From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:08:06 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Enough is Never Enough -- pro-CDA alliances, from TNNN
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970117180517.13719E-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:04:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Enough is Never Enough -- pro-CDA alliances, from TNNN

[Attached are two excerpts from the article. For the rest, check out:
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/textonly/1,1035,549,00.html --Declan]

********

The Netly News Network
http://netlynews.com/

Enough Is Never Enough
By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
January 17, 1997

       A broad coalition of conservative and anti-pornography groups and
   individuals will file legal briefs next Tuesday in the Supreme Court
   supporting the government's defense of the Communications Decency Act,
   The Netly News has learned.
   
       The alliance includes longtime supporters of the act, such as
   Enough is Enough, Focus on the Family, and the National Association of
   Evangelicals. Members of Congress will join a separate brief that the
   National Law Center for Children and Families is preparing.
   
       But a letter from the attorney representing the coalition asked
   the ACLU for permission to file a brief "on behalf of" 59 plaintiffs,
   including such unlikely participants as the National Association for
   the Advancement of Colored People, PBS, SafeSurf... and Netscape.
   
       Netscape? The company that lobbied against the CDA? A firm with a
   reputation of putting their balls on the chopping block when fighting
   for Net-issues on Capitol Hill? Netscape was as shocked as I was to
   learn about their participation. "It wasn't authorized by me or my
   office. This is flabbergasting," Peter Harter, public policy counsel
   for Netscape, said. "I'd be crucified if this happened."

[...]
   
       In their brief, which argues sociological rather than legal
   points, the groups hope to highlight the "dangers" of pornography
   online. They plan to supply the court with "legislative facts" to
   support the position Congress took when crafting the bill. The
   document also will include statistics discussing the effects of the
   Internet on children and the availability of material covered by the
   law. (Marty Rimm, where are you now?)
   
       Donna Rice-Hughes from Enough is Enough says: "It discusses three
   primary areas of our concern: letting the court know the problems on
   the Internet. Adult pornography, indecency, and child porn as well. A
   section on the harms of pornography. And a section dealing with the
   compliance issues: Is it feasible technically to comply with the CDA?"

[...]
   
       Chris Stamper and Noah Robischon contributed to this report.