1997-07-22 - Re: Fight-each-other

Header Data

From: Mismatched NFS IDs <nobody@toad.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 6078fc67582a725a326628ee050d7d6f76122b2788d22d4a16440efe03cbe3c6
Message ID: <97Jul22.110332edt.32258@brickwall.ceddec.com>
Reply To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970721192957.21952B-100000@well.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-22 15:26:02 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 23:26:02 +0800

Raw message

From: Mismatched NFS IDs <nobody@toad.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 23:26:02 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Fight-each-other
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970721192957.21952B-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <97Jul22.110332edt.32258@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Maybe it was naive to think that the anti-CDA coalition would hang
> together after the Supreme Court decision. After all, the current fault
> lines are split along some of the same divisions that existed for a year
> and a half in two lawsuits: the one organized by the ACLU and the one
> organized by CIEC. I've heard some say that the current dispute was
> inevitable. 
> Or, think of it this way: when privacy groups ally with the religious
> right on database legislation, they don't expect their alliance to last
> forever. Or when librarians join with Sony, Bell Atlantic, and Sun on
> copyright lobbying. Or when the ACLU joins the Eagle Forum on crypto. Or
> when the Cato Institute joins Ralph Nader on opposing the CDA.
> These are issue-by-issue alliances, and everyone involved understands that
> from the start. Perhaps we should have thought of the CDA alliance the
> same way? Or perhaps the conflict arises because all groups would like to
> claim the mantle of "representing the interests of the Net" -- which
> brings with it some political currency here in Washington. And some might
> say the tussle comes from long-standing personality conflicts.

I think something more is going on, at least with the "conserative
movement", but I also watch National Empowerment Television :).

Grover Norquist has coined the term "The Leave-us-alone Coalition" that
simply wants the government out of everything they have no constitutional
authority to be in.  They perceive government as an intrinsic evil and the
only thing that should be done is to slay the dragon.  I would number
Eagle Forum and the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this group.

The other side (e.g. Concerned Women For America) wants to "tame" or turn
the dragon and assume they can make the power to kill and imprison work
for good when they are in control, and will even let Bill & Hillary run
things if they "will only save our kids from cyberporn".

The first group are deserting the Republican party as such in droves (look
for a Libertarian party pickup if the party avoids being too libertine). 
The Republican coalition is based on shrinking the power and cost of
government and the people they have proved to be ineffective or even
against shrinking government in practice.  Principled losses would be
welcomed over compromised victories, but even worse, they stand on
principle for two weeks, and when it looks like they are about to win, but
are getting a media barrage only inside the beltway, they cave in
suffering all the scars of battle without anything to show for it.  The
next (1998) election should be interesting. 

The CDA brought the differences into clear view.  I usually ask if they
would like Joycelyn Elders to decide what gets censored (Who do they think
Bill & Hillary would appoint?), or if the same courts that they say can't
tell up from down in their judicial abuse alerts will be able to decide on
whether an anti-abortion site is "indecent".

What I cannot understand is why people who spend a great deal of their
content cataloging abuses from all branches of government and otherwise
say it is too intrusive believe that in the instance of net censorship
that it will suddenly turn into a wise and beatific force when every other
bit of evidence would indicate otherwise. 

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---