Date sent: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:41:17 -0400
Send reply to:
"African Network of IT Experts and Professionals (ANITEP) List" <[log in to unmask]>
From: W H Ashley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: (Fwd) Fwd: **They're screwing you**
To: Multiple recipients of list AFRIK-IT <[log in to unmask]>
>----- Forwarded message ([log in to unmask] (Tom Evans)) -----<
>FORWARD from alt.wired
>(This was written by my good friend Matt Franco.)
>Dear informed reader,
>I would like to write a short explanation and warning concerning the
>and future implications of the Exon/Coats/Gorton Communications Decency
>you may know, this bill is a limitation on materials written and
>through the internet. Also, strict fines are included for not "monitering"
>"restricting" the acessability to such materials (language and content).
>a final rider reguarding limiting cable content to minors through an
>controlled by parents. This bill has tremendious support in Congress and
>pass. Basically the biggest infringment on the first amendment rights of
>citizens of the United States EVER enacted in the history of our country.
>Now, the question is asked: "What does this mean in a nut shell?" Well, I
>a some what believable theory reguarding all this. First of all, this bill
>supposedly constructed by the Christian Coalition in order to protect the
>"innocent children from the evils of the harsh world." This is sort of
>The "excuse" of protecting the children from "inapropraite" material,
>pornography, and other such stuff is a cover. This was basically a
>for, aided by, and lobbied through by big businesses and corporations.
>this out, when this bill was first introduced corporations screamed that
>horrible because of the massive fines that would be layed upon them
>it. Then, a few months and many slight changes and agreements later, big
>businesses and corporations adopted it. Think about it, what does this
>mean for them? Certainly not fines. Definatly not prossecution, they are
>protected. It means an end to their small competitors. Really, these small
>companies could not put up with the enourmous fine and litigations that
>take place. They would dissapear. But, there is more.
>If the internet must be cleansed of all foul material and the corporations
>not directly take responsibility for doing so, how will it get done?
>internet police. Think about it, the companies have so much to gain. They
>get the internet "policed" for obscene materials and have another
>an inforcement against hackers. Really, that is what the government and
>corporations have wanted for years. And, this bill uses the excuse of
>protecting the "poor, innocent, defenseless children" as a way to do it.
>at it logically, the government has used the excuse of protecting children
>way to regulate and stop hackers by putting things in simple terms for the
>unenlightened public can understand. It's simple, bad material... bad
>put on bad material... we must stop the bad people. Done, that simple.
>Never forget, Rome did fall; World War II did occur. Shit happens, so
>and smell the coffee, and don't let the government screw you up the
>--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
>Xref: cunews alt.activism:102191 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:246107
>alt.politics.usa.misc:40085 alt.privacy:25911 alt.wired:20699
>From: Brad Neuberg <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: **Their screwing you up the asshole**
>Date: 18 Jun 1995 08:45:27 GMT
>Organization: Valley Tech Corporation
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit)
>forwarded from: Tom Evans
[log in to unmask]
I refer to Ashley's 'news item' advising that I should write, 'not
impolitely' to US congresspersons opposing some proposed law.
He advises that 'shit happens and that I should not let the US
government screw me up the asshole'.
I am not sure that AFRIK-IT should welcome such forwarded messages. I
am of course not sure how to control it either and sympathise with
On the issue itself, "freedom of speech" must be curtailed unless (i)
this freedom is equally exerciseable by all and (ii) offended
parties have guaranteed, accessible and effective avenues of redress.
After all, freedom to incite to war, to treason, to libel and
freedom to encourage breaking the democratically defined law must be
capable of being limited. Otherwise other freedoms will be abused.
We, on the net, need to be sensitive to the fact that Internet
invades the territory of peoples whose working definition of 'free
speech' may be other than our own and certainly other than the
May we return to issues African. I must set my system to reject
messages from certain sources.Sean Cawley, Head of the School of Science
Carlow Regional Technical College,Kilkenny Rd,Carlow,Ireland
Phone +353-(0)503-31324; Fax +353-(0)503-43787;
e-mail [log in to unmask]