CDA UPDATE - ACLU Cyber- Liberties Update: 3/1/96,
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 3, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 19
Editor: Jim Thomas (email@example.com)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #8.19 (Sun, Mar 3, 1996)
File 1--CDA UPDATE - ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 3/1/96
File 2--FCC web page on telecom act implementation
File 3--Clinton and the "V" Chip (fwd)
File 4--Teller Responds to CDA - (ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update)
File 5--Some thoughts on the Telecom Bill
File 6--Re: Cu Digest, #8.17
File 7--More info on CIEC lawsuit
File 8--Call for Papers
File 9--Cyberlaw: Call for Chapter Submissions.
File 10--Pentagon says U.S. military should monitor Net (more...)
File 11--Local Coverage of CDA in Florida
File 12--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 13:31:17 -0500
From: beeson@PIPELINE.COM(Ann Beeson)
Subject: File 1--CDA UPDATE - ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 3/1/96
The ACLU's battle for a quick overturn by the courts of the
unconstitutional Communications Decency Act is in full force. Thanks to
all who continue to inspire and support us during this critical case for
free speech in cyberspace! Significant developments and dates in the _ACLU
v. Reno_ case are summarized below:
2/8 Clinton signs Telecommunications Bill; ACLU immediately files
suit in federal court in Philadelphia on behalf of twenty plaintiffs to
challenge the constitutionality of the "indecency" and "patently offensive"
provisions of the CDA. Electronic Privacy Information Center and
Electronic Frontier Foundation are co-counsel and plaintiffs in the case.
The other plaintiffs include a broad coalition of individuals,
organizations, and membership associations who represent hundreds of
thousands of online users. They include the ACLU, Human Rights Watch,
Journalism Education Association, Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility, National Writers Union, ClariNet Communications, Institute
for Global Communication, Stop Prisoner Rape, AIDS Education Global
Information Service, BiblioBytes, Queer Resources Directory, Critical Path
AIDS Project, Wildcat Press, Declan McCullagh dba Justice on Campus, Brock
Meeks dba CyberWire Dispatch, John Troyer dba The Safer Sex Web Page,
Jonathan Wallace dba The Ethical Spectacle, and Planned Parenthood
Federation of America.
2/15 Judge Buckwalter, a federal judge in Philadelphia, issues a
Temporary Restraining Order against enforcement of the "indecency"
provisions of the CDA. He denies a TRO against the "patently offensive"
and the abortion speech provisions of the CDA.
2/25 ACLU and Department of Justice (DOJ) file a written stipulation
with the Court in which DOJ agrees not to prosecute under either the
"patently offensive" or the "indecency" provisions until the Court hears
and determines the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction. The
agreement protects _all_ online users (not just the plaintiffs in the
2/25 A second lawsuit is filed in Philadelphia to challenge the CDA.
The lawsuit (_American Library Assoc. v. DOJ_) includes an impressive list
of plaintiffs, including the American Library Association, American
Booksellers Association, America Online, Microsoft, Apple Computer, and
Prodigy. Lead counsel in the case is Bruce Ennis, of Jenner and Block in
Washington, DC, and formerly Legal Director of the ACLU.
2/27 _ALA v. DOJ_ is formally consolidated with _ACLU v. Reno_.
3/21-3/22 An evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction motions
will be held before a three-judge court in Philadelphia consisting of Judge
Dolores Sloviter (Chief Judge, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals), Judge Stewart
Dalzell (Federal District Court, Eastern District of PA), and Judge Ronald
Buckwalter (Federal District Court, Eastern District of PA). The Court has
reserved the following days, if necessary, for conclusion of the hearing:
4/1, 4/11, and 4/12. **The Court's decision on the preliminary injunction
motion can be directly appealed by either side to the Supreme Court.**
For complete details on _ACLU v. Reno_, including legal documents, press
releases, and information and links for all the plaintiffs, visit the ACLU
web page at http://www.aclu.org.
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:16:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: File 2--FCC web page on telecom act implementation
This web page has the draft FCC implementation schedule for the CDA, but
it's difficult to understand it from the layout. If I can find my
hardcopy, I may type it in.
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
From--Kevin Werbach <KWERBACH@fcc.gov>
Subject-- FCC Telecom Act page
The FCC has created a Web page to provide information on
implementation of the Telecommunication Act of 1996. The page includes
general information, links to FCC releases implementing provisions of the
Act, and links to other sites with additional materials and analysis. We
encourage people to submit ideas for additional resources to add to the
The FCC Telecom Act page is located at:
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:54:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Jim Thomas <email@example.com>
Subject: File 3--Clinton and the "V" Chip (fwd)
((MODERATORS' NOTE: The original "from" line for this post
was deleted. The President's comment was a top news story
on CNN Thursday, and the poster below has it right: Clinton
reports that the V-chip restores control of viewing content
to the parents)).
I only heard part of this on the radio while driving in this morning
(NPR news). They were talking to a Clinton White House official (no
name given) about the "V" chip. He called it a "silent monitor", able
to keep kids from watching bad things on TV when the parents weren't
around. He acknowledged that "today's computer - literate kids" would
probably be able to re-program the chip and watch whatever they
wanted to, but "parental rules will control that".
Eh? I thought we "needed" this stupid thing for parents who can't
figure out how to control their kids in front of computers and TVs,
yet these same parents (who are also too stupid to know how to use a
computer, but will be able to program the TV...) are supposed to be
able to make rules that will keep the same kids from bypassing the
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 13:31:17 -0500
From: beeson@PIPELINE.COM(Ann Beeson)
Subject: File 4--Teller Responds to CDA - (ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update)
* Magician "Teller" Reaches Janet Reno on the Phone, Tells Her Not to
Enforce the CDA!
In the 2/9/96 issue of the Cyber-Liberties Update, the ACLU urged netizens
to call or fax Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, and tell her not to
prosecute under the newly passed CDA. The alert was also posted on the
ACLU web page, which provided a form for instant fax -- activists used the
form to fax thousands of letters to Reno, and countless others placed calls
At least one online activist received an extra special award for
participating in democracy -- JANET RENO ANSWERED THE PHONE WHEN HE CALLED!
The netizen was none other than Teller, of the famous Penn and Teller
On Valentine's Day, spurred by the ACLU action alert, Teller picked up the
phone to call Reno's office. After giving an earnest plea against online
censorship to an unidentified person on the other end of the line at the
Department of Justice, he asked to whom he was speaking. "Janet Reno,"
came the reply. Surprised and somewhat speechless, Teller said he was
sorry, that he didn't know the number was some sort of "inside line." "No
need to apologize," said Janet kindly.
Teller sent a follow-up letter to Reno, which is reprinted below. Like all
the other wonderful letters against the CDA sent by citizens to government
officials over the past year, it is a moving testament for free speech. We
only hope that if enough folks actually "get through" to Janet, she'll
begin to understand why she should never use this draconian law against the
TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
Dear Attorney General Reno,
I spoke with you this afternoon briefly and not very articulately. It
was quite startling to find you in and I'm not great at thinking on my
Please, please, I urge you not to stand behind the "decency" provisions
of the telecom act. They limit our freedom of speech. That freedom
protects us from tyranny. That freedom is a lot more important than
keeping kids from visiting Adults Only web sites.
Internet providers are now starting to offer services that suit families
who wish to limit the kids' browsing. Sure, some kids will still sneak
into areas they shouldn't. But I'd much rather have your expertise and
energy directed against the guys who rape, kill, and steal; not waste it on
mischievous kids reading and writing and looking at pictures.
Jefferson would not be pleased to hear you ask our nation to limit our
communications to topics suitable for children. He would understand that
the Internet is a huge library created by adults for their use. Children
have found their way in. If we prefer kids not to see grownup books, let
us engineer ways to keep them out. But let us not burn down the library or
make it a criminal act to stock anything stronger than Dr. Seuss.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," wrote Benjamin Franklin in
1759. Even if censoring the Internet would actually reduce crime (and you
are experienced enough to know in your heart it wouldn't), to do so would
betray the men and women who have died for our freedom.
Please think about it. You are important. Don't let us down.
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 12:28:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Charles Stanford <cstanfor@MAIL.COIN.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: File 5--Some thoughts on the Telecom Bill
When I saw the Telecom Bill going through what we so
scardonically refer to as the "legislative process," I thought, "God
no, here we go again. Spring training is starting, I've got things to
do." Things were going so well, St. Louis took the Rams from Los
Angeles and, even more important, Gretzky. Pat Buchanan was showing
the country what real Republicans were made of and Lyndon Larouche was
out campaigning as a Democrat. The Contract on Amerrcia seems a dead
issue. Things are fun.
So, do I really want to write this? Do you even want to read it?
I haven't written anything for CuD for six years and now it's gotten
respectable. Yesterday someone called me respectable and I was too
bored to kick the crap out of him. Getting old, I guess. In
addition, I just don't seem to have the same insatiable sexual
curiosity as does the religious right.
Anyway, the recent flap over the lack of decency and obvious
obscenity on the network comes as no surprise to those who have been
following this for awhile. Ever since Windows came out and made it
possible even for technological morons to get on the internet --
previously social morons were in abundance but they at least knew what
a stop bit was -- even local television stations in small towns have
been doing their own reports on the subject.
Of course, they can't really talk about the internet as the topic
is arcane to them, sort of like the reporters at Three Mile Island
asking about meltdown rather than half-lives because their knowledge
of Nuclear Physics was limited to a Jack Lemon movie, but they can
talk about parts of it. Some Sam Donaldson wannabe journalism student
trying to do a report for class, desperate to find something to talk
about that will get on the air, finally finds the topic. Well, the
internet is big, yeah, but he needs a "hook." Sex, what better?
Everyone thinks they understand sex, better yet, everyone wants to
talk and hear about it and feel clean and moral at the same time. SEX
ON THE INTERNET -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR KID IS DOING? I envision
thousands of housewives and elks club members, finishing off a
six-pack watching the news: Mom says "I hope junior isn't doing that.
He has a modem, doesn't he? How come we don't get any phone calls
during the evening anymore?"
But the issue really isn't about sex, despite the publicity over
greasy middle aged queers on the prowl for thirteen year old boys,
luring them into a life of sodomy over the net. Nope, it never really
was. The only reason that sex is an issue, especially non-missionary
position sex, is that it is something a politician can be against
without problems. "I am trying to protect the moral fiber of our
great country," they spout and Newt leads the amens. Pass a bill.
Stop all this midnight ejaculation.
This is only the latest phase of it, however. The issue of
freedom of information and the computer goes all the way back to the
Truman era, even before. Initially, there were great hopes for the
computer -- everyone was for them. Feynmann, the guy who exposed the
"O" rings on the shuttle disaster, that classic example of corporate
greed mixed with political paranoia, was in charge of the computer
used to help build the A-Bomb. At the time, most people liked the
A-Bomb, too. After all, it was only used on Japs. Just like this
bill is only going to be used on pedophiles, right?
Soon, there was the fear that computers would be used to control
our lives. Nonsense, assured the government and the corporations that
had high hopes for exactly this outcome. Any protest about anything
was met with the reply "the computer doesn't make mistakes." Things
are only paranoid if they are not true, right?
Then came an unexpected development. Jobs and Wozniak built the
Apple in their garage, a computer we could buy. Someone, I wish I
could remember his name, put into the common domain a CP/M terminal
emulator and people could access those giant mainframes at the
blinding speed of 300 baud. Hacking was born. People were fighting
back, or so it appeared to those with the investment in maintaining
control over the information. They had nightmares about evil fiends
hacking away into the night.
Out of cold-war paranoia, the internet was developed. It was
designed to survive an all-out nuclear attack which was surely planned
by the Soviet union, or China, or Cuba, or some evil communist
sinners. And it was designed too well. No central control over it.
But readers of this who know more about the amorphous nature of the
net than I, probably, I hope, are shaking their heads and smiling as
Germany trys the same thing our bill seem modeled on.
But how to police the thing now? Especially now when all sorts
of information is getting through over groups like alt.activism? It
wasn't so bad before when people had to be reasonably literate to
access it, but now anyone can. People who used to get their news from
television now get it over the internet. Gotta be a way to stop this.
The image of the thirteen year old hacker is replaced by the
thirteen year old wanker.
I get ahead of the story.
CuD started with the 911 story, more or less. Someone downloaded
a file and Craig distributed it. The media frenzy was overwhelming.
HACKERS STORM 911!!! Images of little old ladies in wheelchairs
tumbling down stairs and dying in a pool of blood with no rescue
because the 911 files were stolen! Prosecute!!
When it turned out that the same file was on sale at bookstores
for less than the cost of an oil change, the case fell apart, but not
before the government cost the guy over $100,000 in legal fees. RICO
came along to crush the big drug dealers and was used, it seems,
mainly to confiscate computer equipment. But who is going to be FOR
big drug dealers? That's like being for pedophilia.
So now, here we are. Another round of the same thing. The ACLU
and others are fighting the "decency" aspect but the "obscenity" part
seems to have been dropped. The bill, in the name of defending
children, sheep, and cows from sleazy horney priapists, seeks to gain
control over what is and is not sent over the internet. They assure
us they only want to protect our children and sheep from buggery, but
what they want to retain is the right to continue buggering the minds
of the American populace by controling the information it gets.
The "V chip" is in the bill too. There were two earlier
government fiats concerning hardware. One was to require that all
radio receivers be able to receive both AM and FM signals and another
to require that television sets be able to receive both VHF and UHF
frrequencies. That's right, and the industry howled about it with the
same vehemance that automobile manufacturers evidenced when seatbelts
were required in the cars. In this case, however, the fiats were
intended to increase the amount in information that gets through. The
"V chip" is designed to do the opposite.
Clinton smiled and took credit for the morality of the thing,
smiling, beaming, as he talked about the protection of our children.
I want to believe that he hopes the net provisions are knocked out by
someone who has less at stake, a federal judge, the Supreme Court with
lifetime tenure, but am a bit amused at the idea of Clarance Thomas
deciding on the issue. Would it be constitutional to prosecute
someone who makes available "Long Dong Silver"? Mr. Justice Clarance
Thomas, what do you think?
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 16:35:33 -0700 (MST)
From: Matthew Skala <mskala@CANUCK.COM>
Subject: File 6--Re: Cu Digest, #8.17
People seem to be up in arms over that comment about "you shouldn't
enforce your right to free speech on us." I don't agree. I think that
was an extremely interesting, thought-provoking, and, at the root,
Democracy, free speech, and the other things that North Americans hold
dear are local decisions. Maybe "we hold these truths to be
self-evident", but that doesn't mean everyone does. If the legitimate
government (where legitimate = biggest guns, that's the definition of
legitimate government) somewhere else in the world doesn't support them,
we may object, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the government
there and as legitimate as government ever is. If we try to support
"rights" in places where they don't currently exist, then that is trying
to undermine the local government, and is ultimately an act of war.
Now, maybe we *should* be at war with those governments that don't support
free speech for their citizens - but we shouldn't delude ourselves by
saying it's something nobler than war. The US in particular is very quick
to support "pro-democracy movements" in places like China or Cuba, whether
many people in those countries actually support such movements or not.
Is it any of their business? I don't know the answer, but I think it's a
very worthwhile question.
Someone suggested that by blocking the access of Germans to sites
operated by non-Germans, the German government was violating the rights
of the *non-Germans* to have their views heard. I don't agree. My right
to free speech as a Canadian is guarenteed by the Canadian constitution,
which is part of the law here. That means the Canadian government is
theoretically obliged to support my free speech with military force. The
German government is under no such obligation. There's no reason they
have to recognize my free speech unless the Canadian military forces them
to - fat chance. Whether that's "fair" or not is completely irrelevent,
because international relations work entirely on the principle of "might
makes right". Set aside the flowery morality for a moment: in practical
terms I don't have a right to free speech in Germany, so it's pointless
to discuss whether that right might or might not be violated.
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 21:50:50 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 7--More info on CIEC lawsuit
The CDT press release in the latest issue (8.18) doesn't mention that
individual users of the Internet can join as members of the lawsuit. Full
details are at http://www.cdt.org/ciec/index.html.
I am Internet user plaintiff number 1,239.
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:17:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: File 8--Call for Papers
Journal of Technology Law & Policy
University of Florida
College of Law
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Journal of Technology Law & Policy is devoted to exploring the
legal and policy issues raised by emerging technology. We invite
contributions of original works for our Spring, 1996 issue. Student
contributions are encouraged.
To promote access to the Journal, the Journal will be published on
the World Wide Web. Submissions to the Journal are encouraged to take full
advantage of this medium. Relevant graphics, sound, and video may be
There are no length limitations for submissions. Submissions must
include a copy in electronic form. All citations should be in Bluebook and
endnote form. Please include the URL of any cited information available
Please direct all questions, and submissions to firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax number: (352)-377-7655
Journal of Technology Law & Policy
University of Florida
College of Law
Gainesville, FL 32611-7640
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 23:20:16 -0600
From: Stephen Smith <libertas@COMP.UARK.EDU>
Subject: File 9--Cyberlaw: Call for Chapter Submissions.
A CALL FOR CHAPTER SUBMISSIONS:
CYBERLAW: COMMUNICATION REGULATION AND CYBERSPACE
Each new medium challenges the existing regulatory structure.
Legislators, service providers, consumers, and courts are grappling with
the liability and free expression implications of technological
developments. Through the process of litigation and legislation the
principles of "cyberlaw" are emerging.
The technology of communication challenges developments in
applicable laws governing rights of privacy, free expression, liability, in
such areas as libel, hate speech, copyright and intellectual property and
obscenity as well as sexual harassment, and jurisdictional issues. The
proposed edited volume will address existing law and explore the issues
which will require legislative and judicial attention in the near future as
the law develops and focuses upon communicative rights and liabilities in
the mediated realm of cyberspace.
Susan Drucker and Gary Gumpert are the editors of this volume
which will be published by Hampton Press. Manuscripts addressing
topics from a broad range of perspectives and methodologies are
appropriate and should conform to current APA guidelines and be of
approximately 25 pages in length. Abstracts or inquiries should be
submitted to: Susan Drucker, Hofstra University, School of
Communication, Dempster Hall, Hempstead, New York, 11550, tel:
(516) 463-5304 or fax: (516) 466-1782, SPHSJD@HOFSTRA. EDU.
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:00:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: File 10--Pentagon says U.S. military should monitor Net (more...)
[More on the "Internet threatens national security" uber-meme... -Declan]
MILITARY IS URGED TO MONITOR INTERNET
(Feb 28, 1996 00:15 a.m. EST) The U.S. military should consider
monitoring the Internet to watch for signs of attacks by terrorists
and disinformation campaigns by hostile governments, a Pentagon
Nations and terrorists may use global computer networks to wage
psychological warfare, send secret messages or undermine foes by
disabling their computers and military equipment, according to the
unclassified internal report by Pentagon analyst Charles Swett.
Swett's suggestion that the military monitor Internet traffic troubles
some political activists, who fear the Pentagon might use the Internet
to spy on Americans as well as foreigners. The activists haven't
forgotten how Pentagon agents spied on anti-Vietnam War groups in the
1960s and '70s.
A San Francisco-based political group is especially angry because
Swett's report describes the group's political activities in detail.
The contents of Swett's 35-page report -- "Strategic Assessment: The
Internet" -- became known recently after a Washington-based group, the
Federation of American Scientists, downloaded it to the World Wide
<remainder deleted by CuD editors)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 15:34:56 -0500
From: lazarus@DIGITAL.NET(Kevin McLeod)
Subject: File 11--Local Coverage of CDA in Florida
I subscribe to the CU Digest, and thought you might be interested in the
About three weeks ago, I presented a petition protesting the CDA, signed by
myself and a few local sysops and users, to a reporter of our local paper.
The Press Journal ran a front page story about my BBS, the CDA and related
points of view today. I'm sending you the full verbatim text of the article
as it appeared in the paper, but first a bit of context:
Vero Beach is a small town - about 25,000 in the city limits, 100,000 in the
county. It's a conservative town and the paper reflects that strongly. Our
last mayor, who still serves on the city council, was the founder of the
local pro-life pregnancy counseling clinic. She's now leading the opposition
to the establishment of a Planned Parenthood branch in our area.
The reporter who covered this story has no experience with BBSs or the
Internet. I did my best to educate him, but he wrote this article over a
period of nearly three weeks and talked to several people. In that time, he
obviously got his facts mixed up.
My board, The Abbey, is not connected to the Internet at all. It's a single
line Citadel BBS. (407-569-1781). There's no "chat area", obviously, just a
message base in a room format. The only chat function is if people page the
sysop, and I haven't even done that much since the monitor for the BBS died
nearly a year ago. Now I dial in from my other PC, just like everyone else!
Since the Justice Department announced the CDA would not be enforced pending
the outcome of the court challenges, I've reopened the BBS to full access
For what it's worth, I don't carry much in the way of files on the board,
and haven't carried any adult images since The Abbey went online in the fall
Oh, I did have ONE file available for a few weeks - a hilariously naughty
(and professionally done!) rendering of Jasmine and Aladdin doing the nasty
in a cloud. I suspect it was illustrated by a rogue Disney artist.
The piece ends with our local congressional representative saying that
supporters of free speech are supporters of pornography - exactly the
impression I was trying to combat.
You can be sure I'll be following up with a letter to the editor, but
there's certainly no assurance it will be printed.
INTERNET DILEMMA: IS ACT TOO HARSH, TOO SOFT?
By Chris Kauffmann
Press Journal Staff Writer
When it comes to some of its language at times, The Abbey is hardly holy.
The Abbey is an Internet bulletin board or chat room run by Vero Beach
resident Kevin McLeod.
On it, you will see discussions of the issues of the day, everything from
politics to religion to sex. Those discussions with people all over the
country and world are punctuated, sometimes frequently, by the seven dirty
words made famous by comedian George Carlin, plus a few others not on that list.
Until recently, the free chat room was open to all, including minors. No
more. As a result of the Communications Decency Act, a part of the massive
telecommunications bill signed into law last month by President Clinton,
McLeod has shut off The Abbey to minors out of fear he can be federally
prosecuted for what appears in the chat room.
It is a real fear. The law, now being challenged in court by a number of
groups, provides penalties of up to two years in prison and fines of
$250,000 for violations. And under the terms of the act, McLeod would be
liable for the content of The Abbey, even if he didn't write the offending
message. The users are also liable.
As a result, he now requires people who want to use his chat room to submit
proof of age - like a driver's license - before he will let them have access.
"With this, what you can discuss in print, you can't discuss on the
Internet," said McLeod, the 33-year-old father of two young children. "The
most dangerous aspect of this is that it tries to establish a new standard
as to what constitutes free speech.
"We feel we should have the same freedoms as those in print. Whether it's
transmitted over cable wires or printed on a page, it's the message, not the
"It's the same thing as walking into a library. They shouldn't be allowed to
make a distinction between what we see on-line as opposed to what's
printed," agreed local Internet user James Henderson.
<remainder of article summarizing CDA snipped by CuD>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <email@example.com>
Subject: File 12--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 1995)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
Send the message to: firstname.lastname@example.org
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:email@example.com
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (184.108.40.206) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (220.127.116.11) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (18.104.22.168) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
End of Computer Underground Digest #8.19