From: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:11:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: Transcript of Hillary Clinton's comments on Net-regulation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980211145506.19600I-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.980212044819.22380E-100000@usr05.primenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> 
> 	I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally,
> regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue.  But I do think
> we always have to keep competing interests in balance.  I'm a big
> pro-balance person.  That's why I love the founders -- checks and
> balances; accountable power.  Anytime an individual or an institution
> or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a
> system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological --
> out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the
> oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of
> information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have
> seen historically.  So we're going to have to deal with that.  And I
> hope a lot of smart people are going to --
>
    pro-balance? JAFR --just another form of regulation. the concept
    of free thought for anyone outside of the inner circle has never
    occurred to Hillary. does Chelsea view Hillary as her "mother" or
    as an automan who conceived her before her clocked ticked out?
    all the show of family is a sham for Hillary; Hillary is straight
    out of "Logan's Run" and automated child care --the global village
    concept of procreation, child rearing, and education in a protypical
    defined environment to the party line.

 
> 	Q Sounds like you favor regulation.
> 
    even Kathy picked up on that one!


> 	MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I
> don't know what I'm in favor of.  And I don't know enough to know
> what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues
> we've got to address.  We've got to see whether our existing laws
> protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation.
> And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and
> you can't take it back.  So I think we have to tread carefully.
> 
    if you print a newspaper, you can not retract the comment (but
    the distribution is less). the government will attack the 
    remailers on accountability, yet the courts have consistently
    ruled on the constitutionality of anonymous handbills. 

    why do they not come out and state what their real agenda is?
    the internet is not the controlled media (the gatekeepers of
    Hillary's later comments --in fact that is the most direct
    reference to government leaning on the press I have seen in
    print by a high ranking power behind the throne.

    the issue is that the internet strikes fear in the hearts of
    the scalawags, bounders, and highwaymen posing as our elected
    representatives to what was _our_ republic.

	attila out...    again