[87094] in Cypherpunks
Re: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Barber)
Thu Sep 25 16:20:45 1997
From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
To: declan@vorlon.mit.edu, aweissman@mocc.com
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:36:58 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net (Cypherpunks List),
fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970925120717.17603A-100000@vorlon.mit.edu> from "Declan McCullagh" at Sep 25, 97 12:07:48 pm
Reply-To: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
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?
