IP: On applied realpolitics

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 13:33:24 -0800
From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>


Brett Glass <Brett_Glass () ccgate infoworld com> said,
> As with past legislation,
> these organizations have demonstrated that they are more concerned with
> political expediency than with protecting the public whose interests they
> claim to serve.


Hi Brett.  I'd be glad to take lessons from you in how to protect the
public without doing things that are politically expedient.  Please
step up and single-handedly show us how you can derail Congress from
censoring the Internet.  You can even bring a friend or two to help.


Various groups have taken various tacks.  EPIC tends to take a liberal
hard line, which is commendable but predictable (and too easy for the
government to ignore, in my opinion).  CDT seems to be showing a
tendency to back industry positions, with less regard for
philosophical issues; this means they can cut deals and swing votes,
but the deals lack consistency (in my opinion).  EFF tries to be true
to the Net's largely libertarian philosophy, while trying to teach it
to skeptics rather than alienating them by being too strident (also in
my opinion).


When it comes down to votes in Congress, the Internet community can't
dictate; we have to convince.  If a Congressman White who actively
tries to make his bills Constitutional gets nothing but trouble from
us, he won't try to help us next time.  EFF didn't thank him for
trying to impose moral or religious censorship.  We said that current
laws were sufficient.  (Personally I think everyone, adult or child,
should be free of all government constraints on what they can read or
write -- in all media).  We thanked him for trying to stay within the
boundaries that the Supreme Court has set as it has mediated this
issue over the last two hundred years.


Our lawyers believe that the specific language used to define "harmful
to children" in the White bill has a specific legal meaning, developed
through years of court cases, which is much less harmful to the net
than the phrase "indecent" in the Exon bill.  White's definition would
cause fewer frivolous lawsuits.  We could be right, we could be wrong.
Lawyers or laymen who can educate us better should send us email.


        John Gilmore
        co-founder, Electronic Frontier Foundation
        [this email message is my personal opinion and has not been
         checked with any agency or group, including EFF]