In-Reply-To: <199507011702.BAA24959@vector.wantree.com.au>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

For the sake of accuracy it must be noted that there is no such thing as 
the Exon Act.  The CDA is a title within the Senate bill that amends the 
1934 Communications ACT (the FCC organic Act).  Senator Exon introduced the 
proposed amendment that became the CDA.  It passed by 84-16, i.e. 
overwhelmingly.

BTW, for the benefit of observers outside the US, the CDA was not the work
of right-wing nativists.  Senator Exon is a Democrat, ....and another of
the most active opponents of sexual material on the Internet is Senator
Diane Feinstein (D) of California, one of the most liberal voices in the
Congress, and formerly the major of ultra-PC, San Francisco. 

By contrast, one of the most conservative voices in the US Congress is a 
CDA opponent, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich.

Nathan of Perth, much like Rex, misses the point of my post.  I oppose the
terms of the CDA, as recently passed, but I accept that there needs to be
some type of action taken because of the perceived dimensions of the
threat in many parts of the electorate.  Alarmed parents can be very
focused, determined, and energetic---and politicians understand this
perfectly well.  For almost anyone seeking election or re-election in the US,
defending pronography or pornographers is begging to be stomped into
oblivion. That is the way it is---reality.  Get used to it.

On Sun, 2 Jul 1995 
nathan@wantree.com.au wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jun 1995, Rex Ballard wrote:
> 
> > Senator Exon was very clever.  He used a book of pictures downloaded from 
> > usenet (a sophisticated forum containing over 16,000 news-groups), frome
> > groups such as alt.sex.binaries.bondage (any innocent child would 
> > accidentally read this), 
> 
> Many ISPs accept personal checks.  Many adults grant access to their net 
> accounts to their adolescents, and online services give access to 
> newsgroups too. A smart 12 year old can figure out the uudecode methods to 
> resolve GIFs and JPEGs. It is not brain surgery. 
> 
> * Well, why don't these adults face up to a bit of responsibility and
> * self-censor themselves and their kids. If they subscribe to an ISP,
> * then they know the risks and should work to minimise those for their
> * children.

This is what I am suggesting, as any pea-brain who took the time to read 
my post would have understood.  The solution to the problem is for the 
Gov to mandate "parentware" monitoring software for no-cost use with 
every ISP account---not censorship.  This will put the tools necessary 
for parent control into the hands of all who need them.  I do not favor 
the CDA as passed, but I tell you in all honesty, if the bill's opponents 
do not get smarter about posing opposition, it may well pass (even 
against the opposition of Newt Gingrich).
 
> =============== 
> > He pointed out that 10 children were lured into actual "contact" 
> > molestation experiences through their activities on the internet.
> 
> NO REX...these are the number of cases in which indictments were 
> brought...no one knows the number of actual cases......and with accounts 
> growing constantly, the absolute incidence is probably also growing.
> 
> * Naturally it is, but by how much is it growing? Do you throw the baby
> * out with the bathwater?

I would say no, but the CDA does, and it will pass if the opposition does 
not get smarter.  The point is that the political process is demanding 
SOMETHING that makes parents generally feel in more control.  CDA offers 
censorship, but there are alternatives.  The opposition must offer 
rational alternatives---it cannot just whine about "rights", etc.  That 
argument cuts no ice.  It is a loser.  If you want to head off the CDA, 
you must offer an alternative that makes parents FEEL more in control.  
That is the path to a sane solution, not culture war on the motives of 
the CDA sponsors---that is a sure loser.  Rex and Nathan's dog don't hunt.

> =============== 
> > Based on statistical instances of actual incest/molestation, there is 
> > more cause to shut down Christian Churches, the Boy Scouts, the 4H club, 
> > and all summer camps, than there is to censor the internet.

The so-called statistical evidence underlying Rex's
allegation/interpretation is not conclusive, or even of the valid variety. 
It is largely anecdotal doctrine employed by ideological axe grinders, 
not genuine, peer-reviewed, social science.  

> I have heard this allegation before, but there is no hard evidence it is
> true....this is one of those allegations brought by axe grinders...but 
> unsubstantiated.  The thing is that parents have a chance to gauge Church
> staff, Scout leaders, camp staff, etc.  But with the net, parents have
no 
> idea who may be interacting with their kids, while the kid is inside
> his/her own room at home.  Parents perceive this as an extra threat.  >
>
* Unsubstantiated???  Under what rock have you been hiding?  How about >
* using some simple common sense?  If you want a hamburger, do you go to >
* a pizzeria?? 

It is unsubstantiated, as I stated.  So sorry that the truth offends your
sensibilities, but I suggest you get used to it, because idiotic BS is not
going to carry the anti-CDA argument in the House.  The reasons to defeat
the CDA are going to have to be empirically demonstrable, reasonable, and
make good political sense as well----otherwise the CDA will probably pass
as is.  Haven't the foggiest notion what you think your pizzeria comment 
proves or states.  

> * As to parents being able to assess the character of someone before they
> * put their children in that person(s) charge, what do you do to assess the
> * risk?  Do you ask, "hey, are you a child molester??"  Puh-leaze!
> * fact is most children are molested by a parent, relative or friend of the
> * family.  Online abuse is a complete non-sequitir.

The issue, as I have stated before, is perception of risk, NOT ACTUAL RISK.  
Parents perceive a greater risk because they cannot control where junior 
goes online, or who he mingles with.  THEY PERCEIVE THE RISK as greater 
than when they take the child to a scout or camp meeting.  That is the 
opinion the politicians are faced with.  The actual risk may be smaller 
or greater than the perception......real evidence is not clear on that point.


> =============== 
> 
> > Pedophiles don't go to forums populated with primarily adult males, to 
> > pick up children.  They join organizations where they will be placed in 
> > positions of trust and are in close proximity to many children and few 
> > adults.  The best target professions for molestors would be "Sunday 
> > School teacher", "Boy scout troop leader", "Den Master", "Little League 
> > Coach", or "Summer Day Camp councillor".
> 
> Again, Rex, this is your opinion, it has not been demonstrated by valid 
> means.  Organizations have documented the existence of pedophiles on 
> online services, and adults who may or may not be pedophiles, but seem to 
> seek out conversation with children---sometimes suggesting meetings.  
> 
> * Do you have personal knowledge of this, or are you repeating what someone
> * else has told you?  

Both.  But the real evidence has been discussed by the American 
Psychiatric Association, the FBI, and other organizations, including 
numerous courts.  If you want citations, run a Lexis / Nexis search.

> What organisations (sic) do you cite?  Of course there
> * are paedophiles on online networks, just as there are peddos in every 
> segment
> * of society.  Children are a whole lot safer in the hands off online world
> * than they are where they are in immediate physical danger.

What evidence indicates this?  It might be true, but it has not been 
proven, and right now there is tremendous momentum of public opinion 
going in the opposite direction.  

> 
> > Having spent 15 years as a volunteer working with a group of adults where 
> > 95% have been incested, molested, or raped, I have some idea of what I'm 
> > talking about.
> I am sure you have "some" idea Rex, but a little knowledge is a dangerous 
> thing.  Politically speaking, some type of effort must be made to give 
> parents a greater sense of control over their kids' activity online.  
> Censorship of the net is a bad way to do this---a better way is to put 
> tools into parents hands, easy to use tools, cheaply available tools, 
> that will give parents better control over what their kids see and read 
> via the net while they are still underage.  
> 
> * And what qualifications do you possess, Sir?
More that sufficient qualifications to speak with authority, nathan.  And 
if you choose not to believe me, well, I assure you I won't lose any 
sleep over it.

> * A tool already exists, every person over the age of about six weeks
> * can grasp the concept and what is even better, it comes with every
> * single appliance you are ever likely to buy - it is called a "power off
> * switch".  Off switches operate via a simple polar opposition and
> * when turned to the desired position have the effect of denying
> * access to whatever electronic doo-dad they are attached to.

Nathan's above comment demonstrates utter contempt for a rational, problem 
solving approach to the issue. Nathan appears to want nothing more than 
to exercise a self-righteous ideological superiority, as opposed to 
reaching a viable solution.  All he is interested in is dogma 
and rhetoric, which WILL NOT CONVINCE the US House---and with excellent 
reason.  The doctrinaire line is substantively vacuous.  

> 
> The opponents of the CDA would do well for their cause to forget trying 
> to convince the majority of their countrymen that there is no 
> problem---continuing down that path is pointless, they will be ROLLED in 
> 99% of the fora where the issue gets debated.  Instead, the CDA opponents 
> would do well to suggest alternative means of protecting kids without 
> heavy handed censorship. 
 
> * How about parents facing up to their responsibilities? No-one is suggesting
> * that there isn't a problem, what we are saying is that regimes already
> * exist and that the rest of us do not want to be penalised by the
> * irresponsible activities of others (that includes lazy or disinterested
> * parents). 
No, sufficient regimes do not already exist.  Parents need TOOLS that 
they can apply, at home, for their household.  These tools need to be 
simple to use, effective, cheap to acquire, and universally available. 
Such tools can prevent the trampling of others' rights.

> * The red herrings that people like Exon indulge in are also dangerous
> * for they divert attention from areas of greater risk.  Exon is less
> * interested in protecting children IMHO than he is in carving a name
> * for himself before he retires.  

Nonsense.  Exon's motives are clean.  His constituency asked him to do 
something.  He responded.  I first met Exon shortly after he was elected 
to the Senate in 1976.  He is no megalo-anything.  The accusation is an 
ignorant slander. He is a moderate agrarian populist, well inside the 
bounds of the Democratic party mainstream.

> * I don't think the ravings of a
> * megalomaniac are solid reasons for tampering with the future
> * framework of a large (and increasingly important) sector of society.
> * Responsibility is like a muscle - given the chance to use it, it grows
> * strong and nimble; take it away and it becomes weak, eventually atrophying.
> * I prefer to remain strong and teach my kids how to be strong, not treat
> * them like victims or subjects of the State.
> 

From merced@tmm.cl Sun Jul  2 18:42:21 1995
Received: from hal9000.tmm.cl (root@[200.0.148.2]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA26514 ; for ; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 18:42:17 -0400
Received: from [200.0.148.31] (dialup1.tmm.cl [200.0.148.31]) by hal9000.tmm.cl (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA00144 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 06:19:44 -0400
Message-Id: <199507021019.GAA00144@hal9000.tmm.cl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: rballard@cnj.digex.net