From: jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada))
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 6a884a8d590a001bce4a758af4fc13065b32a7c455d578fb53946a7f85052b60
Message ID: <9602110216.AA04631@cti02.citenet.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-11 03:23:41 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 11:23:41 +0800
From: jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada))
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 11:23:41 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Communications Decency Act
Message-ID: <9602110216.AA04631@cti02.citenet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Deepthroat@alpha.c2.org wrote:
>Why The Communications Decency Act passed, or
>Follow the money
>
> There's been a lot of commentary the last few days about this
>bill, this strange creature, seemingly of the 'Christian Right.' Talk
>of how and why its unconstitutional, protests; web pages blackened.
>But, oddly, no one seems to have examined who pushed the bill through
>Congress, or why.
>But where
>does that leave the big guys? ABC, NBC, CBS?? Can they survive in
>this brave new world which the net threatens to be?
>
> By and large, they looked at themselves, and saw they could
>not.
At last! Somebody bringing up the topic! I am quite recent on CPunks,
but I've been trying to push that point on alt.security.pgp and alt.privacy
some time ago.
After several try at it, I dropped the subject. I couldn't believe that nobody
considered this explanation to the CDA. The thought that many so-called
"free speecher" were actually hired by the big media to create a big fuss
among net users over the "porn vs religious" issue just to act as a diversion
even crossed my mind!
JFA
Return to February 1996
Return to “jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada))”
1996-02-11 (Sun, 11 Feb 1996 11:23:41 +0800) - Re: The Communications Decency Act - jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada))