From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 03:29:17 +0800
To: drake@servidor.dgsca.unam.mx>
Subject: Re: CDA Strikes.
In-Reply-To: <31317B14.8E1@servidor.unam.mx>
Message-ID: <AlAmrO200YUuI=8iUS@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


This article is incorrect in at least two ways.

First, last week the U.S. Government signed a legally binding contract
saying they won't prosecute anyone under the CDA until the hearings are
over. This relates to both the indeceny or "patently offensive"
provisions -- *and* the DoJ has said they won't even *initiate*
investigations.

Second, *if* the law is upheld, the DoJ's first, and second, and third,
choices of plaintiffs will be unpopular figures that will play well on
the evening news. The U.S. understands the value of divide-and-conquer.
At the same time, a court challenge will be easier if someone is
actually prosecuted...

-Declan




Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 26-Feb-96 CDA Strikes. by Ludwig von
D. III@servid 
> >           President Clinton won't enforce the law" crowd, Friday
marked the 
> first arrest
> >           under the new law. They picked an unsympathetic figure,
twice befo
> re
> >           convicted child pornographer, and got him for illegal data
transmi
> ssion over
> >           the Internet. 
>  
> >           Next time it won't be such an unsympathetic figure. It
will be som
> e ISP,
> >           minding their own business, not knowing they have a user
that didn
> 't read the
> >           rules. They'll spend a year in federal court, defending
their post
> ion based on