@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 From: Henry Huang <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Eppley: "But there is another option" [cr-951208] On Dec 8, 12:14, Steve Eppley wrote: > >* ACLU Announces Plans to Challenge Online Censorship Provisions in > >Court; Says That House Conference Vote Leaves No Other Options > > But there is another option. A veto of the entire telecom deform > bill. Can't we unite in that campaign? Even if the bill didn't > contain censorship provisions, it would still be terrible. This is true, but it seems that everyone's been treating it as unlikely. Is it? I'm not up to speed on the rest of the bill, but is there another point that would make Clinton consider a veto? Of course, if Clinton can be forced to veto based on pressure surrounding the "indecency" stuff, that would be nice also ... -H @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland Cyber Rights co-leader | Cyberlib=http://www.internet-eireann.ie/cyberlib ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
