FC: Annoy.com's Clinton Fein on CDA, reporters, and poor news coverage

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 22:41:14 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Watching the watchers: "Observing Surveillance" in Washington DC"

    Previous Politech message:
    
    "More on did Supreme Court truly overturn 'morphed' kiddie porn ban?"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-03403.html
    
    ---
    
    Subject: RE: Did Supreme Court really overturn "morphed" kiddie porn ban?
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:39:29 -0700
    From: "Clinton D. Fein" <clinton.feinat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    
    Hi Declan:
    
    As you must have already seen by now, the vast majority of headlines 
    covering these issues have intimated that the Supreme Court indeed struck 
    down CPPA.
    
    The cat is out of the bag, I'm afraid. While Paul McMasters correctly 
    points out the fact that only the challenged provisions were struck down, 
    and that the unchallenged ones remain enforceable and applicable, the fine 
    details don't make for sensational -- or concise -- enough headlines.
    
    The same is true of the CDA, core provisions of which were challenged, were 
    struck down by the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU, while other challenges -- 
    such as ApolloMedia v. Reno were upheld by the Supreme Court (albeit 
    interpreted to apply to obscenity only.) Of course, additional provisions 
    of the CDA remain in full force, such as the "good Samaritan" provision 
    which was still left standing, as evidenced by the ruling in the Zeran v. 
    America Online, Inc. case  - a very
    important one in the defamation area. A similar ruling was made in favor of 
    AOL by the trial court in the Blumenthal v.Drudge case in the area of 
    libel. There are also other CDA provisions remaining and enforceable that 
    significantly impact privacy and Press.
    
    In April 2000, a web site, about.com, revived the still existing provision 
    of the Communications Decency Act that ApolloMedia argued should be "struck 
    down" in the annoy.com case to issue subpoenas to various ISPs around the 
    country in an effort to unmask an Internet user. (see 
    http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/04/cyber/cyberlaw/21law.html )
    
    While it may seem pedantic, headlines such as "Supreme Court Strikes Down 
    CDA" or "Child Pornography Prevention Act overturned by High Court" 
    sometimes have unintended consequences. I know for instance, I spent more 
    than a fair share of time trying to explain to people that vigilance in the 
    fight for free speech online should remain, as many had taken the headlines 
    at face value. A very energized audience that had galvanized as a result of 
    Blue Ribbon campaigns, your list and numerous other efforts, lost many 
    willing supporters who falsely assumed the battle was over, and had been 
    won -- rather than the first round.
    
    While some journalists have been quick to appreciate the distinctions, 
    others have countered that in the confines of a piece of journalism, even 
    in a legal publication, there is simply not enough room to mention such 
    facts and that most sophisticated readers know that most facial attacks 
    focus on portions of a statute, and not the entire law.
    
    Understanding the law, let alone trying to comply with it is difficult 
    enough. Already in the short space of time since the Supremes ruled on the 
    CPPA provisions, you can see the usefulness of such headlines for 
    organizations such as the American Family Association (such as BBC's "US 
    court quashes child porn law" or Christian Science Monitor's "High court 
    allows virtual-child pornography") as a fund raising mechanism to continue 
    to attack free speech.
    
    It's quite amazing how the presence or absence of a couple of words "core 
    provisions" or "challenged provisions" can make such a remarkable difference.
    
    Clinton
    _____________________________________
    
    Clinton Fein
    President
    ApolloMedia Corporation
    370 7th Street, Suite 6
    San Francisco, CA  94103
    Phone: 415-552-7655
    Fax: 415-552-7656
    http://apollomedia.com/
    _____________________________________
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 22 2002 - 00:19:46 PDT