From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:49:00 +0800
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet Censorware Summit, Clinton to speak, Dec 1-3
Message-ID: <v03007820b07ed532b583@[168.161.105.141]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Here's one response, personal notes deleted... I also got a call from one
of the organizers of the summit offering to include free speech/journalism
groups in it, or at least talking to them about the possibility... --Declan

>[...]
>
>I understand your concerns about the Summit, and what folks are trying
>to do to protect children online. We just wish that you wouldn't lump
>everything together, and pass judgment on it as a whole. Why oppose the
>Summit? Why not analyze the different solutions that are being offered,
>and report on what works and how?  Why would you guys want to deny
>people information? If I may be so bold, aren't you employing your own
>form of censorship if you don't tell the whole story? There are some
>good tools on the market, but often times they get lost in the crowd.
>
>[...]
>
>Shouldn't parents be able to use these tools in their own
>homes if they see a need? Why not give people the facts, and let them
>decide for themselves? If a parent would like to prevent a child from
>giving address, credit card, and other information out to "just anybody"
>on the Internet, what's wrong with that? If a parent would like to log
>his 8 year old's Internet activity, what's wrong with that? If a parent
>wants to screen out the word "sex" for every incoming transmission,
>what's wrong with that? Isn't it up to the individual to decide whether
>or not they want to buy this software?\
>
>[...]
>
>Would you reconsider your opposition of the Summit? I think there is a
>lot of opportunity to weed through the "b.s." and give the public some
>good information about what is available, what works, and what solution
>best supports free speech while protecting children.
>
>[...]