Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > > > Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as > > equal to other speech, > > But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so > offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to > create the speech. No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do > anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'. While the 'speech' part > is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to resolve the issues > relating to the acts) there is still the component of the acts against > minors that needs to be dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'. So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a movie of a person getting shot in the head, one would have to commit murder? So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a Godzilla stomps on Tokyo movie, one must first see the destruction of the city of Tokyo? So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a movie of an exploding nuclear bomb, decimating Hiroshima, one must build such a weapon and drop it on city? So in Choate Prime, are there no cartoons because it would be impossible to create them in real life? Porn is speech, the same as any other type of magazine, movie, sound, etc. The acts can and have been faked, as are the sound effects. The speech part isn't irrelevant, it's the whole, and only point of this disucssion. Yes, I know you'd bring up kiddy porn, but recall that not only movies of such acts are banned, but so are cartoons, comic books, etc. depicting such acts. In other words, here in the real world (i.e. not in Choate Prime), kiddy porn is thought crime, and thus it is restricted speech. So is going on Yahoo stock message boards and getting people to buy stocks so as to raise their price. So are sexual offers/requests in the office. I'm sure in your next elequent reply you will continue to tell us about your lovely world in its parallel dimension, which has no relation to ours, and we'll read it with fascination. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
FW: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]
Dufus gasped: > > > No they are not. You can't make the picture > > > without commiting the act. > > > > A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in > > question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the > > picture, without committing the underlying act yourself. > > Absolutely the making is 'speech'. Oh it is? Well in that case, to be consistent, you'll have to tell us why the first amendment doesn't apply. Taking a picture is NOT free speech; showing/publishing the picture is. What a moron. > The distributing it is 'press'. Only a > lawyer would confuse the two. Only a non-lawyer would pull such a definition out of his ars. So, if I e-mail needle dick a picture, that's "press"? How so? Sounds like a speech activity to me. Oh wait, maybe Jimbo thinks that speech is to slander as press is to libel? Sorry, not so. Wearing a baseball cap that says, "Fuck Jim Choate" is freedom of speech, not freedom of the press (and mighty satisfying--the wearing not the fucking; nobody would actually want to do that). > We have a group of persons who commit an act > with a child. In the process a photograph is > taken. The photograph is distributed. > > Your (ie CACL) claim is that the picture is > not itself a crime, and in particular it is > protected as speech. Don't put words in my mouth, fat boy. What you have stated seems to be more your position. As I said, the taking of the picture is not speech, the distribution is. In either case, the sexual acts, the taking of pictures and the distribution ARE all crimes under current law. The position that a number of us on this list have taken is that the mere possession or distribution should not be a crime, per se, because of the rights guaranteed under the first amendment. > This assertion is wrong. Here's why. Well, it's your assertion (i.e, straw man). You should try to defeat arguments that your antagonists actually make. Nobody is fooled by the cheap shot of making up your own silly interpretations and "defeating" them. > (A bunch of self-serving nonsense predicated on a straw man, left out.) > So, can the child be 'consensual'? No. > Children for a variety of reasons are NOT... So, Jimbo is now telling us that someone who is 17 years and 364 days old does not have the "consensual abilities" of someone who is 18 years old? That must come as a shock to a lot of 16-year olds who consensually drive a car. > The picture is not protected speech by the > simple expedient that it was constrained or > forced upon at least one of the participants. Assuming /arguendo/ that there was force or at least no consent, the taking of the pictures may be illegal, immoral and fattening, but that doesn't mean the pictures are (protected) speech. > I guess that 97 percentile doesn't mean as > much as you thought. Anybody have any idea what dufus is trying to say here? > (this applies equaly to Declan's specious commentary as well) I'm sure it does, but of course, not in the way Jimbo means it. :'D So once again, folks, we meet the implacable Inchoate reasoning. I think I, and others, have said enough to support our position. Jimbo has offered nothing substantive in return and--if past experience is any teacher--is not going to do so. The smart people have already made up their minds. Therefore I rest my case and encourage Jimbo to mount his silly little soap box in our version of Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, and rant until the cows come home. I'll only re-emerge when it's time to clarify the next issue Jimbo gets wrong. S a n d y
RE: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report] (fwd)
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Oh it is? Well in that case, to be consistent, you'll have to tell us why > the first amendment doesn't apply. It does apply. > Taking a picture is NOT free speech; Making the picture is speech because it represents an expression. > showing/publishing the picture is. What a moron. No, this is sharing, that takes copies, that takes 'press'. > > Your (ie CACL) claim is that the picture is > > not itself a crime, and in particular it is > > protected as speech. > > Don't put words in my mouth, fat boy. I'm not, simply paraphrasing your C-A-C-L commentary from past discussion. And the best you can do is 'fat boy'? I'm surprised you made it to 50th percentile. > What you have stated seems to be more your position. Not at all. My position is that pedophilia, and paraphanalia related to it is wrong and not protected speech or press. That the material involves a non-consenting participant and that their self-defence trumps any individual 'speech' rights you might claim. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Jimbo sputtered: > > > > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > > > > the act. > > > > > > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the > > act does not > > > require outlawing the speech. > > > > No they are not. You can't make the picture > > without commiting the act. > > A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in > question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the > picture, without committing the underlying act yourself. Absolutely the making is 'speech'. The distributing it is 'press'. Only a lawyer would confuse the two. Let's look at the situation, if for nothing else to twist your tit ring... We have a group of persons who commit an act with a child. In the process a photograph is taken. The photograph is distributed. Your (ie CACL) claim is that the picture is not itself a crime, and in particular it is protected as speech. This assertion is wrong. Here's why. The person taking the picture was not the only participant who had a say. Each person in the picture and help create the event had a say. They were a participant in the 'speech' both in act and recording. The distribution, or 'press' is a different issue but follows. Now, the child is clearly a participant in that act as well as a participant in any claim of 'speech' that might be attributed to the picture (or recording, or whatever). Now the standard for expression of ones rights is that you are pretty much allowed to do whatever you want, until/unless you interfere with another. Then your right ends, and their right to self defence begins. Now the child clearly has both a right in the speech aspect as well as the self-defence aspect. So, can the child be 'consensual'? No. Children for a variety of reasons are NOT (and why somebody who claims to be as smart as you do doesn't get this makes me chuckle, google 'paiget' 'volume') simply 'little adults' as was so popularly, and universaly held until the later half of this centry. In other words they don't have the same 'consensual abilities as adults. Our law recognizes this and provides special protections as a result. So, we have a picture, at least one of the participants was forced against their wishes (or their guardians wishes, select as you may) to participate. So, can we really claim that the only issue is the right of speech with respect to the adults? No. The picture is not protected speech by the simple expedient that it was constrained or forced upon at least one of the participants. I guess that 97 percentile doesn't mean as much as you thought. (this applies equaly to Declan's specious commentary as well) -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 01:18:47AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Of course it's wrongheaded -- you're confusing the act, and the act of > distributing a record of an act. Well put. Photographs of murder are legal for newspapers to reproduce, generally speaking, why not porn? But we can't expect Choate to get this. (Additional hint to Choate: Murder is illegal, having sex generally isn't.) -Declan
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:09:18AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, > even if the meaning is implied. That's a common argument with which many Americans would probably agree. Eric Freedman at Hofstra law school has written a nice piece refuting it. It may even be available online. > >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do > >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the > >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may > >be banned.) > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? The prevailing community standards of online communities like xxx sites seem to be pretty liberal. :) > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people Perhaps, but nice gestures lead to slippery slopes, IMHO. -Declan
RE: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]
Jimbo sputtered: > > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > > > the act. > > > > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the > act does not > > require outlawing the speech. > > No they are not. You can't make the picture > without commiting the act. A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the picture, without committing the underlying act yourself. > If you could, it wouldn't be 'porno'... As I said (and Jimbo ignored), porn is not illegal, per se, only obscenity. Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference, but that's the way the laws work. S a n d y
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > >> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as >> equal to other speech, > >But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so >offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to >create the speech. You mean acts which consenting adults perform voluntarily? In most off-camera cases, acts which signify love and trust with a life partner? Acts on some of which the continuation of the species depends? The idea that such acts are somehow "wrong" or "criminal" is ridiculous. And you are asking us to believe that the images or descriptions of such acts are heinous because they inherit wrongness or criminality from the acts themselves? Go soak your head. Bear (Who happens to enjoy sex)
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On 16 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, > even if the meaning is implied. > I really don't think so. It's possible some people were more concerned with political speech in the sense that the idea that Congress might try to ban "dirty books" wouldn't have ocurred to them in the first place, whereas the idea that it might try to ban "subversive" or "heretical" speech seemed a more likely threat, but the idea that political speech is somehow more deserving of protection (as opposed to more in need) would have been as alien to the founding fathers as it is to me. I'll take that a step further; the only people who will assert that political speech is somehow more important than any other kind are people who have spent too much of their lives heavily involved in politics. I think the same concept is true for the BoR in general. The 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable serach and seizure isn't there to give criiminals (political or otherwise) a sporting chance, it's that your life is essentially your own, and if society wants to invade your home they'd better have a damn good reason. The reason there isn't an amendment in the BoR protecting your right to eat, drink, and smoke what you choose is that the glutinous pothead drunkards who wrote the Constitution never conceived of such abusive laws in the first place, which in turn is because the bush-league tyrant George III never even considered trying to inflict such laws on the populace. > >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do > >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the > >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may > >be banned.) > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? > Well, that's just something the Supremes made up, but, to be fair, the idea that the 14th extends the protection of most but not quite all of the BoR from Congress to the states is more or less something the Supremes made up also. > >"For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites > >than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by > >requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. > > The question is, are there enough sensible people around to stop precisely > that from happening? > How many does it take? I suspect the vast majority don't care much one way or the other. They don't read, they don't care what or if other people read, hell, I haven't even read Lolita myself, saw the Kubrik film though. > >Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my > >words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a > >Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether > >I included material "offensive" to Creationists. > > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people > most vocal about banning online speech. > Self-label if you choose. But don't be too surprised when others choose otherwise. More to the point, don't be too surprised when others self label and rate their content in a way radically different to the way you would. George > Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 > student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 16 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > > > > And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which > > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some > > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, > > even if the meaning is implied. > > > > I really don't think so. It's possible some people were more > concerned with political speech in the sense that the idea > that Congress might try to ban "dirty books" wouldn't have > ocurred to them in the first place, whereas the idea that > it might try to ban "subversive" or "heretical" speech seemed > a more likely threat, but the idea that political speech is > somehow more deserving of protection (as opposed to more > in need) would have been as alien to the founding fathers as it > is to me. > > I'll take that a step further; the only people who will assert that > political speech is somehow more important than any other kind > are people who have spent too much of their lives heavily involved > in politics. > > I think the same concept is true for the BoR in general. The 4th > amendment prohibition against unreasonable serach and seizure > isn't there to give criiminals (political or otherwise) a sporting > chance, it's that your life is essentially your own, and if society > wants to invade your home they'd better have a damn good reason. > > The reason there isn't an amendment in the BoR protecting your > right to eat, drink, and smoke what you choose is that the > glutinous pothead drunkards who wrote the Constitution never > conceived of such abusive laws in the first place, which in turn > is because the bush-league tyrant George III never even considered > trying to inflict such laws on the populace. > > > >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do > > >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the > > >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may > > >be banned.) > > > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? > > > > Well, that's just something the Supremes made up, but, > to be fair, the idea that the 14th extends the protection of > most but not quite all of the BoR from Congress to the states > is more or less something the Supremes made up also. > > > >"For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites > > >than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by > > >requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. > > > > The question is, are there enough sensible people around to stop precisely > > that from happening? > > > How many does it take? I suspect the vast majority don't care > much one way or the other. They don't read, they don't care what > or if other people read, hell, I haven't even read Lolita myself, > saw the Kubrik film though. > > > > >Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my > > >words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a > > >Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether > > >I included material "offensive" to Creationists. > > > > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford > > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people > > most vocal about banning online speech. > > > > Self-label if you choose. But don't be too surprised when others > choose otherwise. More to the point, don't be too surprised when > others self label and rate their content in a way radically different to > the way you would. > > George > > Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 > > student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front >
Re: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Jimbo sniveled: > > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > > the act. > > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not > require outlawing the speech. No they are not. You can't make the picture without commiting the act. If you could, it wouldn't be 'porno', it'd be a fantasy picture or one taken of consenting adults that would fall fully under 'speech' protection. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]
Jimbo sniveled: > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > the act. Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not require outlawing the speech. > The images should be taken as evidence of the > act and then destroyed. They should not in > and of themselves be left in circulation to > promote further acts. Actually, it is just as reasonable to think that the MORE kiddy porn there is out there, the LESS acting out there will be (think cathartic release). Also, by letting what already exists circulate, REDUCES the incentive to produce more and, thus, abusing more kids. > And no, this does not violate the 1st in > spirit or letter. Of course it does. What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." doesn't "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" understand? :'D > There is no mention of 'privacy' in the > Constitution. "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" should have another look at the Ninth. > Are we talking 'adult' or 'child'?...world of difference. > > The point being, sex between consenting > adults isn't 'porn'. It's sex between > consenting adults. No, but speech about sex between consenting adults is porn. Look it up, "pornography" literally means, "writings about prostitutes," but has been extended to encompass all writings (and other speech) about sexual conduct. By the way, "porn" is not illegal, per se. It's "obscenity" that's the legal bugaboo. Of course, "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" INAL (and never could be). S a n d y
Re: Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > >> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as > >> equal to other speech, > > > >But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so > >offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to > >create the speech. > > So legislate the ACTS, not the speech. But they are auto-catalytic. You draw a false distinction that the 'act' and the 'picture' are somehow disconnected. They are not. Note that I am not in any way addressing text or artificialy created images, or images created by consenting adults. Only those which involve a minor. It is the involvement of a minor which is the deciding line, why? Because they don't have the life skills/experience/maturity/whatever to make the informed decision themselves. The act preceedes the speech and as a consequence looses its protection. It's very like an admission of guilt. The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act. To address one and ignore the other is simply not reasonable. The images should be taken as evidence of the act and then destroyed. They should not in and of themselves be left in circulation to promote further acts. And no, this does not violate the 1st in spirit or letter. > >No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want > >as long as it contains 'speech'. > > But one *is* guaranteed a whole bunch of privacy rights and No, one is not. There is no mention of 'privacy' in the Constitution. It does talk about 'personal' (and yes, I am aware of the legalistic quibbling this injects into the discussion - I agree with your equating 'personal' and 'private' - IANAL.) > self-determination. And what about the self-determination of the children? How does allowing porn protect that? It doesn't. > If one *wants*, for one reason or another, to engage in > the production of porn, who are you to say it cannot be done? The stuff that > results is then just speech. Are we talking 'adult' or 'child'?...world of difference. The point being, sex between consenting adults isn't 'porn'. It's sex between consenting adults. 'porn' falls into two categories. Only one of which makes any sense. That is regarding minors. The other is a religous perspective based on some of the most twisted Judeo-Christian spin-doctoring around and involves sex other than between a man and wife in the missionary position in the dark with their clothes on. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as >> equal to other speech, > >But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so >offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to >create the speech. So legislate the ACTS, not the speech. >No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want >as long as it contains 'speech'. But one *is* guaranteed a whole bunch of privacy rights and self-determination. If one *wants*, for one reason or another, to engage in the production of porn, who are you to say it cannot be done? The stuff that results is then just speech. >While the 'speech' part is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to >resolve the issues relating to the acts) Of course it's wrongheaded -- you're confusing the act, and the act of distributing a record of an act. >there is still the component of the acts against minors that needs to be >dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'. Not speech, but not relevant either. What results from recording the acts *is* speech, and should be treated as such. In fact, even if the original acts constitute a felony, I think it is a separate issue whether dissemination of the resulting speech can be controlled. Punish the pornographer for any provable violation of other people's rights, but do not touch porn that was produced. Then there's the nagging question of whether all of the so called child pornography actually calls for a violation of a minor's rights. I won't go there here. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Re: CDR: Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as > equal to other speech, But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to create the speech. No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'. While the 'speech' part is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to resolve the issues relating to the acts) there is still the component of the acts against minors that needs to be dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >However, in a free society with protections similar to the First >Amendment, what people like or dislike is not germane to what government >may pass laws about. There is nothing in the First which allows >government to regulate speech or music or any other such form of >expression based on its offensiveness to some. Nothing. Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as equal to other speech, but considering the strength of the opposite view nowadays, I would not be surprised if the First was gutted in this regard. And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, even if the meaning is implied. >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may >be banned.) So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? >"For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites >than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by >requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. The question is, are there enough sensible people around to stop precisely that from happening? >Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my >words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a >Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether >I included material "offensive" to Creationists. Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people most vocal about banning online speech. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 04:18 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 05:50:37PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote: >> Be nice if it actually said what it was about, rather than eliciting >> projections and interpretations on the part of the reader. But, as you >> say, ho hum. Presumably it is to give "scientific backing" to whatever >> position Congress wants to take on upcoming issues and legislation, >> and to >> couch various, no doubt conflicting, agendas in scientific >> doublespeak. Excuse my cynicism, but that's the way it looks to me. > > No cynicism necessary. That's what's probably going to happen. Which is what the NRC did with the crypto issue. They sensed which way the wind was blowing (anti-Clipper, by 80% plus if I remember the opinion polls correctly) and came out with a report which massaged the inputs in such a way as to come out against key escrow. If the opinion polls, weighted appropriately by inputs from media conglomerates, conclude that regulation of access to speech is advisable, then the NRC will issue a suitably-weighty report outlining the issues and presenting Congress with options for regulating speech and access to speech. --Tim May
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 04:17 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:32:06PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> Whether the technology yet exists to allow parents (or wives) to block >> certain sites is neither here nor there, and it's a shame something >> called "The National Research Council" is getting involved in this. > > The NRC is very prestigious. It is part of the even more prestigious > National Academies, which includes the Nataional Academy of Sciences, > the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. > I doubt the "prestigious" part, at least out here in the boondocks of Silicon Valley. Herb Lin may be a nice enough droid, but he certainly wouldn't be an attractive hire to the Intels, Ciscos, Ebays, Oracles, and others in the Valley. The last Washington insider hired by a Valley company was, IIRC, Joe Lockhart, former press secretary to Clinton. Larry Ellison hired him to do something vice presidential at Oracle. He lasted several months, then left "to spend more time with his family" or somesuch. (If I'm wrong about it being Lockhart, I'm definitely right about it being Oracle. A search should turn up the details.) The National Research Council is inconsequential, which is why they are now carrying water for the anti=porn crusaders. --Tim May
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 02:36 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. >> have been discussed many times here. > > The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC circles (less > important than the Meese commission, more important than the COPA > Commission). While it may be of passing interest to cypherpunks, many > of these topics have been discussed before, as Tim says, which > explains why there's little reaction. > And there is, after all, VERY LITTLE that such a study should do. Some people don't like porn, some people like it. Some subscribe to porn sites, some surf for free, some even generate online and other porn. Some people don't want their husbands to access porn. Some don't mind. Some don't want their children to access porn. Some don't mind. Some people don't want bookstores to carry "To Kill a Mockingbird," some people don't want them to carry "Lolita." Some don't mind. However, in a free society with protections similar to the First Amendment, what people like or dislike is not germane to what government may pass laws about. There is nothing in the First which allows government to regulate speech or music or any other such form of expression based on its offensiveness to some. Nothing. (The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the "online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may be banned.) "For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. Or that children not be allowed to enter bookstore's containing images and text deemed unaccepable by some. Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether I included material "offensive" to Creationists. Nothing in the First Whether the technology yet exists to allow parents (or wives) to block certain sites is neither here nor there, and it's a shame something called "The National Research Council" is getting involved in this. By the way, this is an area which is ideal for an analysis using Larry Lessig's "tripod" of "Custom" vs. "Law" vs. "Technology." I wrote about Lessig's model a few years ago. (I haven't read his latest book, "Code," so I don't how he fleshes out the ideaI have combined it with my own models. Maybe I'll write up some thoughts. (Not for Herb Lin, of course. Nothing against him, but these "studies" are usually just opinion polls and are crushingly boring reads. I tried to read the NRC's "Crypto" report...even went to the Palo Alto unveiling. B-o-r-i-n-g!) --Tim May
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 01:22 PM, James B. DiGriz wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote: > >> >> And so I've said my say, >> jbdigriz >> > > Uh, ya'll don't all respond at once now. > > Seriously, I know I'm not a regular poster, but don't leave me twisting > in > the wind here. I haven't heard this kind of deafening silence since the > time I told my lawyer the church job was a frame up and who did the > framing. He didn't believe me, but he found out I was right. (I think > his > point then was "yeah, so?", but he got us off without a trial. Damn > sharp > attorney, that one.) First, people are less likely to respond to whimsical nyms, even a stainless steel rat. Second, you comment on Declan's forwarding of a forwarding of a Herb Lin call for reviewers for some study his group is doing. Ho hum. Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. have been discussed many times here. Fourth, Cypherpunks are probably more interested in making sure Big Bro can't block porn, via technical means, than in advising Herb Lin on yet another study. Fifth, you expressed your view of Herb's study. Absent some point, what is there is to discuss? Sixth, you're always welcome to post more. Some things generate interest, some don't. Don't sweat the posts that don't. I don't. --Tim May
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. > have been discussed many times here. The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC circles (less important than the Meese commission, more important than the COPA Commission). While it may be of passing interest to cypherpunks, many of these topics have been discussed before, as Tim says, which explains why there's little reaction. -Declan
Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > - Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: FC: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:37:21 -0400 > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 > X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/ > > Background from Politech archives: > > "Net-sex NRC panel asks for testimony, will hold regional mtgs" > http://www.politechbot.com/p-01852.html > > "Patricia Nell Warren's comments to NAS porn panel" > http://www.politechbot.com/p-01615.html > > "National Academy of Sciences panel hears about porn & kids" > http://www.politechbot.com/p-01571.html > > "Free speech advocates fret about NAS Net-porn commission" > http://www.politechbot.com/p-01567.html > This is science??? What I want to know is: what color should the pantaloons on the piano legs be? jbdigriz
NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FC: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:37:21 -0400 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/ Background from Politech archives: "Net-sex NRC panel asks for testimony, will hold regional mtgs" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01852.html "Patricia Nell Warren's comments to NAS porn panel" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01615.html "National Academy of Sciences panel hears about porn & kids" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01571.html "Free speech advocates fret about NAS Net-porn commission" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01567.html From: "Herb Lin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 06:03:30 -0400 Subject: 8-CALL FOR REVIEWERS: Draft NRC report on "Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content." CALL FOR REVIEWERS - PLEASE POST WIDELY The National Research Council seeks reviewers for a draft report on its project on "Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content." More information on this project, including a list of committee members, can be found at < http://www.itasnrc.org>. Purpose of review Every report of the National Research Council must be reviewed by a diverse group of experts other than its authors before it may be released outside the institution. This independent, rigorous review is a hallmark that distinguishes the NRC from many other organizations offering scientific and technical advice on issues of national importance. The purpose of such review is to assist the authors in making their report as accurate and effective as possible, and to enhance the clarity, cogency, and credibility of the final document. Responsibilities of reviewers Reviewers are asked to consider whether in their judgment the evidence and arguments presented are sound and the report is fully responsive to the study charge, not whether they concur with the findings. Reviewers provide written comments on any and all aspects of the draft report, and the authoring committee is expected to consider all review comments and to provide written responses to those comments, either modifying the report accordingly or explaining why the report was not modified. The committee's responses are themselves evaluated by the National Research Council for adequacy and completeness. Note that NRC reports have a history of changing significantly between draft and final versions as the result of reviewer comments. Qualifications of reviewers Reviewers of NRC reports are selected on the basis of personal expertise in a field or fields relevant to the subject matter of the report; a dedication to drawing conclusions based on the analysis of data and information; sufficiently seniority in their fields to warrant broad respect for their intellect, fairness, and stature. Names of reviewers are made public at the time of the report's final publication, but during the review process they are anonymous to the committee and staff. Confidentiality of report Because NRC reports change as the result of review, reviewers must be willing to keep the draft report absolutely confidential and otherwise abide by the NRC's guidelines for reviewing of reports. Procedure for submitting names Please forward nominations for reviewers (self-nominations acceptable) to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The "subject" line of the e-mail should say "reviewer nomination." Submitted nominations should include contact information, biographies (including relevant published works, public statements, and current or former positions of relevance), and indications of relevant expertise and the perspective on the subject that the nominee will bring. Note that while the NRC seeks nominations from a wide variety of sources, it reserves the exclusive right to determine reviewers of its reports. Deadline for Nominations While nominations may be submitted at any time, nominations without the information described above, or received after September 15, 2001, may not be fully considered. More information is available from the Web site of this project at < http://www.itasnrc.org> or from Herb Lin (Study Director), at 202-334-2605. - POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/su
