From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 13:58:33 PST
To: abostick@netcom.com (Alan Bostick)
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Dorothy Denning attacks Leahy's crypto bill
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9603192113.A23263-0100000@well>
Message-ID: <MlI7wQe00YUv4Rsk4V@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Since someone other than Jim Bell and THE LIST OF SHAME author thought I
was being serious, I thought it wise to respond.

The notion that a measure of criticism from a known enemy, Dorothy
Denning, corrects the many problems with Leahy's legislation is absurd.

As a case in point, remember that Rush Limbaugh, Catharine MacKinnon,
and the radical religious right group American Family Association
criticized the CDA. That does not make the CDA worth passing.

(Of course Rush likes dirtysexycybertalk so he can pick up chicks
online, and the AFA wanted not less, but _more_ liability for ISPs, but
I trust my point is clear.)

Speaking of the CDA, I'll be in Philadelphia tomorrow and Friday for the
hearing. Any other cypherpunks planning to attend?

-Declan



Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 20-Mar-96 [NOISE] Re: Dorothy
Denning.. by Alan Bostick@netcom.com 
> In article <Pine.3.89.9603192113.A23263-0100000@well>,
> Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> wrote:
>  
> > I may have to adjust my position on Leahy's bill. Any legislation that
> > Dorothy Denning attacks so virulently must be worth passing. 
>  
> That could be exactly what They want you to think!
>  
> If They wanted us to overlook the actual flaws and trapdoors in Leahy's 
> bill, what better way than to have our knees jerk in support by arranging
> for Denning's opposition?