In-Reply-To: <9504031533.AA03764@norton.macktech.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Mon, 3 Apr 1995, Wm Ford - Consulting Software Engineer wrote:

> 
> Yes. Dave Frost interviewed Congressman Gingrich and it was a surprise
> when the internet question came up. Sr Gingrich did say that he thought
> the Exon bill was unconstitutional. But he went on to say that child
> porn types were praying on kids on the internet and something had to
> be done.

Most of the pedophiles I've had first or second hand experience with were 
Boy Scout troupe leaders, church leaders, or were molesting their own 
children.  I don't hear anyone wanting to regulate the churches.

> Ah, I am probably off in the weeds, but if a kid has the sophistication
> to get on the internet and be bother then he/she probably need to be
> put in a faraday cage to have any real protection.

What's the point.  Which would you rather have your kid doing, reading 
about sex in alt.sex.wizards (where they find out she CAN get pregnant if 
you don't wear a condom during her period), or learning about it 
first-hand from his school chums and is buddy's big sister.

> Sigh, the ususual question, can you protect on at a cost of freedom
> for many...and you can't even be sure what you do will work..

You can be certain that it will not work.  Pornographers have been in 
business since the days when they used french postcards to pass around 
political commentary during the revolutionary war.  C.B. radios, VCRs,
computers, CD-Roms, and most of the innovations of the Internet were made 
commercially viable through the support and financing of "pornographers".

Kiddie porn and Snuff porn are still "Hot Buttons" that can get even the 
most liberal person to take a knee-jerk reaction that approves of 
censorship and government intervention.  Suppose the real issue was that 
they wanted to keep tabs on your bank account, monitor your spending 
habits, and impose restrictions that would FORCE people back to using 
common carrier long distance services (at $6-$12/hour) for computer and 
voice traffic.

One of the big concerns the carriers are starting to have is that it is 
possible for someone with a SoundBlaster card to talk to another user on 
the internet with a SoundBlaster card.  The net effect, free long 
distance.  Why would MCI, AT&T and the local Baby Bells not want you to 
do this?

	Rex Ballard


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Thu Apr  6 15:03:45 1995
Status: O
X-Status: