act who do indeed believe the "freedom of this

That's because you are being overly defensive (big time).

>    incredible technology is threatened" by suggesting that they might want
>    to open up adult bookstores or promote "smut/porn whatever" (whatever
>    that is, again your words from .24).

You have quite an imagination, but I never suggested any such thing.
For your easy reference, my words...

note .24) What is wrong with that?  Are you saying you wouldn't mind
note .24) having a neighbor opening up a XXX book store next door? 
note .24) That is what it amounts to.

I don't for a second believe most 'free-speechers' are going to rush out
and open a XXX site, however, I don't understand why they are going out
of their way to try and protect the low-lifes of this world who will
take something decent (the first amendment) and hide behind it to promote
exploitation of women, racial hatred and ethnic division among other things.

>    Since in .47 you seem to now refer to us as "bleeding hearts" instead
>    of "smut/porn whatever" merchants, you may have changed your mind a

Now take a deep breath, and -read my words-

note .24) What intrigues me the most is people are up in arms about
note .24) trying to stop smut/porn whatever in an electronic form.

Where did I refer to you as "smut/porn whatever merchants"?  At least be
accurate.

>    bit. But I have little patience for people who claim that only

Keep taking deep breaths.

>    sentence belittling those that seem to fall on some other side.
    
I think 'bleeding hearts' struck a nerve, no?  This reminds me of the
Dukakis run for presidency when suddenly, it wasn't vogue to be labeled
a liberal.  There was this political cartoon of Mike standing up in a 
AA type meeting with the caption "My name is Mike, and I am a Li_li_li_liberal"

I am conservative, go ahead, call me a right-winger!

>    But that's not what the "Black Thursday" protest is about. [As other
>    respondents have pointed both prior to and after your reply .52.]

Actually, I thought the whole Black Thursday protest was stupid.
By the way, did Microsoft or Apple black out their pages?  I think a blue
ribbon is wimpy, you are either with the protest on not.  Maybe they should
organize a blue ribbon Monday.  I would venture to say that blacking
out Microsoft's home page would have been quite expensive, gee, back to
money again, shame on me.
    
>    No, I call it 'hit and run' when someone who seems to be missing a
>    point instead uses inflammatory language to keep a conversation going.

You realize this could easily apply to you...
                                                               
>    With your explanation in .52, I see that you were trying to make a
>    different point.
	
No, same points.

Have a good day,
Brad.

    O.K. folks, this is getting a bit off the track here.  Please keep your
    comments concerning the CDA related to how it might/will/would/does
    affect Digital and/or the way we work at Digital.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    Here's the contents of the judges decision.  It's available at:
    	http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/buckwalter_cda_021596.decision
    
    ==========================================================
    
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., 
    Plaintiffs
    
    v. 
    
    JANET RENO,
    Defendant
    
    CIVIL ACTION
    NO. 96-963
    
    MEMORANDUM
    
    BUCKWALTER, J.   
    February 15, 1996
    
    I. BACKGROUND
    
         Plaintiffs are providers and users of on-line communications.  The 
    affidavits filed in support of plaintiffs' request for a temporary 
    restraining order (TRO) support the statement in plaintiffs' brief
    (page 
    2) that these communications deal with issues involving sexuality, 
    reproduction, human rights, social responsibility, environmental 
    concerns, labor, conflict resolution, as well as other issues, all of 
    which have significant educational, political, medical, artistic, 
    literary and social value.
    
          On February 8, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the 
    Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Title V of the Act includes the 
    provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), codified at 
    47 U.S.C. Section 223 (a) to (h).
    
         Pertinent to the matter now before this court, Section 223 (a) (1) 
    (B) provides:
    
          (a)  Whoever --
               (1)  in interstate or foreign communications --
    
                   (B)  by means of a telecommunications device knowingly
    --
    
                        (i)  makes, creates, or solicits, and
    
                        (ii)  initiates the transmission of, any comment, 
    request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is 
    obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is 
    under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such 
    communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
    
    Section 223 (d) provides:
    
              (d)  Whoever --
                   (1)  in interstate or foreign communications knowingly
    --
    
                        (A)  uses an interactive computer service to send
    to 
    a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or
                        (B)  uses any interactive computer service to 
    display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any 
    comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communications 
    that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as 
    measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory 
    activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service 
    placed the call or initiated the communication; or
    
                   (2)  knowingly permits any telecommunications facility 
    under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by 
    paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall 
    be fined under Title 18 United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 
    two years, or both.
    
              In seeking a TRO with regard to the above provisions/1, 
    plaintiffs claim that they will be irreparably harmed because their 
    rights under the First Amendment will be infringed.  They fear 
    prosecution under the CDA because as a result of the vagueness of the 
    crimes created by the Act, they do not even know what speech or other 
    actions might subject them to prosecution.  Thus, even attempts to
    self-
    censor could prove fruitless.  There is also the concern by those 
    plaintiffs who rely on on-line providers and other carriers that these 
    providers will likely ban communications that they consider potentially 
    "indecent" or "patently offensive" in order to avoid criminal 
    prosecution themselves, thereby depriving plaintiffs of the ability to 
    communicate about important issues.
    
              The defendant counters by stating that there must be a 
    realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the 
    statute's enactment or enforcement, apparently suggesting that 
    plaintiffs' fears of prosecution are imaginary or speculative.  There
    is 
    no evidence on the present record to suggest defendant's position is 
    correct in the latter regard.
    
              Moreover, the defendant's brief quotes a portion of a Third 
    Circuit case for the proposition that "the assertion of First Amendment 
    rights does not automatically require a finding of irreparable injury."  
    What the defendant failed to cite from that case was the sentence 
    immediately preceding the above quote which was, "It is well
    established 
    that the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of 
    time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."  Hohe v. Casey, 
    868 F.2d 69, at 72, 73 (3d Cir. 1989).  The Hohe case goes on to
    explain 
    that plaintiff must show "a chilling effect on free expression."  That 
    has been shown in this case by affidavits previously referred to.
    
              What likelihood is there that plaintiffs will prevail on the 
    merits?  In Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure:  
    Civil 2d Section 2948.3, it is suggested that this concept of 
    probability of success on the merits must be considered and balanced 
    with the comparative injuries of the parties.
    
              As the Second Circuit put it, when
    
                   the balance of hardship tips decidedly toward plaintiff. 
    . .it will ordinarily be enough that the plaintiff has raised questions 
    going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as 
    to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more
    deliberative 
    investigation.  Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 
    740 (2d Cir. 1953).
    
              I believe plaintiffs have, at least with regard to 47 U.S.C. 
    Section 223 (a) (1) (B) (ii) and (a) (2) raised serious, substantial, 
    difficult and doubtful questions which are fair grounds for this 
    litigation.
    
              In explaining my reason for this conclusion, I will not go 
    through a piecemeal analysis of the cases, all of which have been set 
    forth in both plaintiffs' and defendant's briefs, except, perhaps, in 
    passing while discussing the respective arguments of the parties.
    
              First of all, I have no quarrel with the argument that 
    Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and 
    psychological well-being of minors.  Moreover, at least from the 
    evidence before me, plaintiffs have not convinced me that Congress has 
    failed to narrowly tailor the CDA.
    
              Where do I feel that the plaintiffs have raised serious, 
    substantial, difficult and doubtful questions is in their argument that 
    the CDA is unconstitutionally vague in the use of the undefined term, 
    "indecent."  Section 223 (a) (1) (B) (ii).
    
              This strikes me as being serious because the undefined word 
    "indecent", standing alone, would leave reasonable people perplexed in 
    evaluating what is or is not prohibited by the statute.
    
              It is a substantial question because this word alone is the 
    basis for a criminal felony prosecution.
    
              It is a difficult question, I think, because any laws 
    affecting freedoms such as the ones here in question have spawned 
    opinions which arguably support both sides.
    
              Finally, it is a doubtful question because it is simply is
    not 
    clear, contrary to what the government suggests, that the word 
    "indecent" has ever been defined by the Supreme Court.  See Alliance
    for 
    Community Media v. F.C.C., 56 F.3d 105 (D.C. Cir. 1995) p. 130,
    footnote 
    2:
    
    We note that the Supreme Court has never actually passed on the FCC's 
    broad definition of "indecency".  See Action for Children's Television 
    v. FCC, 852 F.2d. 1332, 1339-39 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (acknowledging that in 
    FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d
    1073 
    (1978), the Supreme Court never specifically addressed whether the
    FCC's 
    generic definition of indecency was unconstitutionally vague, but 
    arguing that because the Court "implicitly" approved the definition by 
    relying on it, lower courts are barred from addressing the vagueness 
    issue on the merits.
    
              Parenthetically, I had reached the same conclusion as Judge 
    Wald, author of the above footnote, before reading Alliance for 
    Community Media.  That, of course, does not mean that we are correct
    but 
    it did reinforce my belief that the question of vagueness is a
    difficult 
    and doubtful one.
    
              In connection with the vagueness argument, the government 
    correctly states that plaintiffs face a most difficult challenge.  That 
    challenge has been stated as one in which "the challenger must
    establish 
    that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be
    valid."  
    Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 183 (1990) (quoting United States v. 
    Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987).
    
              It is hard to imagine a set of circumstances where an act 
    proscribing certain conduct could be rendered valid if the description 
    of that conduct, the violation of which is a felony, is vague.
    
              Defendant seems to argue that an indecent communication means 
    the same as a communication that in context, depicts or describes "in 
    terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community 
    standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs. . . ."
    
              While I do not believe the patently offensive provision of 
    Section 223 (d) (1), quoted above, is unconstitutionally vague, I do
    not 
    see how that applies to the undefined use of the word "indecent" in 
    Section 223 (a) (1) (B) (ii).  Depending on who is making the
    judgement, 
    indecent could include a whole range of conduct not encompassed by 
    "patently offensive."
    
              The remaining considerations relative to a TRO request weigh 
    in favor of plaintiffs.  I have not overlooked or ignored the 
    outstanding argument made by the government in part 1 of its brief.  I 
    particularly have pondered the oft cited quote:  When a court is asked 
    to invalidate a "statutory provision that has been approved by both 
    Houses of the Congress and signed by the President, particularly an Act 
    of Congress that confronts a deeply vexing national problem, it should 
    only do so for the most compelling constitutional reasons."  Mistretts 
    v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 384 (1989), p. 17 of defendant's brief.
    
              It is, of course, impossible to define conduct with 
    mathematical certainty, but on the other hand, it seems to me that due 
    process, particularly in the arena of criminal statutes, requires more 
    than one vague, undefined word, "indecent."
    
              It is a most compelling constitutional reason to require of a 
    law that it reasonably informs a person of what conduct is prohibited 
    particularly when the violation of the law may result in fines, 
    imprisonment, or both.
    
              An order follows.
    
    n1/  Plaintiffs have also sought relief as to 18 U.S.C. Section 1462, 
    but at this early stage of the litigation, it seems clear that no 
    irreparable harm will befall plaintiffs. (See Gov't Ex. 13).
    
    ========================================================================
    
    
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., 
    Plaintiffs
    
    v. 
    
    JANET RENO,
    Defendant
    
    CIVIL ACTION
    NO. 96-963
    
    ORDER
    
              This case is before the court on plaintiffs' motion for a 
    temporary restraining order against enforcement of both 47 U.S.C. 
    Section 223 (a) (1) (B)  (as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 
    1996, Section 502),  and 47 U.S.C. Section 223 (d).  The court having 
    considered plaintiffs' submissions in support of their motion, and 
    defendants' submission in opposition thereto,
    
              IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiffs' motion for a temporary 
    restraining order is GRANTED, in part, as follows:
    
              The defendant, her agents, and her servants are hereby 
    ENJOINED from enforcing against plaintiffs the provisions of 47 U.S.C. 
    Section 223 (a) (1) (B) (ii), insofar as they extend to "indecent", but 
    not "obscene".  The plaintiffs' motion is in all others respects, 
    DENIED.
    
              Unless previously ordered by this court, pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. 
    Section 223 Section 2284 (b) (3), this order shall remain in force only 
    until the hearing and determination by the district court of three 
    judges of the application for a preliminary injunction.
    
    SO ORDERED this 15th day of February, 1996
    
    BY THE COURT:
    
    __________________________
    RONALD L. BUCKWALTER,  J.
    
    cc: Counsel of record via FAX by chambers 2/15/96.
    

OK, so the TRO only enjoins enforcement against "indecent" material.

Enforcing the law against those making "obscene" material available to
persons under 18 is not enjoined.

I wonder if the guy who was moaning on alt.censorship because AOL wouldn't
let him mention his "Random Access Porno" generator has had a knock on
his door yet...

/john

    Re: .49 but really a follow-up on the issue:
    
    The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, which includes Apple,
    Microsoft, and many others, has a WWW site at: 
    
       http://www.cdt.org/ciec
    
    
    Re: .62
   
    Certainly the CDA has affected the way that I work at Digital. 
    
    I now know that because I wear a blue ribbon that I am considered by
    some of my fellow employees to be "defending low-lifes of [the] world
    who will ... promote exploitation of women, racial hatred and ethnic
    division among other things", possibly including "smut/porn whatever".
    
    I'm going to need some serious Valuing Differences training to
    understand how to deal with such a sweeping ad hominem.

    
    	Actually, that does nothing to affect the way you WORK at
    	Digital, but by personal choice it's affected the way you
    	CONDUCT YOURSELF while working at Digital.
    

    At 9:00am this morning, the three-judge panel hearing the case at a 
    Federal Court in Philadelphia, PA for an injunction against the
    so-called Communications Decency Act unanimously granted the injunction.
    
    The United States Government is expected to appeal the decision to the
    Supreme Court.
    
    See http://www.cdt.org/ciec (among others) for details.

    -< for those who are concerned >- ??  I should think that ALL of us
                                          should be concerned...