At 08:20 AM 1/6/96 -0500, S. Finer wrote:
>
>The prudent man tends to frown on zealotry.  Besides I have lived places 
>without a first amendment, and have found the quality of their democracy 
>to be not inferior to our own as a practical matter.

It isn't just laws that protect freedom of expression--it's also traditions,
so, yes, I can see your point. By weakening our First Amendment, however, we
would be going backwards in a rather disturbing way. We'd be explicitedly
saying, "Hey, these things don't matter so much."

What's more, given the massive economic and religious forces arrayed against
the First Amendment, I'd say a little devotion to it wouldn't hurt.

>David have you considered that acts meant to deal with tobacco and 
>alcohol abuse probably would not originate with the same committee as telcom 
>amendments because of jurisdiction? 

I doubt this. Either way it's a speech issue.

?It would not make any sense for Exon 
>to attempt to pass a single bill dealing with all sources of harm to 
>kids, since that harm comes in the form of sources belonging to different 
>jurisdictions.  No single senator could cover all the bases concerning 
>kids with a single bill.

But tobacco and booze are such conspicuous threats that logically you'd
expect Congress to address the issue one way or another if members really
knew what was going on and wanted to protect kids.

>  So did Exon frustrate any efforts by other 
>senators to cover the issues you mention?

Not to my knowledge, but maybe the t&a donations to the others had the same
effect.

>I doubt that the jurisdiction of his committee assignments would permit 
>it.  Senators do not just roam free across the landscape of entire 
>landscape of US law.  They work in certain areas where they gradually 
>develop some competence, such as the telcom subcommittee.  

"I doubt." That's pretty strong language, and you're making the argument
late in the game. I'd welcome proof.

>ads, or merely not mention it?  I suppose his folks may not have been 
>aware of the advertising growth last spring.  

If so, that's just evidence of the risks of letting net.nannies legislate
morality. A fast-changing medium like the Net doesn't need oversight by the
clueless.

You know, it might be 
>possible to get him to try to put your concerns in now......has anyone 
>tried that?

Actually I will send him a printout of an ad or two and see what his
response is. I oppose his censorship. But if he's going to have it, then he
needs to be consistent--in which case, I'd hope, the t&a interests might
then "educate"
their many beneficiaries on the Hill.

>This sounds like a tactic that Lyndon Johnson used to use.  Start a 
>whispering campaign that your opponent engages in ________fill in the 
>blank with something awful______________________; and then force the 
>accused to deny it.  It did not matter if the accusation was untrue.  The 
>denial itself became suspicious for the public.....it was a form of south 
>Texas smear.....is that what is going on here?  

What's going on? An unfair comparision from you. There's nothing LBJish
about raising the campaign contributions issues when Exon has ignored the
most basic threats of all to kids.

>Well, what percent of non-net-nannies as you term them, also got such 
>donations from similar groups?  If the donations cut across both pro and 
>con on the net issue,...... then attributing positions to donations gets 
>tough.

>Just curious here, did Exon actually mention any standards of US 
>literature are being indecent under the act?  Or is this being attributed 
>to him...........without serious confirmation.

I'd hope that his staffers would know enough about law to inform him of the
perils of the jackboot approach.

> That's a
>> rather different issue from the hardcore stuff. You're confusing the two. 
>> The ayatollahs went out of their way to beat down the more sensible 
>> "harmful to children" definition. 
>
>yeah, that's right, but it is water under the bridge.

No, it isn't. This shows where they're coming from--and where they're going.

>Find out what is going on??? Or do you mean told an exaggerated scenario 
>about the magnitude of risk and disruption?  I just think there have been 
>too many scare tactics used........

Especially by Exon. A calmer Senator would not wage a jihad and, McCarthy
- -like, hold up his famous blue book and smear the Net. He'd be open to the
PICS approach.

Cheers,
David



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

End of online-news-digest V1 #458
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Sun Jan  7 00:42:15 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 AAA15032 ; for ; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 00:42:12 -0500