Sender: •••@••.••• (Clint Kraft) Subject: Re: (ALERT) Religious Right threatens to shutdown net; call now [cr-95/11/06] >Implore them NOT(my emphasis) to allow parents to make choices for their >children... I think you meant, Implore them to allow parents to make choices for their children, instead of government censors. Now we agree. clint(called dad by two children) ============================================================================ Clinton R. Kraft •••@••.••• Aristera Publications •••@••.••• P.O. Box 3764 •••@••.••• Redwood City, CA 94064-3764 (415)364-2075fax ============================================================================ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: •••@••.••• (Ann Beeson) On Nov 04, 1995 21:06:54, 'Cyber Rights <•••@••.•••>' wrote: >Sender: "Steve Eppley" <•••@••.•••> > >>CYBER-LIBERTIES ALERT November 2, 1995 >>SIGN THE LETTER BELOW TO OPPOSE FEDERAL ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION! >[snip] > >I'd prefer the telecomm deform bill be killed entirely, not massaged >so it is somewhat less terrible. So maybe the bill should keep the >odious censorship amendment, in order to bring on a veto... What, are you kidding?!! The Clinton administration has no problem with the online indecency speech crimes, except to the extent that they *inhibit* law enforcement's ability to go after all those pedophiles in cyberspace (the defenses in Exon, etc.). Clinton also loves the v-chip, in case you haven't heard. So if he vetoes the telecomm bill, it will have NOTHING to do with the censorship provisions. Ann Beeson ACLU @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: "Craig A. Johnson" <•••@••.•••> On 4 Nov 95 at 21:08, Steve Eppley wrote: > I'd prefer the telecomm deform bill be killed entirely, not massaged > so it is somewhat less terrible. So maybe the bill should keep the > odious censorship amendment, in order to bring on a veto... Well, I don't think this makes a hell of a lot of sense Steve, considering that the reasons that the bill *may* be vetoed clearly have little if anything to do with the censorship provisions. On the contrary, in Clinton's letter to Senator Hollings of October 26 (below) in which he re-states his "specific issues of concern," the censorship threat does not come up even once. This is why the CPSR campaign, spearheaded by Andy's statement on the bill which was adopted as an official CPSR position paper, takes a broad approach toward criticizing the bill, and does not focus solely on censorship, as VTW and some other groups do. At the same time, it is important to keep up the online efforts against censorship and let the conference committee know that the bills as written are unacceptable and subversive of the First Amendment. Even Cox-Wyden has its problems. But the larger effort by CPSR, TAP, People for the American Way, and other groups is to persuade Clinton to veto the bill, because of its anti-consumerist, anti-public interest provisions. Obviously, if the bill is vetoed, the censorship provisions go away for the moment. But no one should fool themselves into thinking that the Administration's top concerns lie with censorship. > - - - > > It's nice to see those tv commercials against the telecomm bill. > Who ponied up the money to pay for them? > Have you heard of the Competitive Long Distance Coalition? This is the lobby of the big interexchange providers -- AT&T, MCI, Sprint. It is headed by former Senator and Majority Leader of Watergate investigation (and Reagan bailout) fame, Howard Baker. They are putting up the cash for the ads, which Pressler, quite inappropriately, asked AT&T to pull. Pressler evidently is panicking that the ads may somehow be having an impact. Actually, I'm sure most people don't pay much attention to them, just as they are oblivious to the real issues in the telecom bill. The more broad-based efforts of the public interest community have a good chance of influencing a few key conferees. Whatever combination of forces can get the job done should be supported. =========================================== CLINTON LETTER TO HOLLINGS October 26, 1995 Dear Fritz: I enjoyed our telephone conversation today regarding the upcoming conference on the telecommunications reform bill and would like to follow-up on your request regarding the specific issues of concern to me in the proposed legislation. As I said in our discussion, I am committed to promoting competition and diversity in every aspect of the telecommunications and information industries. I believe that the legislation should protect and promote diversity of ownership and opinions in the mass media, should protect consumers from unjustified rate increases for cable and telephone services, and, in particular, should include a test specifically designed to ensure that the Bell companies entering into long distance markets will not impede competition. Earlier this year, my Administration provided comments on S. 652 and H.R. 1555 as passed. I remain concerned that neither bill provides a meaningful role for the Department of Justice in safeguarding competition before local telephone companies enter new markets. I continue to be concened that the bills allow too much concentration within the mass media and in individual markets, which could reduce the diversity of news and information available to the public. I also believe that the provisions allowing mergers of cable anbd telephone companies are overly broad. In addition, I oppose deregulating cable programming services and equiptment rates before cable opertaors face real compeititon. I remain committed, as well, to the other concerns contained in those earlier statements on the two bills. I applaud the Senate and the House for including provisions requiring all new televisions to contain technology that will allow parents to block out programs with violent or objectionable content. I strongly support retention in the final bill of the Snowe-Rockefeller provision that will ensure that schools, libraries and hospitals have access to advanced telecommunications services. I look forward to working with you and your colleagues during the conference to produce legislation that effectively addresses these concerns. Sincerely Bill Clinton The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings Ranking Member Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Craig A. Johnson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Telecommunications/Information Policy Specialist Transnational Data Reporting Service, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •••@••.••• ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages for non-commercial use, pursuant to any redistribution restrictions included in individual messages. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
