@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996
Sender: "Kurt Harper" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> censorship and the mainstream
Richard,
I, too, have been closely following the Deform Act discussions
via the list and want to second David Anderson's comments, as well as
tell you how valuable I think this list is. It is time that a mission
is clearly defined, though, and I think using the single message
format is a good start.
Is this list sent to U.S. Senators and Congressmen perchance?
--Kurt Harper
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Moderator:
I'm trying a slight policy modification: messages which truly are
on the same topic (not a catch-all "tidbits" topic) are being combined.
Feedback welcome.
-rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996
Sender: Don Bass <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Doing what in the Wind?
Friends:
As long time friends and acquaintances, let me vent some
frustration and concern--Our efforts at affecting politics. I know this
is going to be heresy.
We have seen a heroic effort to change the political leaning of
Congress on the content of the Telecommunications Reform Act; a virtual
cyber-grinder of bits whizzing around the water planet. This was really a
valiant effort, reasonable, right, articulate,and just, and so it was
shock that I saw the final vote. It was a crunching loss; I mean heavy
and powerful and by any means, I must conclude how dismally ineffective
we were. The total effort, which I admire and respect, failed. Why?
I believe that the medium is the message, for one-- I think when
a member of congress receives email that he/she thinks and reacts with
concepts like "net-people, minority, unrealistic intellectuals, not
mainstream." Our message is not respected politically.
And, our efforts remain with ourselves, preaching to the choir.
We have diffuculty getting beyond our circle. (I have had sucess getting
press in the print. Many editors now publish their email addresses. They
do that because they want communication. I have established online
relationships with editors by forwarding interesting posts which they
find useful for opinion and editorial pieces. I do this two or three
times a week, and they thank me for the input, correspondence, and ideas.
They sometimes ask me about information sources.)
I think we failed also because the act and the issue are so difficult
to understand. And, I cringe when I hear a simple sound bit."XYZ files suit
to keep smut on Internet for kids." The is something blatently evil about
wanting to let kids see this stuff; when the issue gets oversimplified in
emotional terms. Refute that idea in twenty-five words or less.
I truly admire the very hard work that people have put forward.
It was a great effort
We just need to evaluate our effectiveness. The answers may lie
in successful campaigns, like an impending turn around we are seeing with
congress and the rape of environmental laws. They have fearful second
thoughts and this comes from very strong citizen opinion for the
environment. They only look at the opinion polls/measures. What is
successful about pro-environmental forces in their efforts? That is worth
our looking at.
We need a political action group--fifteen volunteers who will
form a plan of action which we all can support, improve, promote, and
implement.
Respectfully,
Don Bass
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
If anyone wants to contribute in such a leadership capacity, please let me know.
-rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: 24 Feb 96
From: Rachel Jones <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> CRISIS in cyber-rights (PLEASE READ)
Richard,
If it means anything to you at all, I wanted to let you know that I competely
support this idea (making an effort to trurn Cyber-Rights into a campaign
again). I've only been on here for a few short weeks, so I'm not very used to
it, and if the list was anything besides a discussion group, I was too late.
But I think that if enough people would make a stand for something that they
believed in, we wouldn't be where we are right now.
And I'll be out there on the front line, even if I'm the only one. But you
should know that I'm a mere 15 years old. I don't think that hinders me from
activism at all, rather shows people that the minors, the ones whom this f'ing
bill is supposed to 'protect' are not going to be sitting ducks to what the
government has in store. This is something I believe in, and I know from first
hand experience that a little orginization goes a long way.
We need to make ourselves known, our voices need to be heard outside of our dear
cyberspace. Please let me know what I can help with and keep me posted.
Sincerely,
Rachel Jones
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: 24 Feb 96
From: John Whiting <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: cr> re: Crisis | the Tidbits policy
I too have sometimes felt that my contributions were not
considered very important. At other times they were relayed in
their entirety and I felt they must be useful after all. Looking
back, I am of the opinion that my postings which were not used
were, in fact, not particularly informative relative to their
length.
This is not an area in which I have specialist knowledge. The
thing I have prized most about the Cyber-rights List is that I
feel I have been privileged to eavesdrop on and occasionally
participate in informed, urgent consultation among highly
informed and intelligent specialists. In the bad old days one
would have called it a "smoke-filled room".
In any moderated list, the question I try to ask honestly is, "Are
the contributions that are selected better than my own?" If the
answer is yes, I shut up and read. If it were no, I would think
seriously of starting my own.
John Whiting
Diatribal Press
London
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996
From: Arun Mehta <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Urgent> cyber-rights Crisis
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
I'm not sure I agree with Richard regarding the original purpose of this
list. As I recall, this was an offshoot from cpsr-global, with the
intention of discussing and putting together a cyber-rights document --
what are exactly the rights we consider essential in cyberspace. Richard
has definitely steered this towards a more activist direction, and I am
happy to see initiatives such as the ACLU case being supported from here.
That certainly is more than most lists ever achieve in terms of concrete
action. However, Richard would like to do more, and I can understand his
impatience. May I make a suggestion:
A small offshoot from cpsr-global is discussing a charter for cpsri
(international) -- not very successfully, I am afraid. I do, however,
think that there is room for such an organisation, particularly in a
situation where some stupidity in Germany or elsewhere has far wider
implications. We do need to be able to organise internationally. I think
that discussion would benefit from the insight of Richard and others. To
join, send mail to Marsha [Marsha Woodbury <•••@••.•••>].
Arun
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996
From: Brennon Martin <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> re: Crisis | the Tidbits policy
> As for what is meant by "not another discussion group": the idea is
> to be a group collaborating toward a goal, which is different than simply a
> group chatting about something.
>
Amen.
Brennon
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland
Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/library/
CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib
Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
