From: "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@UNiX.asb.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 12:50:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: (Fwd) UPDATE: DoJ Brief is Filed
Message-ID: <199602160222.VAA17815@UNiX.asb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Just received this... (apologies to crypto-only folx on the list)

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:26:38 -0800 (PST)
To:            protest@wired.com
From:          telstar@wired.com (--Todd Lappin-->)
Subject:       UPDATE: DoJ Brief is Filed


At long last, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a brief in
Philadelpia, in an effort to persuade Judge Buckwalter NOT to issue a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that would block implementation and
enforcement of the Communications Decency Act.

As you'll see below, the DoJ, much like Cathleen Cleaver, seems all too
eager to equate "indecency" with "pornography."

Grrrrrr.

Even worse, the DoJ brief apparently cites Marty Rimm's discredited study
about the "pervasiveness" of online pornography as evidence of the urgent
need to outlaw indecent material.

(TIME Magazine used Rimm's study as the basis for it's sensationalistic
"Cyberporn" cover story back in July.  It was later revealed that Rimm was
an undergradute at Carnegie Mellon University when he did the study, and
that his research contained so many methodological flaws that it was all
but worthless.  TIME even printed a retraction of the story.  For more
information, visit http://www.hotwired.com/special/pornscare/)

According to Ann Beeson, Staff Counsel for the ACLU, "We never thought DOJ
would be dumb enough to cite to the Rimm study, so it wasn't mentioned in
our initial brief!  We expect the judge to rule on the TRO without further
reply from us, so we'll have to wait until the next round (the preliminary
injunction hearing)
before getting in all the info debunking Rimm -- in any event, it is
certain to be *very* embarassing for the government."

Grrrrrrr.

No word yet on when we can expect a decision from Judge Buckwalter, but the
ACLU tells me they plan to issue a press release later today.  If so, I'll
immediately pass it along.

In the meantime, here's a CNN update on the DoJ action from
http://www.cnnfn.com/news/wires/9602/15/telecom.lawsuit/index.html

Stay tuned!

--Todd Lappin-->
Section Editor
WIRED Magazine

==================================================================

Justice Department responds to telecom lawsuit

February 15, 1996
Web posted at: 12:30 p.m. EST

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- The Justice Department filed its
written response Wednesday to a lawsuit seeking to block the new
computer "indecency" law, saying criminal prosecutions are needed to
stop a huge increase in the availability of pornography.

The government urged a federal judge not to issue a temporary
restraining order against provisions that would make it a crime to send
"indecent" and sexually explicit material to minors over computer
networks.

"Individuals undoubtedly have an important interest in being free of
purposeful and direct intrusions on First Amendment freedoms," the brief
said. "But the governmental interests at stake here in controlling
access by minors in indecent sexually explicit materials is compelling."

The American Civil Liberties Union and 19 other groups sought the
temporary ban Feb. 8, the same day President Clinton signed into law the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.

U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter said then that he wanted to see
a written response from prosecutors before issuing a ruling.

The law defines indecent as that which, "in context, depicts or
describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary
community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs."

Opponents say the standard is too broad and would criminalize
information, even in private e-mail, that has educational, artistic and
social value, simply because it relates to sex.

The government said the indecency standard has been upheld as
constitutional in previous cases, and argued that the law's purpose is
to restrict access to widely available pornographic images and
materials.

Violators would face up to two years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

A temporary restraining order should only be granted in extraordinary
circumstances and if there are no other legal remedies available to
plaintiffs. Meanwhile, the situation is dire, the government said.

"In the end, plaintiffs cannot dispute that a large and growing amount
of pornography is presently available on-line and easily accessible to
children in the home, far exceeding anything available prior to the
advent of on-line computer services," the government said.

###



Rob. 

---
Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in
quotes) to <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.