From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 03:06:08 +0800
To: aweissman@mocc.com
Subject: Re: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970925120717.17603A-100000@vorlon.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199709251936.PAA09585@jafar.issl.atl.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Declan McCullagh writes:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:06:33 -0600
> From: Aaron Weissman <aweissman@mocc.com>
> To: "'fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu'" <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>
> Subject: Why the White amendment is a good idea

> The NETCenter is a great idea.
[blah blah]

> The passage of this amendment helps ensure that 
> the terms of this debate remain centered on our 
> civil liberties -- not kiddie porn.  If we are 
> going to win this argument (and the stakes are 
> very large) we have to keep this debate framed 
> with our criteria.

Follow your own advice.  All this crap about NETCenter has nothing 
to do with our civil liberties.  Whether NETCenter is a good idea or 
not is a completely separable issue (which I see Tim May just covered
thoroughly), and is merely a fig leaf offered to spineless
Congresscritters to deflect some of the "criticism" they might
otherwise be subjected to on the law enforcement "issue".  The fact
that White offers it shows that he is just as spineless.

We shouldn't have to "trick" Congress into doing the right thing, 
or provide cover for them either.

As you say, though, let's keep this debate framed with our criteria:
Do you, Congressman, support the constitutional guarantee of free
speech, or not?