IP: Jim Warren's BoardWatch resignation stmt, due to CDA-based

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:17:33 -0800
From: jwarren () well com (Jim Warren)


For the first time in more than 20 years as a writer, columnist, editor and
publisher, I had an editor censor one of my regular monthly submissions for
PRINT publication. His blunt, emailed explanation explicitly stated that he
did so [only] for the purpose of protecting his publisher against possibly
commiting a felony under the Communications Decency Act. This PRINT
censorship occured less than a week after Clinton signed the CDA into law.


Since I'm one of the plaintiffs in one of the constitutional challenges
filed against the CDA, our legal counsel asked that I write up a
declaration to the court of what happened.  I did so, and a reporter from
the Phila Inquirer spotted it and wrote it up.


Since it's now in print and I'm starting to get calls about it, I thought
I'd pass this commentary along to you-all -- detailing the terrible, awful,
unPRINTABLE-feelthness that caused my editor's fear for the safety of his
publisher and resulted in my censorship ... that was, in turn, the deciding
factor in prompting me to resign as "Government Access" columnist for
BoardWatch -- at least for the time being.  (I spoke with publisher Jack
Rickard about this just prior to submitting my resignation column, and we
remain on very friendly terms.  It turns out that he didn't know that the
censorship had occured until I told him of it.)


This is the final half of my May'95 BoardWatch column, explaining what
happened and why I've resigned.  (The first half has nothing to do with
this; was focused, as usual, on issues of open government and net-aided
citizen participation therein.)


--jim
Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor (jwarren () well com)
Advocate & columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, etc.
Member, Freedom-of-Information Committee, Soc. of Prof. Journalists - Nor. Cal.
345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request>


[puffery:  Dvorak Lifetime Achievement Award (1995); James Madison Freedom-
of-Information Award, Soc. of Professional Journalists - Nor.Cal. (1994);
Hugh Hefner First-Amendment Award, Playboy Foundation (1994);
Pioneer Award, Electronic Frontier Foundation (its first year, 1992);
founded the Computers, Freedom & Privacy confs, InfoWorld; blah blah blah :-).]






This is my last column


For a number of reasons, this will be my last column in BoardWatch - at
least for a while.
        I have been honored that publisher Jack Rickard has given me carte
blanche for almost two and a half years, to cover government access issues
as I've seen fit - including both citizen access to government and also
government access to citizens; e.g., issues of overt monitoring and covert
surveillance. I hope that he and our readers have found it as rewarding as
I have. Jack - thanks.
        But it seems like it's time to take a break.
        Partly, I need to rebuild my energy - or perhaps even "get a life"
(I've heard people do that). I don't know how this could have happened, but
somehow, I'll be 60 this summer (but fortunately, am very immature).
        I've been riding this tech-civlib, open-government hobby horse full
time (and overtime) since 1990, and some folks suggest that I should spend
some time with something more uplifting than legislation, newscasts and
computer monitors. (I've looked at nice graphics of trees and maidens on my
screen, but I'm told they're even more enjoyable in original form.)
        Partly, I wonder if this column makes much difference. I wonder if
folks care enough - not just enough to read these columns and perhaps snarl
about their disclosures - but enough that substantive numbers of readers
actually try to do something to improve open, responsive government. After
all, it's so much easier to just flame about some bureaucratic misdeed,
than to actually pursue concerted action to improve matters. (And to those
readers who have devoted time and energy to action seeking to implement
effective democracy, my *applause*! We are all deeply indebted to you for
those thankless efforts.)
        And partly, it's a fit of personal pique. (Us ol' geezers have
those kinds of fits.) For the first time in more than 20 years as a writer,
editor and publisher - I was censored. What's worse, it was personal
political comment that was censored. Worst of all, it was censored from
*print* publication; not merely online publication. To wit:


Indecent political expression


On February 8th, President Clinton signed into law the massive
Telecommunications "Reform" Act, purchased at great expense by the
international telecom and media giants. It included the Communications
"Decency" Act (CDA).
        Six days later (skidding in two weeks late, thanks to the tolerance
of my long-suffering editor), I uploaded a 1,700-word column about impacts
of the "Reform" Act, including about 350 words about the CDA.
        Never dreaming that I would be censored in my *print* column, I
explicitly phrased my opening comment about the Decency Act to illustrate
how it imposes massive government control of electronic speech and press.
Below, self-censored with asterisks at this time, so it can appear in
BoardWatch, I wrote:
        "The Communications Decency Act
 thatprohibits zed Act, authore (CDA) is a minor gargoyle amended into the
Telecomm Act - authored by Jim Exon, the sex-crazed, c**k-s**king senior
Senator from Nebraska."
        I immediately followed this with an apology for such language, that
I rarely use in writing for publication, and I explained why I did so,
writing:
        "My apologies for the annoying gutter language; it's *only* to make
a point: When BoardWatch includes this column in its online edition -
available to anyone including minors - our hallowed publisher will be
guilty of a federal felony - merely for making available, online, the same
blunt political comment that is fully protected by the First Amendment when
transmitted in quaint, printed form."


I emailed the column Wednesday night. Before 9 AM the following morning,
editor David Hakala responded, writing:
        "I have deleted the first two paragraphs of the section on the CDA.
Only the publisher may decide whether Boardwatch will be a test case. In
the future, obtain Jack's permission before you deliberately implicate him
in a felony."
        No phone call. No checking with his publisher. No options. That was
that.
        In other words, within less than a week, the Communications Decency
Act had resulted in the immediate, unilateral censorship of political
expression that included street language from a *print* publication, rather
than risk the *possibility* of committing a felony if the same column
appeared, unexpurgated, in the online copies of BoardWatch.
        Please note that the editor was doing what an editor is supposed to
do (among other things) - protect his publisher against potential
prosecution.


This censorship certainly had nothing to do with the phrasing being too
offensive for BoardWatch readership. The magazine has carried *numerous*
sex-related ads throughout the time I've been writing for it.
        In fact, after several government-access columns appeared wrapped
around ads for sexy GIF CD-ROMs or gay BBSs, I routinely included a
reminder to layout staff with each of my columns, saying, "Since folks
often copy my columns and send them to federal or state officials, it would
be very desirable if you could avoid positioning 'sex' ads on the pages
with this column.  Ain't no sense in givin' 'em more incentive to regulate
and censor us than they already have. <grin>"
        In checking just now, I do note that most or perhaps all of the
"indecent" [sex-related] ads are now collected together near the back of
the book, as is customary with most periodicals that even permit such
unfettered communications, at all.


Reported to the courts


In a sense, it may be well that this happened. I am one of the plaintiffs
named in the civil liberties suit filed against the government by
organizations of writers, editors and publishers, seeking to overturn the
CDA on constitutional grounds (vagueness, repression of protected speech
and press, etc.). When I told our counsel of this surprising print
censorship, they immediately asked that I detail it in a declaration to the
court. Done (on one day's notice); filed March 1st.
        This is a concrete - not hypothetical - example of how Congress and
the President have chilled *all* political expression that might somehow be
deemed feloniously "filthy" or "indecent" - long before we are even told
what those legally undefined terms mean.
        *Non*-controversial communications of which the majority approve
don't need protection. It is "offensive" or "inflammatory" speech and press
for which this nation's founders enacted the First Amendment. It *should*
prohibit government's social engineering of political correctness - whether
defined by the repressive Right or the equally repressive Left.
        Perhaps, in the long run, after the expense and possible years of
court battle, BoardWatch's censorship may have an inadvertent hand in
*protecting* freedom of speech and press - even online; even when it
offends someone, somewhere.