@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 Sender: John Whiting <•••@••.•••> Subject: Paranoia ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Larry or Lynn Tunstall, INTERNET:•••@••.••• TO: John Whiting, 100707,731 DATE: 10/02/96 19:25 RE: Paranoia Here's my paranoid fantasy of what's going on. The Communications Decency Act was included in the TC bill for two reasons: (1) to get the support of the rightwing extremists, diverting them from any possible focus on exposing giveaways to "the liberal media"; (2) to cause "liberals" to create a big fuss about the censorship aspect, thus diverting attention from the financial giveaways and the sponsorship by the big communications companies. As the White House and others have noted, many of the censorship provisions will almost certainly be thrown out by the courts (after the ACLU and others spend lots of progressive's money on lawyers). If needed, Clinton and others can join in the effort to get rid of the "obvious excesses" of the censorship measure. If what is left proves inconvenient to the big companies, it can always be repealed down the line with some amendment in some other bill that will attract little attention unless the right wing tries to oppose it, in which case the companies get to pose as protectors of freedom. I'd imagine that the right would be just as happy to keep some vague censorship regulations in force. In broadcasting, the FCC has only once brought charges against a moderately major player (Infinity for Howard Stern's programs), and then they were simply ignored until Infinity decided to make a deal in order to get clearance for a merger or sale or whatever they were up to. The "indecency" fines have not be brought against networks, or even against local TV stations as far as I know, but rather against community and college stations broadcasting a bit of counterculture. The big companies don't mind at all keeping a bit of intimidation and confusion on those little operations, so long as they are free to sell whatever sleaze they want. Similarly, they don't mind if the "hard-core porn" sellers get harrassed, so long as they can define "community standards" by the fact that whatever they choose to transmit becomes acceptable. If I'm right, the push for censorship will have already served its purpose in getting the bill through Congress, and now we'll see the various powers (except the fanatic right, of course) turning around and competing to be seen as friends of civil liberties and champions of free speech (among consenting adults). Cheers, Larry •••@••.••• @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Moderator comment: The fact that Leahy is perservering against CDA (with his repeal initiative) is not strong evidence for the above theory. But if all kinds of support materializes, from people who voted for CDA before, then there's some cause for serious consideration here, IMHO. -rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 Sender: "David E. Anderson" <•••@••.•••> Subject: ownership and origin of Internet has low explanatory power I think Ira Brodsky is barking up the wrong tree with this line of inquiry. What drives the politicians, as ever, is power and money. The Net MATTERS now, so the power and money interests want to control it. The social control fanatics centered around the Christian Right are tightly interwoven with dominant elements of the US governments. The ideology of these groups, such as it exists separate from their desire for control, now and throughout two thousand years of history, fosters social organization which is at odds with the current freedom of the Net. ( We're talking Inquisition here, not nailing your declaration of principles to a door. ) It is irrelevant that some portions of the Net are owned by governments. What is relevant is to know who is driving the battle against us. I know of no movement in US history which measures up to the contemporary Christian Right's combination of money, organization, fervor, staffing, and understanding of how to wage political war. It is staging a pre-emptive strike against the Net because it knows how to protect its interests and how to pick its battles. It understands that it has a strong chance of outmanuevering a bunch of cyberjockies who value talking over organizing. Dave @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 Sender: John Whiting <•••@••.•••> Subject: Enclosing the Wide Open Spaces Fellow Pioneers: I suspect that we're all going to look back on the "Internet" as a misleading concept, a linguistic trap. What it purports to unify is a vast ad hoc anarchistic congeries of systems, growing out of a momentarily non-authoritarian game plan devised as an alternative means of military-industrial communication in the event of an atomic attack on American soil. Since then, like Topsy, it "just grew". The expenses of maintaining it have been largely carried, without remuneration, by the major players because it was cheaper to let us hitch a ride than to keep us out of the empty boxcars. Millions of us have been cyber-hobos. Cyber-hustlers as well: remember a couple of months ago when some of the servers started charging to maintain addresses because so many speculators were staking claims on alphabetical combinations they thought they might be able to sell for fancy prices? I suppose it was inevitable that, when the Soviet threat fizzled out, the wide open cyber-spaces would begin to be broken up, fenced off, and bargained for like any other real estate. The Telecommunications Bill is the equivalent of the invention in 1873 of barbed wire; it is likely to have a similar effect on both the economy and the ecology of the landscape. Like barbed wire, it appears to allow small stakeholders to protect their property, but that is only a transitional stage on the way towards massive takeovers and amalgamations: in today's geographical Wild West the fences seem to be down again, but that's only because a single conglomerate owns everything in sight. In the meantime, watch in cyberspace for the old metaphors of the western migration and the gold rush to start reappearing. Pretty soon all of us little Web stake-holders who were given our land-grants for peanuts will have heavies knocking on our doors demanding first inflated rates for right-of-way, then vacant possession of our forlorn bit of property. Only it won't take even as long as the completion a century ago of the Union Pacific track which began in 1862 and was finished by 1869. Like the trans- continental rail links, the new commercial Net backbones will depend on the massive governmental giveaways which, with the Telecom Bill, have well and truly begun. John Whiting Diatribal Press London, England @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ Materials may be reposted in their entirety for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
