FWIW, The latest thing I heard was that the government had dropped their case against Phil.
A new poll by Chilton Research Services Inc. finds that the majority of Americans do not favor government regulation of the Internet.
Only 39 percent of the people surveyed by the Radnor, Pennsylvania-based company said they think the government should be involved in regulation of the Internet, while 44 percent opposed government regulation; 16 percent had no opinion.
Females are only slightly more likely to favor government regulation than males (40 percent versus 38 percent) while they are twice as likely as males to be undecided on the issue (20 percent versus 11 percent).
Hi everyone. From my laugh of the day mailing list: Sheila
What is Technical Harassment?
In our complex technical environment there are many opportunities for a competent technical individual to be the subject of technical harassment. Sometimes it can be so subtle that you may not even be aware you are being harassed. Worse yet, you may inadvertently technically harass another person by accident.
Following are some guidelines to help you determine if you are being technically harassed.If you are repeatedly asked the same technical question you may be the victim of technical harassment. While it is most common to be asked the question repeatedly within the same conversation, some instances have been identified of habitual technical harassment. Habitual technical harassment is not uncommon and has been known to exhibit group tendencies where members of a group may ask the same question repeatedly. Untreated, these instances of group technical harassment can continue for years.
If you are asked a technical question by a non-technical person and they do not write your answer down it is likely the question is frivolous. Most non-technical people are not capable of remembering a true technical answer for more than 30 seconds.
If you are forced into a discussion where a person uses more than three (3) buzzwords in one sentence the person is most likely a fake and you are the unwitting victim of technical harassment. One note of caution, competent technical people have been known to inadvertently use buzzwords after reading mindless drivel like PC Week or LAN Times. If the person has been known to use more common technical terms in the past such as "stuff" and "things", they are most likely victim of computer magazine brainwashing.
If during a troubleshooting session a person uses the term "trick". For example "maybe we could trick the database into thinking it has been updated". This is a sure sign of technical harassment.
If a person explains that a needed feature will be provided by a vendor and that person is nontechnical then you are at risk of being technically harassed. If you believe that person, you have definitely been technically harassed, if you don't believe them you have only been technically annoyed.
If when trying to resolve a technical problem with a product from a vendor and you are instructed to call the salesman that sold us the product you are being set up for technical harassment. It is a common reaction for a non-technical person when they have purchased technical equipment to call another non-technical person. The dialogue between two nontechnical people usually provides some sense of comfort that they aren't the only ones who are confused.
... Feb 7, 1996
Civil libertarians will sue to challenge a new telecommunications bill President Clinton is expected to sign this week because of its regulation of "smut" in cyberspace, noting it also could hamper women's ability to get abortion data on the Net.
As noted, the bill imposes criminal penalties on people who make available "indecent" material to minors on the Internet or a computer online service.
First of all I think if you intend to do something as important as rally people to petition you need to try not to offend them with your insulting reference to the MILLION MAN MARCH I am a student at Drexel University(yes I am a black female) and I am currently in the process of conducting a survey on Internet censorship. I do not feel the internet should be censored, I do feel that parents, gaurdians or any concerned party should be given options on how to limit childrens'access to inappropriate material. Example: The V-chip for interactive cable television, and software that blocks the child from accessing inappropriate and tasteless materials while surfing the net. I first came in contact with sexual, racist, or other inflamatory material when I first logged onto the net about 4 years ago, while attempting to subscribe to newsgroups. My most memorable experience is when I logged onto the irc and some guy invited me to a private chat room. Since it was my first time I had no idea what cybersex was, anyway, he proceeded to ask me about my self -hobbies,fav foods ect- and when that was done he proceeded to tell me that he wanted to cum all over my chest. That was a real shocker for a novice first time on the net. Anyway I am definetly not in favor of censorship.
Web Page : Blacked E-Mail to Clinton and Newt
I strongly protested.
I would like to go on record as vehemently opposing the censorship of the Internet and the bill that President Clinton is suppossed to sign.
It ia clear that the law in question represents an attempt to slip the ideas and interests of a few past public scrutiny. The bill is about telecommunications reform...deregulation in particular, yet contains a provision which is so blurred in language that it can be interpreted to mean almost anything. Needless to say this is very dangerous. A bill which contains language such as indecency can be used for everything from harassment of an individual or groups ideaological opponents to the imposition of financial barriers to potential competition. It is an absurd provision, and the blatent attempt to hide it in the larger telecommunications bill makes it all the more offensive to those of us who believe in the rights of the concious individual.
Yours in Support
You may be right. Excuse me, I think I hear a knock at the door.
First this then what...
MAN IS A BEAST OF EXTREMES...
Aardvark and Ant
I have written to many senators, to N. Gingrich, and to the President the following:
I am outraged that you have gone to such great lengths to restrict the Freedom of Speech for American Citizens! As a musician, educator, and political acitvist, the Internet is a vital link to my life's blood. I will be certain that all within my scope know that this is a grave matter which will be resolved in the courts and at the election polls!
If you restrict the freedom of one of us...you restrict ALL of us.....that's not what this country was founded upon! Please register my very STRONG...my very VEHEMENT...my "I'll remember this in November"..PROTEST!
A loyal.. freedom loving Republican!
Sent letter to all listed.
U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter has delayed a ruling on a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking an immediate injunction against Internet-indecency penalties contained in the new federal telecommunications reform bill.
Late yesterday, Judge Buckwalter decided he would give the government until next Wednesday to file a written brief on its arguments for upholding the penalties.
Associated Press writer Maria Panaritis says federal prosecutors have pledged to wait at least a week before going after people who send "indecent" and sexually explicit material to minors over the Net, but, she adds, "Internet surfers beware: What you type over the next six days might be used against you once the legal wrangling is over and the government begins enforcing all provisions of its new telecommunications law."
Following Judge Buckwalter's decision not to temporarily block the anti-indecency provision in the law President Clinton signed yesterday, Stefan Presser, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, told AP, "Net users need to consider heavily what they want to say these next few days." And, added Panaritis, "Thanks to a last-minute addition by Rep. Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican, it also extends a rarely enforced law into cyberspace, making it a violation to use computers to provide information about how to obtain an abortion."
Does that mean that if I publish, " The best way to get information about how to obtain an abortion would be to look in the Yellow Pages," I could be arrested?"
Inside the Womb At 8 weeks. Click on the "???" to see more pictures of development in the womb.
An Alta Vista Search On Abortion 28,882 Documents
AP says the Hyde amendment prompted a separate effort to block the law by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and other groups. "They dropped their request for a restraining order after failing to show anyone faced impending harm, but pledged to go ahead with the lawsuit," AP said.
In court, U.S. Attorney Anthony J. Coppolino, who argued against the restraining order in the ACLU's lawsuit, said restrictions are necessary because computers have become increasingly pervasive and bring pornography right into people's homes. Said Coppolino, "It's not an exaggeration to say that many of these indecent images are available on a computer by ... a click of a mouse."
He added that while the contested provisions will not be enforced until at least Wednesday, AP says he "gave no assurances that people who use the Internet over the next few days would not be prosecuted in the future for indecency."
Meanwhile, reporter Richard Melville of the Reuter News Service says the new law will not prompt Playboy Magazine to shut down its steamy site on the Internet's World Wide Web site.
"Good heavens, no, of course we're not going to shut it off or change the content," Playboy spokeswoman Martha Lindeman told the wire service. "It's one of the most popular sites on the Web."
She said the site offers text and photographs that may or may not fall under the telecommunications law's prohibition on indecent material. "Is a nude woman necessarily sexual content?" she added. "Then every museum in the country has sexual content."
The new law makes it a crime punishable by up to $250,000 in fines and two years in prison to send "indecent" material that could be viewed by a minor over a computer network.
As reported yesterday, even as President Clinton was signing the landmark legislation into law (GO OLT-144), the ACLU was filing its suit to try to block those provisions (GO OLT-319).
Reports from the Associated Press and from Reuter News Service are a regular feature of CompuServe's Executive News Service (GO ENS).
Open ended question ??? Whose interest does this law serve?
I am fully against any censorship of the Internet. Maybe if the other media giants could see this as a future threat against them they would join us in the cause.
As a mother of 3 teenage children, I beg you NOT to censor our access to any material the government deems inappropriate! In this the electronic age, we all need access. If our children decide to go into areas that are inappropriate, let us, as parents decide, either through maintaining a vigil on our children's accsess or by buying software that prevents that access! PLEASE don't gag our first amendment rights. There are definate areas in the internet I would prefer my children not venture into, however THAT is MY job, as a parent to see to that they don't! If this right is violated it makes it that much easier for me (or other parents) to abdicate their rights as parents to the government(or other outside sources) to dictate what we see or hear. I would agree that there is plenty of sites which cross the boundries of decency but that remains a PARENTS job. If the government is allowed to violate these simple principles of free speech, what's next? A " police state?" What Shall we teach our children of 'Democracy', that it only applys as long as the government deems it appropriate?
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Leo Woods (Woodsr@magicnet.net)
I don't understand who decided to make such a law and then pass it just like that. I know I sure as hell didn't have a vote in this. I don't feel that because so called "PARENTS" can't control what their kids do on the net, I have to suffer for it. What this all boils down to is that our whole "FREEDOM" is only limited to a certian point.
I have alot more to say but what good will it do? I really have NO say so on what goes on no matter who I vote for. This law has made me realize that.
Thanks for you time.
Thank You ... are you listening America?
Thanks for your response.
Seems we can have all the freedom we want as long as it doesn't interfere with the profit margin. The Telecom law is also an attempt to civilize the net to prepare it as a mass marketing tool for big business. The Web will, in the next decade, become as popular as TV.
But what do I know? I'm just an old hippie radical.
Less than 24 hours after President Clinton signed the massive telecommunications overhaul law, two senators have introduced a bill that would repeal controversial provisions that make it a crime to distribute "indecent" material to minors on the Internet.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, told the Reuter News Service he introduced the bill with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, "because Americans shouldn't have to wait for court action to have their First Amendment rights protected."
As reported earlier (GO OLT-167), civil libertarians, privacy activists and Internet supporters have filed suit to challenge the Communications Decency Act, which metes out criminal fines of up to $250,000 and two years in prison for violations, saying the law is unconstitutional and amounts to censorship.
Feingold said that, while the new law is "well intentioned," it is "improperly targeted at so-called 'indecent' speech on the Internet which is protected by the First Amendment."
Instead, he said, lawmakers should have targeted obscenity or child pornography, the transmission of which is already a violation of criminal law, adding, "While doing nothing to further protect children online, the act compromises the right of every American to free speech."
Feingold and Leahy opposed the provision, which won broad support in the Senate and was later adopted by House and Senate negotiators crafting the final telecommunications bill.
Meanwhile, Leahy told Associated Press writer Jeannine Aversa he doesn't know whether his bill could gain enough support to pass, but he said, "I'm hoping to get the debate started again."
While supporters of the provision -- led by the Christian Coalition -- say it regulates legal speech to shield children, Leahy and other opponents say the provision would do much more than that.
I confess, everytime I hear of certain "thoughts and actions" being attributed to the Christian Coalition, I wonder, " Is that the Old Testament Christian Coalition, or the New One?
Writes Aversa, "They say people could be held liable for everything from writing e-mail messages containing profane language to electronically posting portions of literature like 'Ulysses.' And, people could be liable even if they don't send indecent materials to a minor, opponents say. People would be liable, they say, if a minor comes upon the material on his or her own."
The provision makes it a crime to "display in a manner available to" a minor any message or material "that in context, depicts or describes in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards sexual or excretory activities or organs."
Leahy adds the definition covers any of the more than 13,000 online discussion groups, bulletin boards, chat rooms and other sites that are accessible to children.
Reports from Reuter News Service and the Associated Press are accessible through the Executive News Service (GO ENS) on Compuserve.
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Jon Holtby (Jonathon_Holtby@mindlink.bc.ca)
I am a appalled Canadian Citizen. This Internet Censorship has really PISSED ME OFF!!
What the fuck gives anyone the right to limit the largest form of media in history. This is nothing more than a political stand. If your government wanted to do this right, they should listen to what the people are saying: Make the Parents make the decisions, not the goverment.
For fuck's sake, this isn't Nazi Germany. We need to encourage all the possible growth of the Internet that we can, even if governments don't truly undrstand everything about it.
FEAR IS JUST FEAR, NOTHING ELSE!!!!
Shit, Fuck, Satan, Death, Whatever...
Nobody is going to die if I say those words, and I am going to say them whenever I want, and wherever I want, including the Internet.
George Carlin's Seven Words You're Not Allowed To Say On The INTERNET
All I can say is I am saddened by what our government is doing. I think we have the right to look at, to read, to enjoy what we want to. I would like to protest this gross action of net censorship.
In its written response to a civil liberties lawsuit seeking to block the new computer "indecency" law, the U.S. Justice Department says criminal prosecutions are needed to stop a huge increase in the availability of pornography. Justice Department officials urge U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter not to grant the request from the American Civil Liberties Union and 19 other groups for a temporary restraining order against provisions that would make it a crime to send "indecent" and sexually explicit material to minors over the Internet and other computer networks.
The brief is quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "Individuals undoubtedly have an important interest in being free of purposeful and direct intrusions on First Amendment freedoms, but the governmental interests at stake here in controlling access by minors in indecent sexually explicit materials is compelling."
USA stands for democracy AND the right to speak freely. Thats worth fighting for.
How do you make the animated letter and envelop on your homepage? Do you think that I can do the same on my homepage?
Click on the right mouse button, copy it to your hard drive, place it on your Web page and see what happens. Tell 'em SoCoOL sent ya!!!
More Million Geek March EMail