From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:59:53 +0800
To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
Subject: Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
In-Reply-To: <v03007805b0902b2616d6@[204.254.21.105]>
Message-ID: <v03007801b090b35f2a14@[204.254.21.61]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jonah,

Contrary to what you claim, I'm not "trying to accomplish" anything except
report the facts. (Somehow you don't seem to like them very much.) You'll
remember that when I wrote about the Coats CDA II bill, I included one
paragraph about the history of "harmful to minors" legislation:

>Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not
>as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that
>Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and
>Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995.
>Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material
>that was "harmful to minors."

Then CDT responded to my article publicly, incorrectly claiming that CDT
did not embrace the harmful to minors "compromise." My post was to correct
those inaccuracies and clear the air -- and, you'll remember I concluded by
saying I hoped we could move forward to discussing Coats. You seem unable
-- or unwilling -- to do that.

So, if you insist, we'll revisit your "harmful to minors" compromise.
You're now denying that CDT's Jerry Berman stood up with Rick White and
Bruce "CDA" Taylor in a House hearing room to announce the "compromise?"
You're arguing that the three press reports I forwarded about CDT
supporting the "compromise" are inaccurate?

-Declan


At 08:21 -0400 11/13/97, Jonah Seiger wrote:
>At 10:59 PM -0500 11/12/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>[Got a note from a longtime Hill observer on CDT and their "harmful to
>>minors" compromise. --Declan]
>
>Will you give this up aleady? What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish?
>
>>>I remember a press conference, or a briefing, on the Hill in which
>>>White, AOL, ISA, CDT, et. al. were promoting the measure very
>>>heavily.  Jerry spoke out strongly in favor of it.
>
>This briefing was NOT about the "white compromise", it was about the
>Cox-Wyden "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act" in July of 1995.
>As you may recall, the Cox-Wyden bill, which passed the house 420-4,
>prohibited the gvt from imposing content regulations on the Net.  CDT did
>indeed strongly support the Cox-Wyden bill.
>
>The "White Compromise" was brought together and offered at the 11th hour of
>the conference committee negotiations in December of 1995.  There was never
>a press conference about it. And, for the record, CDT's policy post about
>the White bill can be found at http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp311204.html
>
>>>Memories in Washington are short, and distortions are the currency of
>>>the realm.
>
>Unfortunately, so is forwarding completely false and misleading information
>Declan.  This is just so foolish.
>
>Jonah
>
>
>  * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
>            Adopt Your Legislator -  http://www.crypto.com/adopt
>
>--
>Jonah Seiger, Communications Director                  (v) +1.202.637.9800
>Center for Democracy and Technology                 pager: +1.202.859.2151
><jseiger@cdt.org>
>
>http://www.cdt.org                                      PGP Key via finger
>http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger/