DHR continues thrashing decomposed nag.....

On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, David H. Rothman wrote:
> 
> Hey, Scott, maybe we're closer than you think. You wrote: "I oppose just one
> rating system.  Every cultural community should have its own independent
> means of pointing out problems to its own members."

Yes, this is the best way of handling it.  We discussed this solution more 
than a year ago here....long before PICS.
 
> That's *exactly* what the Platform for Internet Content Selection, being
> developed by the World Wide Web Consortium, would allow. As I said in my
> original post, which is now making the rounds of the Net, PICS is
> "content-neutral." 

Content neutral might be hard to achieve in practice.

> You, Scott, could go into business with your own rating
> service if the Christian Coalition didn't preempt you with its very possibly
> free service. PICS, of course, would not just point out problems--it would
> actually allow screening of the material that kids received.

No, too low a margin for a serious business, but it might be a good 
sideline for various non-profit groups.

> Please, Scott--don't encourage the net.nannies in the U.S. Senate to impose
> government standards on "every cultural community." I find it all too
> revealing that the Clinton Administration went jurisdiction shopping to
> prosecute California BBS operators in Tennessee. That tells me plenty about
> D.C.'s mindset. 

Janet Reno has kids on the brain, and I might add, she is a singularly 
impressive speaker, ...and carries substantial moral authority......far 
more than the Clintons, or Doles, or Exon, or Gores.  Guess how Tipper 
feels about it.  personally, IMHO, it is preferable to take some action 
rather than no action, even if the action is a bit heavy handed at 
first.  It can always be amended, over-turned in court, or selectively 
enforced.  Frankly, I doubt they will pass anything blatantly 
un-Constitutional; and if the language is interpreted narrowly 
enough....there should not be a problem.

> Two other points:
> 
> 1. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Web pages mention "sex" no more often
> than the combination of "tobacco" and "alcohol." Scott, I followed your
> advice. You suggested: "Go to Alta Vista and run a search" on "sex,"
> "alcohol" and "tobacco." The results? Sex: 100,000. Alcohol: 70,000.
> Tobacco: 30,000. A vice tie!

I am not dissappointed.  You have combined two terms vs the volume of 
just one.....nice try.   
 
> 2. Exon apparently still had a chance of running for re-election at the time
> he introduced his communications decency act. According to Thomas, the
> Exon-Gorton bill was introduced "February 1 (legislative day, JANUARY 30),
> 1995." The Washington Post on March 18 said he made the resignation
> announcement "yesterday"--in other words, March 17. And the Post said Exon
> considered the decision to be difficult. That suggests he might well have
> changed his mind at the last minute.

But the key point is that once he left the race he did not desert the 
bill.  His motives come from some other source than pressure from 
corporate contributors....since their contributions are no longer 
required.  He continued prosecuting the bill as a matter of conscious.
 
> Earlier this week when I was discussing my book NetWorld! on the Jim
> Bohannon show, going to perhaps 400 radio stations, I raised this donations
> issue, just as I do in the book itself; and I'll continue to push the issue
> on the Net. It isn't going away, Scott.

Maybe not, but I doubt that it is convincing many people who had not 
already made up their minds, either.  It is a sacred cow thing for net 
journalists........but it is barely discernable in RL...or did you miss the 
Post editorial on the 18th David? 

 The plain fact is that Exon wimped
> out and ignored proven health risks to kids--the products sold by industries
> that had contributed tens of thousands of dollars to him. 

Enlighten me David...in what context did Exon wimp out?  Did he oppose 
any possible act.....or simply fail to introduce more.....what precisely 
is your measure of wimp out?  I have not heard it here so far.  

> I hope that members of the media will report the t&a donations and let the
> public judge the extent to which money influenced the actions or lack of
> actions of the net.nannies. As noted in my earlier post, just the
> ringleaders got at least $273K in campaign donations from the t&a people. 

In order to make this kind of charge serious, you'd have to show some 
connection between their actions and the contributions.......scores of 
people got such donations...so what makes you focus on just two of them?  
I am sure you can find people who co-sponsored the legislation who did 
not get any money....but you do not bother with that approach.  Senior 
members get all types of contributions from every imaginable PAC, usually 
on a bipartisan basis too.  It is nothing unusual.  You make it sound as 
if they stated one thing under oath to a Committee, and were proven to 
have done something else........that is not the case.   

> Bob Dole, the Republician Presidential front runner, who last year
> cosponsored nanny-style legislation even more obnoxious than Exon's original
> bill, got more than $70K. Dole blew my hypocrisy meter off the scale.

Is there anyone in public life who does not "blow your meter"?  Perhaps 
the meter needs recalibration.  Dog bites man Dave....it is only a great 
story if you really hate/love the principles.

> Yes, other factors obviously are involved besides political donations, but
> to me the campaign gifts are still news. It's analogous to congressmen
> getting big bucks from defense contractors.

Is it analogous to the complaints coming from the right wing about the 
millions Clinton got from alternative lifestyle organizations in LA in 92'?
That was spurious nonsense, so how are your complaints ethically any 
different?  



------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #457
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Sat Jan  6 13:19:13 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03981 ; for ; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 13:19:10 -0500