From: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:07:26 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970716080230.15247L-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970716093444.21635A-100000@westsec.denver.ssds.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> To: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@MIT.EDU>
> Cc: jseiger@cdt.org, jberman@cdt.org, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
> Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
> 
> Below we see an excellent example of the naivete inherent in
> Net-libertarian and cypherpunk writing. Obviously the writer does not
> understand the complexities and challenges of Washington politics. In many
> ways, it is like sausage being made: disgusting to watch, but a process
> that results in the compromises so vital in a healthy democracy.
> 
> Which is why it is inappropriate to criticize the White House's position
> on the CDA. If you speak your mind aloud, you run the risk of being
> marginalized like the ACLU. How can you serve your constituents then? 
> Obviously, you can't. So I respectfully suggest that Mr. Finkelstein
> disabuse himself of radical notions like opposing regulation of the
> Internet.
> 
> I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the
> Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to
> remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental
> liberties in the process. 
> 
> -Declan

Declan:

Did you forget your ;-) smiley face or can we quote you on that last
sentence? 

As far as I'm concerned, if you are forced to give up fundamental 
liberties the "game" is over  -- soon followed by "politics by other
means".

Our participation as citizens of this country is governed by contract. 
That contract is the constitution.  This is no game.  Either the employees
adhere to the tenets of that contract or the employers will fire them for
non-performance. 

Simple as that.

Jim Burnes
jim.burnes@ssds.com