Following is: 1. A press release this week from the American Family Association (they apparently won't give up until Yahoo shuts down any group that is offensive) 2. Comments from annoy.com's Clinton Fein 3. Other responses Background: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=trueman -Declan ********* AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION ____________________________________ Washington, D.C. Office PRESS RELEASE Contact: Patrick Trueman (202) 544-0061 For Immediate Release July 16, 2001 YAHOO! HELPS CHILD MOLESTERS, CHILD PORN TRADERS, AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOC. SAYS "Yahoo! is providing a free service on its own servers that helps pedophiles find children to rape and traders of child pornography to exchange illegal photos," said Patrick A. Trueman of American Family Association. Through its "Child Pornography Crimes Members Directory" Yahoo! facilitates these illegal and despicable practices," he added. On the directory, members list their Yahoo! I.D. Clicking on the I.D. opens up the members' personal Yahoo! profile, which includes information that the member has posted. This includes, solicitations for sex with children and for child pornography, an e-mail address, often a sexually explicit photo of the member, a list of the members' favorite Yahoo! sex clubs and other Yahoo! member directories of interest. One member, a male, 37, indicates his interests include incest & pedophilia and says he is "looking for wife with whom I can start an incest family." Another lists his occupation as "child porn addict," and says his hobbies are exchanging child porn by e-mail and having sex with his daughter. Another man makes the following solicitation: " Mom, dad, and daughter looking for a young girl to play with us. How young? Try it and see." Yahoo! should get out of the business of facilitating child rapists and child pornographers," Trueman said. "Yahoo! should immediately close its Child Pornography Crimes Members Directory, he added. AFA is starting an online petition this week (www.afa.net) urging Yahoo! to clean up its site, according to Trueman. Trueman is AFA's director of governmental affairs, and was chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, from 1988 to 1992. 227 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 302, Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 544-0061, fax (202) 544-0504 ********* Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 04:36:52 -0700 From: "Clinton D. Fein" <clinton.feinat_private> To: <declanat_private>, <politechat_private> Cc: <ptruemanat_private>, <MarkKernesat_private>, <athiererat_private> Patrick Trueman's understanding of the law is fundamentally confused, and while his campaign to involve Attorney General John Ashcroft is well within his constitutional rights, his crusade is weakened by his inability to discern or differentiate legal content from discontent. He states: "Sexually explicit material, whether in writing or pictures, etc., may be found to be obscene." This, of course, can be true, but certain images (including numerous on annoy.com, for instance, which some people might consider to be obscene in some communities) have been deemed merely indecent by both the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court, and thus subject to First Amendment protection. There is no conceivable government interest that could justify a content prohibition of "indecent" speech, including of course, indecent speech with intent to "annoy" people. The government cannot even advance the interest in protecting children from exposure to "indecent" material -- the interest that it unsuccessfully urged to support other provisions of the Communications Decency Act held unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU. Trueman's convenient lumping together of all things not "family oriented" ranging from consenting adult sex orgies to child pornography without offering any legal distinctions or guidelines does his own campaign a disservice. While obscenity and child pornography are legally distinct, pornography is not. Any prosecution initiated by the Attorney General on this basis would not provide reasonably ascertainable standards of guilt and therefore would violate the constitutional requirements of due process. In other words, a waste of time and tax dollars from the outset. First, Mr. Trueman should be reminded that even if material is deemed obscene, not all obscene material is illegal. Indeed, even the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to possess obscenity in one's own home (Stanley v. Georgia). In ApolloMedia v. Reno, the District Court for the Northern District of California asserted that the intent requirement in provision §223(a)(1)(A) of the Communications Decency Act "clarifies Congress' intent that the statute proscribe only obscene communications between non- -consenting adults." Second, remaining and enforceable provisions of the Communications Decency Act protect companies like Yahoo! from liability for third-party content in their capacity as service providers - especially in the absence of editorial supervision over such content. (In fact, in Blumenthal v. Drudge, AOL was not even liable even when it was aware of what was being published by a third-party in its capacity as publisher). It is mind-boggling that Mr. Trueman considers sites such as Yahoo!, (never mind annoy.com, or sites containing Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's Report) dangerous or harmful to minors, yet appears to have no problem allowing children to visit sites that thinly veil suggestions of violence against adulterers, abortionists or homosexuals, for instance. (Where's Donna Rice Hughes when you need her?) What about the exposure of children to sites that mock, ridicule and may promote violence against Christianity or Wicca? What about biblical descriptions of Sodom and Gomorrah or expressions of the nudity of Adam and Eve pre Apple? It seems that this campaign has more to do with sexual mores and an imposition of standards or ideologies than any purported interest in protecting children or a respect for the First Amendment. Especially an Amendment that facilitates the verbiage and ranting of those who spend months on end on dubiously moral quests to seek out material about "fanaticizing about raping a woman", child pornography and deviant sex. This transparent campaign, one might argue, is indecent and annoying, intentionally so, but irrefutably constitutional. Perhaps Mr. Trueman would be better off, however, spending more quality time with his children, if he has any, directing what sites they go to and what materials they are exposed to, and let the rest of us worry about our own. ____________________________ Clinton Fein President ApolloMedia Corporation 370 7th Street, Suite 6 San Francisco, CA 94103 VOX 415-552-7655 FAX 415-552-7656 http://apollomedia.com/ ********* Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:25:24 -0400 From: Mich Kabay <mkabayat_private> Subject: RE: FC: American Family Association continues porn attack on Yahoo To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Cc: Patrick Trueman <ptruemanat_private> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dear Declan, Message text written by INTERNET:declanat_private >Now anti-porn groups can come back every week (Patrick has >sent me at least two very similar press releases recently), >identify discussion groups that are purportedly offensive, and >compel Yahoo to take action. Since discussion areas can be >created without human intervention, it's an infinite loop. And >even if Patrick is successful, he'll merely succeed in driving >the participants back to Usenet. < In what possible sense is the migration of hateful people into the ghettos of the USENET a Bad Thing? Making it harder for such folk to express themselves seems like a Good Thing to me as long as it is not through government action. When I hear homophobes and racists speaking in public, I speak to them to express my revulsion at their language, even when it can be dangerous to do so. When I encounter people who write and speak offensively about women, I protest their language. This practice is known as "applying social pressure" and is one of the ways that people help to define norms of acceptable and unacceptable speech and behavior -- and yes, there _are_ legally-protected forms of speech that are nonetheless socially unacceptable in a given context. Just because it is _not illegal_ to say that all Gorophians have their norbili stuffed up their cranial otylimumpules is no reason expect to get away with saying such a vile thing among civilized people. >Finally, if child porn exists, that's one thing -- but >fantasies that Patrick finds distasteful are still protected by >the First Amendment and perhaps even Yahoo's terms of service.< > As for your including the First Amendment in your comments -- is it not correct to state that there are no legal constraints whatsoever on the restrictions that may be imposed on subscribers by an Internet service provider and Web hosting system like Yahoo and GeoCities? First amendment restrictions apply to government action, not to pressure groups and corporations. I suppose that if a firm wanted to, say, limit all communications to words devoid of the letter "e" they could do so perfectly legally. Might lose some customers, but it seems to me that it would be neither illegal nor immoral. [I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.] Suppose you ran an office building with a vacant office and neo-Nazi hatemongers proposed to rent it; would you have any difficulty whatsoever in refusing to do business with them? Years ago, my colleagues and I were asked to help a business protect their intellectual property against copyright violations. We quickly discovered that the property was pornography; we respectfully declined to take the contract. You have a problem with that? - From the 1960s to the end of the 1980s I boycotted goods from South Africa and urged others to do so too. Thousands of people cooperated to shame corporations into banning the fruits of the apartheid regime because we saw apartheid as a crime against humanity. Today, I refuse to do business with corporations which abuse workers making sports equipment, growing coffee and so on. I not only exercise my personal freedom in choosing with whom to do business, but I also write letters to those companies protesting their support of what I consider outrageous behavior. I talk to others about it; I send letters to friends; I'm sure that some find me a royal pain in the ass for nattering on about these things. But there is nothing in law nor in morality which would even suggest that I ought not to do so. Does this mean that people with whose opinions I disagree should also be free to express their disapproval of what corporations and other organizations are doing? Damn right. I despise sexist, racist, violent speech -- but I don't argue for government action to shut it down in the USA. I don't agree with anti-abortion fanatics, either, but I do not propose preventing them from boycotting companies or hospitals which provide abortions. Supporting free speech means supporting the right to speech with which we disagree. Why are the AFA's actions in any way more or less reprehensible than the anti-apartheid, the US civil rights or any other movement's actions in fighting perceived abuse? In all these cases, people are acting peacefully and legally to apply pressure to corporations to stop supporting what they see as objectionable behavior. They are, indeed, exercising their right to free speech. More power to 'em, I say. Best wishes, Mich M. E. Kabay, PhD, CISSP Associate Professor of Computer Information Systems Norwich University, Northfield VT < http://www.norwich.edu > Security newsletters and papers at < http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/sec/ > < http://www.securityportal.com/kfiles > 255 Flood Road Barre, VT 05641-4060 V: +1.802.479.7937 E: mkabayat_private The opinions expressed in any of my writings are my own and do not necessarily represent the position of my employer. [You may publish my comments verbatim (always including the digital signature) if you wish.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8 Comment: Digital signatures increase security for everyone. iQB1AwUBO0ykfzPd6/an40lzAQFqhQMAsj3Jb0NgXvM6OaqkpCMEyWCX+vZnSkg1 T4GN0EhzyItVQ1BEviUMO//DDRicww999FVjJN9zSMbzVSAfdDGGwukf28LOVzhq 1kmI2Ka4rwBNztbDqrFILN5WvlnDGw8e =y7kq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- *********** From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavittat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: American Family Association continues porn attack on Yahoo Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:22:43 -0700 Declan, I don't get the reasoning that equates an "orgy", which is a mutually consensual activity, to rape and the sexual abuse of children? And "teen" is a code word in the adult entertainment industry for 18+... only the truly naive think any of the commercial "teen" porn web sites have minors on them. Also, I find it curious that they never include links, or any other mechanism by which third parties can verify their claims, especially in the kiddie porn claims... all we ever heard is generic rants about offensive materials. You'd think that posting URLs to this stuff would motivate Yahoo to wipe it out. Someone should call them on this, and demand that they document their claims, with screen captures and web site URLS. Otherwise, this might as well be a generic template filled in with the "offensive site of the week". Further more, I have to say that I've complained about dozens of sites that violated Yahoo/Geocities AUP, and they were never less than prompt about wiping them out, usually within 24 hours. Any large scale free web hosting service is always going to have a certain percentage of sites not yet noticed that violate it's AUP. Yahoo might as well shut down now, if the AFA wants their servers to be pure and pristnie of this stuff. Hell, I've even run accross adult and otherwise AUP violating material on "Christian" free web site hosting service. Thomas *********** From: "Percy Black" <pblackat_private> To: "Mich Kabay" <mkabayat_private>, "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> Cc: "Patrick Trueman" <ptruemanat_private> Subject: Re: FC: American Family Association continues porn attack on Yahoo Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:37:58 -0400 MEK, Thank you for sharing the AFA's indignation over Yahoo's acceptance of sexual and murderous fantasies and explicit images on Yahoo's servers. You ask for my comments on your response to AFA's request the Attorney General to require Yahoo to cease and desist further dissemination of their current practice. Here is my view: 1. The Slippery Slope. Like you, I fear that a too-ready hand by government to control hateful speech and explicit images can generalize to areas that invade personal and interpersonal expression. Most of humanity continues to squirm under such sledge hammers, and large numbers have even come to proclaim the advantages of their chains (e.go., believers in the theocracies of Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan). But.... 2. The Requirements of Social Order. Certain instances of behavior present with clear likelihood of egregious harm. These should be clamped before, not after, they are permitted into the public domain. Each case should be examined on its merits. The issue revolves on the prospect and extent of harm. We need need here the inputs of various scholars such as historians, legal experts, and scientists such as sociologists and psychologists. From a psychological perspective, I should want to know what the likelihood there might be of modeling a given instance of publicly disseminated behavior on various age groups and on variations in mental status. As a historian, I should ask what effects have been noted from similar instances in the past, both in the U.S. and in other countries. And so on. ........................................ Pertinent to the present matter, I think, might be the reasoning of the legal statutes in Canada and Germany that prohibit the dissemination of hate against others because of race, religion, or national origin. It might also be pertinent to examine the reasoning, pro and con, the application by a Nazi organization to march through Skokie, a neighborhood in Chicago where many Jewish survivors of the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazis--lived. A similar situation continues to exist in Belfast where Orangemen seek to continue their annual march through a Catholic neighborhood. The English government says No. It might be instructive to avail oneself of their reasoning for this stricture. So: I don't feel that a definite Yes or No on the above issue is in the best interests of individual rights or civil commonalty. Difficult questions need careful assessment along the lines I have mentioned. PB ********* From: "Mick Williams" <mickwilliamsat_private> Subject: Re: FC: More on Yahoo and porn from AFA, Cato Institute, Adult Video News Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:47:15 -0700 To: declanat_private cc: politechat_private I think Patrick is barking up the wrong tree. I find it funny that the AFA would go after Yahoo! Why? Is it easier to get AG Ashcroft to go after Yahoo!? What about AOL? I don't see Yahoo showing ads about their chat rooms and telling the buying public how "Family Friendly" Yahoo! is like AOL does on a constant basis. (They do it on Oprah and Judge Judy. Are they now pedophiles? Should we investigate the ladies?) Yet their are tons of Chat rooms across AOL and pedo's (Although I HAVE NOT personally met one on AOL)must be cruising AOL's Chat rooms? How come Patrick and the AFA don't challenge Yahoo!? Does the AFA own AOL/Time Warner stock? Does Patrick? Ashcroft own AOL/TW stock? Larry King won't let the AFA on his show? WHAT?!? Obviously, it is solely for Patrick and the AFA to spout their views and get free press. (And for us to discuss it) That doggie don't hunt, Bunkey. BTW, what are Patrick's fantasies? I'm sure AOL has a chat room called "Married Freaky Pious People Answer Your Questions" or one can be created to let him fullfill them. ;) Just my opinion. Mick Williams Mick Williams' Cyber Line: The Planet Is Listening. http://www.cyber-line.com ********* Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:55:42 -0500 From: Greg Newton <gnewtonat_private> Subject: Re: More on Yahoo and porn from AFA, Cato Institute, Adult Video News To: declanat_private The court's answer--so far, anyway--to at least the jurisdictional questions seems to be found in U.S. v. Thomas (W.D. Tennessee, 1994). Prosecutors are apparently free to shop for the most likely venue to convict. Robert and Carleen Thomas operated a bulletin board in California, were prosecuted under federal obscenity law in Tennessee (because prosecutors in Memphis were able to download material a Tennessee jury found obscene from the Thomas' California server), convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The conviction was upheld on appeal (U.S. v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701). BTW, the FCC anti-indecency campaign noted in the Cato article has gotten much weirder since April. Despite new Chair Michael Powell's public statements that he wasn't really interested in stepping up enforcement in that area, the Commission seems to be doing just that (and it's almost impossible to reconcile things they've recently found to be indecent with dismissals from just a few months earlier). Of particular note are the station in Denver that was cited for playing the "radio edit" version of Eminem's "Real Slim Shady" (the same one that thousands of stations across the country played thousands of times last summer) and the non-commercial community station in Portland, Oregon (KBOO) which ran afoul of the rules over a rap song ("Your Revolution") that is political rather than anything resembling describing sexual organs or activities in a patently offensive manner (it's actually a woman's rant against the blatant sexism present in much male rap, and the industry and society supporting it). This one is just begging to be overturned in court, but unfortunately the station probably doesn't have the resources for the fight. Details, including transcript of the lyrics, are available on the FCC's web site. As a final note, there was a pretty good article on just how much direct impact groups like AFA have on enforcement in this area written by the lawyers who represented Pacifica Foundation in some earlier indecency actions (Crigler & Byrnes, Decency Redux: The Curious History of the New FCC Broadcast Indecency Policy, 38 Catholic U. Law Review 329, 1989). -- Greg Newton ********* From: "Singleton, Norman" <Norman.Singletonat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: RE: More on Yahoo and porn from AFA, Cato Institute, Adult Video News Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:50:43 -0400 this is a moral issue, not a political one. YAHOO is wrong to give pedophiles and rapists to a platform for their sick fantasies. AFA is right to publicize Yahoo's actions and shame them into changing their polices but is very wrong to get the government involved. I fear you my be wrong in defending YAHOO and the pedophile/rapists form even social pressure, unless I am misreading your position. However, I have noticed Politich subscribers seems more concerned aobut protecting the rights of NAMBLA then with the cases of censorship of political opinions. ********* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 18 2001 - 11:12:43 PDT