The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud796.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 42.0 KB | 904 lines

Computer underground Digest    Tue  Dec 12, 1995   Volume 7 : Issue 96
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail]
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #7.96 (Tue, Dec 12, 1995)

File 1--Re: Mike Godwin on Internet censorship. (fwd)
File 2--NYT: Steele Op-Ed on Scientology and Internet Censorship
File 3--Muzzling the Internet (TIME/Julian Dibbell)
File 4--E-mail addresses of U.S. Senators
File 5--Child Pornography and Beastiality
File 6--French email directory soonly available
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 18:33:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--Re: Mike Godwin on Internet censorship. (fwd)

Speech at San Francisco Rally
By Mike Godwin


Listen. Take a moment now and listen. (Sound of ripping paper.) That's the
sound of what the United States Congress has been doing to the
Constitution in the last few months, all in the name of protecting our
children.

But do they really care about our children? I doubt it.

What they really care about is getting votes, getting good publicity,
getting called "pro-family".  And since the religious right has seized
much of the high ground of pro-children-and-family rhetoric, guess who
they're afraid of. The religious-right folks hope to use
family-and-children rhetoric to scare Congress into making sexual content
on the Net more difficult for *everybody* to create, to send, or to find
-- not just children.

When the highest lawmaking body in the land meets to consider new
legislation, we require them to inform themselves and to act in accordance
with the Constitution. We elect people to Congress because we hope that
they will be able to act rationally and intelligently. But were their
votes on this so-called "indecency" legislation grounded in an intelligent
appraisal of the technology and functions of the Net? Were they based on
knowledge and reflection? The short answer to these questions is "No." The
votes of our Senators and Representatives were driven, for the most part,
by fear and ignorance.

Although I first became a lawyer in Texas, last Thursday I was sworn in as
a member of the state bar of California. Like all the other new admittees,
I echoed the words of the attorney at the front of the auditorium. In
unison, we all swore to dedicate ourselves to upholding the United States
Constitution.

This oath is not terribly different in wording or philosophy from that
taken by each member of the United States House of Representatives, or
each member of the United States Senate, or the Governor of any state, or
the President of the United States. We have all sworn to uphold the
Constitution.

Part of the Constitution is the First Amendment. And whenever you think
about the First Amendment, the first thing you should remember is that it
was designed by the Framers of the Constitution to protect offensive
speech and offensive speakers. After all, no one ever tries to ban Mister
Rogers.

And this was what I was thinking about as I stood in that auditorium and
took my oath -- that I was once again swearing to uphold the First
Amendment and the Constitution of which it is a part.

But where are all the Representatives and Senators who have sworn to
uphold the First Amendment, I asked myself? Now that we face the greatest
attack on the freedom of speech of the common man that this nation has
ever seen, where are the other defenders of the Constitution? Are they
educating themselves about the new medium of the Net? Have they read a
word of Howard Rheingold's book on virtual communities? Have they logged
in themselves? Have they surfed the Web? Have made a friend on the Net? Or
are they satisfied with doing something that doesn't require any online
time at all -- passing bad laws?

One senator from my state, Dianne Feinstein, is ready to ban information
from the Net that is legal in every library -- perhaps because she's under
the impression that her measure will convince voters that she's helped
prevent another Oklahoma City bombing without costing her anything.  But
it cost *us* something -- it costs us the freedom that our forefathers
shed their blood to bequeath to us.  Here's the sound of what Senator
Feinstein is ready to do to the First Amendment. (Sound of ripping paper.)

And what about Senator Jim Exon from Nebraska? Is it any surprise that
Senator Exon gets all nervous and antsy when interviewers ask him -- the
man who authored sweeping anti-net, pro-censorship legislation -- whether
he personally has logged on? Is it any surprise that, for Senator Exon,
the Net is just another place to make an obscene phone call? Here's the
sound of what Senator Exon is ready to do to the First Amendment. (Sound
of ripping paper.)

And the issue of shutting down free speech on the Net is hardly one that
divides liberals and conservatives.  Here's the sound of what Rep. Pat
Schroeder, a liberal Democrat, and Senator Orrin Hatch, a conservative
Republican, have already voted to do to the First Amendment. (Sound of
ripping paper.)

We may also hear, of course, the occasional voice of someone to whom the
Constitution still has meaning.  Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Speaker
of the House Newt Gingrich have gone on record as opposing any broad ban
of "indecency" on the Net. Which goes to show you: the cause of freedom of
speech is not a partisan issue either.

For the most part, the issue is one of ignorance of the Constitution and
what it protects. The First Amendment, so the courts tell us, does not
protect "obscenity" -- and the word "obscenity" has a special legal
meaning. It doesn't mean profane language. It doesn't mean Playboy
magazine. According to the Supreme Court, it has something to with
community standards, with "prurient interest," and with a lack of any
"serious" literary, artistic, scientific, or political value. What is the
sound of obscenity? I'm not sure, but I'm told that if you dial up a
certain 900 number you just might hear some of it.

But Congress isn't even trying to outlaw "obscenity" on the Net -- they're
banning something called "indecency," which is a far broader, far vaguer
concept. Unlike "obscenity," indecency is protected by the First
Amendment, according to the Supreme Court. But that same Court has never
defined the term, and Congress hasn't done so either.

Still, we have some notion of what the sounds of indecency are. Thanks to
George Carlin and a Supreme Court case involving Pacifica Radio, we know
that sometimes indecency sounds like the "seven dirty words."

Now, this isn't the politest language in the world -- on that point I
agree with the Christian Coalition. But I must say, as the father of a
little girl, that I lose no sleep over the prospect that Ariel will
encounter any of these words on the Net -- she is certain to encounter
them in the real world, no matter how or where she is raised. What causes
me to wake up in the middle of the night, white-knuckled in fear, is the
prospect that, thanks to Senator Exon and the Christian Coalition, my
little girl will never be able to speak freely on the Net, for fear that
some bureaucrat somewhere won't think her language is polite enough --
that it's "patently offensive" or "indecent." And I'm equally afraid that
the very text of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation -- a Supreme Court opinion in
which those seven "dirty" words appear -- will be banned from the Net,
barring my child from even understanding what this debate is all about.

What is the sound of the indecent speech? Thanks to my friend Harvey
Silverglate, a lawyer in Boston, we know part of the answer. Harvey wrote
the following last week:

'As a result of the FCC's ban on "broadcast indecency", Pacifica Radio has
ceased its broadcasts each year, on the anniversary of the publication of
Allen's Ginsberg's classic poem, "Howl", of a reading of Ginsberg's poem
by the poet.  Pacifica and Ginsberg and others have sued the FCC, and
while they won a small modicum of relief in the Court of Appeals, they
have petitioned the U S Supreme Court for review.  The Supreme Court
should act within the month.  Meanwhile, high school kids read "Howl" in
their English poetry anthologies, but it cannot be read on the radio!'

What is it that the FCC thought was indecent? Try the sound of these
words:

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving
hysterical naked, /dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
looking for an angry fix/angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient
heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night."

Should we be thanking Senator Exon for sparing our children from this?

And if they found Allen Ginsberg indecent, is there any doubt they'd come
to the same opinion about James Joyce's ULYSSES, whose character Molly
Bloom closes one of the most sexually charged monologues in the English
language with this passage?

"... and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as
well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and
then asked would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my
arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts
all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will
Yes."

That's the sound of indecency for you. And it's a measure of the climate
of fear created by Congress that America Online might have banned that
very language from my user profile if I'd included it there. You see, a
couple of weeks ago AOL felt impelled to delete all user profiles that
include the word "breast" in them -- much to the dismay of countless
breast-cancer survivors. Now I ask you, don't be mad at America Online,
whose management has already apologized for this gaffe -- be angry at
Congress, whose crazy actions have created a world in which the word
"breast" is something to be afraid of.

Now at this point the proponents of this legislation will cavil -- they'll
say "Look, we're not trying to ban artists or literary geniuses or
brilliant comedians. We're just trying to protect our children."

To which I have two answers:

First, if you really want to protect our children, find a better way to do
it than to force all of us who engage in public speech and expression to
speak at the level of children. There are laws already on the books that
prevent the exposure to children of obscene speech, and that prohibit
child abuse -- before you start passing new laws, make sure you understand
what the old laws do. It may be that no new legislation is required at
all.

Second, remember that freedom of expression isn't just for artists or
literary geniuses or brilliant comedians. It's for all of us -- it
provides a space for each citizen to find his own artistry, his own
genius, his own comedy, and to share it with others. It also provides a
space in which we can choose -- and sometimes must choose -- to say things
that others might find "patently offensive." And the First Amendment
protects that space most. Don't pass laws that undercut the very
foundation of a free society -- the ability to speak freely, even when
others are offended by what we have to say.

I'm speaking now to you, Congress. If you pass a telecommunications bill
with this "indecency" language in it, we will remember. And we will
organize against you and vote you out.

This isn't single-issue politics -- it's politics about the framework in
which *all* issues are discussed, and in which even offensive thoughts
are expressed. And you, Congress, are threatening to destroy the framework
of freedom of speech on the Net, the first medium in the history of
mankind that holds the promise of mass communications out to each
individual citizen.

At this point, Congress, I'm not afraid of sexual speech on the Net. And
I'm not afraid that my little girl will encounter sexual speech on the
Net. What scares me is what you will do to the First Amendment on the Net
if we don't stop you.  That's more of a perversion than any citizen of the
United States should have to witness.

And I'm telling you now, Representatives and Senators, we stand ready to
stop you. Listen to us now, or soon you will be listening to this sound:
(Sound of ripping paper.) That's the sound of what we will do to your
political future if you forget the oaths you swore.

Long live the First Amendment and the Constitution. And long live freedom
of speech on the Net.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 20:01:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--NYT: Steele Op-Ed on Scientology and Internet Censorship

The New York Times
December 9, 1995
Op-Ed

Congress vs. the Internet

   The courts have upheld free speech. Why won't
   legislators?

By Shari Steele (EFF staff counsel)

San Francisco. While the courts continue to uphold the
freedom of speech on the Internet, the First Amendment is under attack
on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, House members of a House-Senate
conference committee said they would support a stringent new measure
that would not only bar words and ideas on the worldwide computer
network that one might hear on TV or read in this newspaper, but would
make criminals out of anyone transmitting these materials
electronically, including on-line servces.

This measure goes against the spirit of three sensible court decisions
on copyright law handed down in recent weeks, all involving the Church
of Scientology.

The first decision, issued by a Federal judge in California last
month, held that Internet service providers, the gatekeepers to the
information highway, cannot be held liable for copyright infringement
when they have no knowledge of the content of their users' messages.

This decision is important, because, like the telephone company, the
system's providers merely offer a conduit for communications. If they
can be held liable for the content of messages, they are more likely
to monitor those messages and censor any that include language that
might get them in trouble.

Just as we don't want the phone company censoring our telephone calls,
we should be very troubled by any copyright law interpretation that
would assign liability to those who provide Internet service.

The second and third decisions were issued last week by a Federal
judge in northern Virginia. In those cases, the judge, Leonie M.
Brinkema, admonished the Church of Scientology for using lawsuits to
silence its on-line critics. After two of its former members posted
electronic criticism of Church of Scientology writings, the church
brought charges against them, their Internet service providers and The
Washington Post for including two sentences from church documents in
an article on the case.

Judge Brinkema dismissed The Washington Post and two of its reporters
from the suit and held the Church of Scientology and its affiliate
responsible for the newspaper's legal fees. "Although the Religious
Technology Center brought the complaint under traditional secular
concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear that a
much broader motivation prevailed -- the stifling of criticism and
dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction
of its opponents," the judge wrote. The judge called this motivation
"reprehensible."

While the results of these preliminary decisions are encouraging, they
provide little solace to the larger threat of on-line censorship.

Court decisions in the copyright realm, as these are, do not address
the damage Congress is doing to the First Amendment h the name of
protecting children from obscenity, which remains ill-defind.

These early court victories are important, and the on-line world
breathed a collective sigh of relief over the wise judgments.

But not all battles can be won in court. If Congress presses forward
with its attempt to criminalize constitutionally protected speech, I
fear that the First Amendment will be left behind as more and more of
what we say is in the form of on-line communications.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:54:43 -0500
From: [e-mail](Philip Elmer-DeWitt)
Subject: File 3--Muzzling the Internet (TIME/Julian Dibbell)

[The following is copyright material from the 12/18/95 issue of TIME
Magazine, posted with permission. For permission to repost, e-mail
[e-mail].]

technology

MUZZLING THE INTERNET

Can this Congress find a way to preserve civil liberties while curbing
cyberporn? So far, no

BY JULIAN DIBBELL

Pornography in cyberspace? Sure, it's out there, although there is not
as much of the hard-core stuff as most people seem to think. But what
you can find if you look for it is enough to give thoughtful parents
pause before letting their children roam freely on the Internet. It's
also enough, evidently, to ensure congressional passage of a bill that
would impose fines as high as $100,000 and prison sentences of up to
two years on anyone who knowingly exposes minors to "indecency"
online. It may even be enough to make the proposed legislation seem,
at first glance, like a fair and reasonable approach.

But a closer look at the measure--all but approved last week by a
conference committee in the rush to pass the giant
telecommunications-reform bill before Christmas--suggests it may be a
bigger problem than the one it aims to solve. For one thing, it does
little about the kind of sexual material that has stirred up the
strongest public anxieties (images of bestiality, pedophilia and the
like). Such material is already flatly banned by federal statutes on
obscenity and child pornography. The Justice Department has made it
clear that it has all the laws it needs to police the Net for child
molesters.

What is new in the bill is the idea of criminalizing the online
transmission of words and images that may fall short of the Supreme
Court tests of obscenity (lacking literary merit, violating community
standards, etc.), but that someone, somewhere in cyberspace might find
offensive.

The key word is indecency. Free speech, even indecent speech, is
guaranteed by the First Amendment. The right of Americans to say and
write what they please, in whatever way they please, has been affirmed
by a long series of judicial decisions. The courts have also ruled,
however, that in broadcast media like radio and TV, some forms of
expression (George Carlin's famous seven dirty words, for example) may
be unsuitable for part or all of the broadcast day.

The courts have not yet ruled on whether the Internet is a print
medium like a newspaper, protected from government censorship, or a
broadcast medium like TV, whose content is closely regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission. Thoughtful members of Congress, led
by Washington Republican Rick White, had sought to clarify the matter.
A compromise proposed by White would have ruled out FCC oversight of
the Internet; it also would have replaced the problematic word
indecency with the phrase harmful to minors, a more narrowly defined
standard that keeps magazines like Penthouse shrink-wrapped in
convenience stores.

Early last week, it looked as if White's sensible alternative would
prevail. But conservative groups, led by the Christian Coalition,
lobbied hard for a tougher measure. And on Wednesday, in a 40-minute
closed-door session, the conferees voted 17 to 16 to reinstate
indecency.

That vote may yet come to naught. President Clinton has already
threatened to veto the bill for other reasons. The American Civil
Liberties Union has promised to mount vigorous challenges should the
bill become law, and many experts believe the Supreme Court would find
such a law unconstitutional.  The Congressmen who took a public stand
against online indecency may have
known that it would not survive a court test. But they had a chance last
week to show that they understood how to apply civil rights to new media,
and they failed.

With reporting by John F. Dickerson/Washington


Copyright 1995 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

 ---------------------------------------------------------
Philip Elmer-DeWitt                               [e-mail]
TIME Magazine                           http://www.pathfinder.com/

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--E-mail addresses of U.S. Senators

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following was obtained from:
   http://thomas.loc.gov))


Senators with Constituent E-Mail Addresses

   Below you will find a listing of those U.S. Senate offices which have
   published Internet addresses on the Senate's Internet server. If you
   wish to inquire about any other Senate office's use of electronic
   mail, you MUST place your inquiry directly with the office in
   question. You can direct correspondence to your Senator or to other
   U.S. Senate offices at the following address:

    For Member inquiries:

     Office of Senator (Name)
     United States Senate
     Washington, D.C. 20510

    For Committee inquiries:

     (Name of Committee)
     United States Senate
     Washington, D.C. 20510

   Alternatively, you may phone the United States Capitol switchboard at
   [phone]. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with
   the Senate office you wish to speak with.

   NOTE: If your browser is unable to view the electronic mail addresses
   listed below, try the text version.

   [IMAGE]

    Senators with Published E-Mail Addresses on the Senate Internet Server

State   Senator's Name           Senator's E-Mail Address
______  ______________           ________________________

AR      Bumpers, Dale            [e-mail]

AZ      Kyl, Jon                 [e-mail]
AZ      McCain, John             [e-mail]

CA      Boxer, Barbara           [e-mail]
CA      Feinstein, Dianne        [e-mail]

CO      Brown, Hank              [e-mail]

CT      Dodd, Christopher J.     [e-mail]
CT      Lieberman, Joseph I.     [e-mail]

DE      Biden, Jr., Joseph R.    [e-mail]

FL      Graham, Bob              [e-mail]

GA      Coverdell, Paul          [e-mail]

IA      Grassley, Chuck          [e-mail]
IA      Harkin, Tom              [e-mail]

ID      Craig, Larry E.          [e-mail]
ID      Kempthorne, Dirk         [e-mail]

IL      Moseley-Braun, Carol     [e-mail]
IL      Simon, Paul              [e-mail]

KY      Ford, Wendell H.         [e-mail]
KY      McConnell, Mitch         [e-mail]

LA      Breaux, John B.          [e-mail]
LA      Johnston, J. Bennett     [e-mail]

MA      Kennedy, Edward M.       [e-mail]
MA      Kerry, John F.           [e-mail]

MD      Mikulski, Barbara A.     [e-mail]
MD      Sarbanes, Paul S.        [e-mail]

ME      Cohen, William S.        [e-mail]

MI      Abraham, Spencer         [e-mail]
MI      Levin, Carl              [e-mail]

MN      Grams, Rod               [e-mail]
MN      Wellstone, Paul          [e-mail]

MO      Ashcroft, John           [e-mail]

MS      Cochran, Thad            [e-mail]

MT      Baucus, Max              [e-mail]
MT      Burns, Conrad            [e-mail]

NC      Faircloth, Lauch         [e-mail]

ND      Dorgan, Byron L.         [e-mail]

NE      Kerrey, J. Robert        [e-mail]

NH      Gregg, Judd              [e-mail]
NH      Smith, Bob               [e-mail]

NJ      Bradley, Bill            [e-mail]

NM      Bingaman, Jeff           [e-mail]
NM      Domenici, Pete V.        [e-mail]

NV      Reid, Harry              [e-mail]

NY      Moynihan, Daniel Patrick [e-mail]

OH      DeWine, Mike             [e-mail]

PA      Santorum, Rick           [e-mail]
PA      Specter, Arlen           [e-mail]

RI      Chafee, John H.          [e-mail]

SC      Hollings, Ernest F.      [e-mail]

SD      Daschle, Thomas A.       [e-mail]
SD      Pressler, Larry          [e-mail]

TN      Frist, Bill              [e-mail]
TN      Thompson, Fred           [e-mail]

TX      Hutchison, Kay Bailey    [e-mail]

VA      Robb, Charles S.         [e-mail]
VA      Warner, John W.          [e-mail]

VT      Jeffords, James M.       [e-mail]
VT      Leahy, Patrick J.        [e-mail]

WA      Gorton, Slade            [e-mail]
WA      Murray, Patty            [e-mail]

WI      Feingold, Russell D.     [e-mail]
WI      Kohl, Herb               [e-mail]

WV      Rockefeller IV, John D.  [e-mail]

WY      Simpson, Alan K.         [e-mail]




  OTHER SENATE E-MAIL ADDRESSES LISTED ON THE SENATE INTERNET SERVER

  __________________________________________________________________



  Democratic Policy Committee

       automated information server   [e-mail]   Subject = "Help"

       comments and questions         [e-mail]


  Republican Policy Committee      [e-mail]


  Special Committee on Aging       [e-mail]


   [IMAGE]
   Return to the United States Senate Home Page
   Send comments to [e-mail]
   Last modified November 21, 1995

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:29:04 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail](Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: File 5--Child Pornography and Beastiality

Howard Gobioff <[e-mail]> wrote in File
4--Re: Cu Digest, #7.93:

> From--Dave++ Ljung <[e-mail]>
> Subject--File 7--Re--Cyberangels

>> One of the items I pointed out to Gabriel was that I didn't see how his
>> list of 'crimes to be monitored' would include child pornography but not
>> bestiality, but he pointed out that this was an oversight.

> I just wanted to point out that while "child pornography" is illegal
> that bestiality is not. Under federal obscenity law, child pornography
> is obscene and therefore illegal. However, bestiality is not immediately
> deemed obscene and must be subject to the Miller test. Due to this
> distinction, I am doubtful that the Cyberangel, despite good intentions,
> should be seeking out bestiality on the network. They are not the courts
> and it is not their decision if something is obscene or illegal.

First of all, any citizen who witnesses an act of questionable legality
is not making a 'decision if something is obscene or illegal'. They
are simply reporting something to the authorities on which they feel
the authorities *should make that decision*. Carrying your comment to
its logical conclusion, no one should ever call the police to report
an event we witnessed which we *think* is a crime since we are not
lawyers and cannot precisely show in the statutes where it is listed
and because we do not know for sure if the court is going to find the
person guilty or not. Therefore we should not be on the look-out for
actions in our neighborhood which might be crimes since there is no
telling at that point how it will all wind up later on. Police should
not really be watching for events either (i.e. a proactive response
in the community rather than a purely reactive one) since after all,
they are not lawyers or judges either.

It was very thoughtful and nice of you to try and lighten the very
heavy burden the cyberangels would be under by making these reports,
but that really isn't what you meant was it? <chortle>

Your second error comes in your comment on beastiality, which *is*
illegal in every state. Something being illegal does not of necessity
make the same thing obscene as you point out. In every state,
beastiality is illegal via that state's various laws pertaining to
cruelty to animals and/or the required humane treatment of animals.
Rape or sexual assault of an animal (I doubt it gave its consent)
would be considered cruel and inhumane to the animal.  There are also
federal laws pertaining to animal welfare which would transcend
individual state boundary lines. It is true that animals never do
'give consent' to sex; unlike humans, the only animals I am aware
of who use sex both for pleasure and procreation, other animals simply
respond according to their natural instincts to preserve their species.
They do it when it is time to do it. They have no control over the
matter or erotic desire or interest in what they are doing. By your
placing the animal in (what for it) is an unnatural environment and
situation, you are being cruel to it. You may be causing it physical
harm as well.  In those places where it is also considered obscene,
then perhaps a double offense has occured.

Please note that there are exceptions to laws pertaining to 'animal
cruelty and welfare': If we sacrifice an animal as a means to our own
survival (that is, the animal becomes our food or the animal becomes a
protective covering for our bodies as our coat, shoes, etc; OR if the
animal is a danger to the community; i.e. a wild bear has come into
the village and has harmed or killed a human) there is no violation.
Even then, laws address the question of humane treatment of the animal
during its lifetime, and slaughtering it in a humane way when our
needs require it to be done. Our sexual desire is not included in the
list. You can kill an animal as needed, you may not torture/abuse it.

Although beastiality is, as you point out 'not immediatly deemed
obscene and is subject to the Miller test', my belief is that would
usually be a moot point since we would, after all, be dealing with
a human being in a state of sexual excitement, and it is pretty
hard to get any of that past Miller, although not impossible I
guess. I suppose an ACLU lawyer somewhere could do it.

So to summarize, the *act* of beastialty is illegal everywhere,
via cruelty to animals laws although some state forbid it on its
face as well, as a forbidden act of human behavior without specific
regard to the treatment of the animals involved.

The *photographic depiction* of beastiality is illegal in places
where it is ajudicated obscene.

There are no laws (or enforceable laws, let's say) against discussing
it in writing, via articles, fictional accounts of it happening,
drawings and/or non-photographic illustrations, etc. All that comes
under Freedom of Speech although I prefer the term License of Speech
as a more realistic way of describing it. I guess this shows my bias
in the matter, or my blind spots.

The solution to the problem of child pornography available for public
display on computer networks will come when a sufficient number of
system administrators refuse to display it. Email is a different
matter entirely and admins should not tamper with it. Where 'news'
groups and public displays are concerned, all an admin has to do is
refuse to allow that sort of posting to originate at his site, and
refuse to accept known feeds of that nature from other sites.  In
other words the admin says to his users, "We don't have (for example)
the newsgroup 'alt.sex.pedophilia' and 'alt.sex.beastiality' at this
site. Your posting to that newsgroup does not get propogated from
here." Lacking any propogation, the newsgroup in essence does not
exist.

And before you try to tell me that sites which carry news have to
carry all newsgroups, stop and think what the informal rules and
gentlemen's agreements on the net actually say:

     If it is a Usenet group and you carry Usenet, then you
     carry the group.

     If it is altnet, then whether you carry it or not is your
     choice.

That is the way it has always been arranged since years ago when
certain people began 'alt' in protest to the existing structure
of Usenet. The trouble is, that was long ago relative to the
age of computer networks, and a lot of people have forgotten the
second part of the agreement above, if they ever knew it existed.

No sysadmin is required to carry any alt group not of his (or his
employer's) liking. No explanation required, it simply does not
appear on his news spool. Some sites don't carry ANY alt groups
period. Some sites have even violated the (long-ago) gentlemen's
agreement of Usenet that for widest possible propogation, each
site carry all groups, i.e. as a courtesy I display messages from
your users and in return you display messages from my users.

So if the sysadmin at your site carries alt.sex.whatever.variations
on his spool, it is because he *wants* to carry it there. It
might be a business decision (lots of subscribers paying good money
to have this available to read) or a personal decision (he wants
to read it himself). Don't believe him if he rationalizes it
by claiming 'we have to carry all newsgroups'. He can make the
needed changes in the system .newsrc file, and that, as they say,
will be that. It is doubtful these days he has to carry all of
the Usenet groups and he never was required to carry alt groups.

If you do NOT want to have such a newsgroup, then you tell your
syadmin about it. You tell him in your opinion it cheapens and
harms the reputation of his site by having those groups available.
You ask him to remove them (or not make them available for public
reading) and perhaps you offer to take your business elsewhere
to a site you feel is better operated, or with higher quality.
If the sysadmin gets enough comments on a newsgroup, he will take
action on that group.

After all, there are people who read {The New York Times} specifically
because they do not fill up their pages with the likes of columnists
like Ann Slanders or her sister Scabby Van Buren, and I believe
sites which carry only a limited subset of the news, picking the
groups which meet their taste requirements have a place also.

Just because 'child porn may be legal in some countries in Europe' (I
hear that one a lot) and just because the {New York Times} is sold and
distributed regularly in Europe and a lot of the readers are European
there still is no requirement that the {New York Times} print child
porn under some vaugely thought out line of reasoning which says 'well
it came here on our newsfeed from someplace in Europe where it is
legal so how can the authorities here punish us for printing it?' ...
Very easily ... that is what editors are for. If you carry
Usenet/altnet/*net news on your site, then the sysadmin becomes an
editor by default.

Remember, a 'news' group without any news spools to sit on really
doesn't exist. Self-censorship is the best censorship of all ... it
works, is far more effective than anything the government tries to
legislate, and even the ACLU has not yet been able to figure out
how to force people to like it who in reality are totally opposed to
the actual/perceived or encouraged abuse of children/animals in this way.

So sysadmins, start acting more like responsible publishers/editors.
If you want that garbage at your site, hey -- just say so and
carry it. If you don't, then get rid of it and block it out of
your accepted newsfeed.


Patrick A. Townson
(the only person I know whose three initials of their full name
wind up spelling their first name. i.e. PAT).

------------------------------

From: [e-mail](JeanBernard Condat)
Subject: File 6--French email directory soonly available
Date: 21 Nov 1995 08:49:06 GMT

French email directory soonly available

Decembre 8th, France Telecom test a new service. The possibility for
all phone owner to have the mention of the private email address
available freely on the videotex phone directory (and in the print
edition, too).  Normally the only mention with the address will be the
"telefax," "Numeris" (for ISDN access) or "Minicom" (an old Minitel
specific email application not linked with Internet nor X.400 and
available through the 3612 Minitel access for a low cost).

The first person that have the chance to be cite WITH the own electronic
address is Pierre GRENET, a France Telecom ingenieur. When you look at
Pierre GRENET in Champigny/Marne (94500), you found the right phone
number (1) 48 81 35 05... and an uncredible 31-digit email address on five
lines: [e-mail]. This ingenieur work on the new
applications of France Telecom electronic book, the first in the world. how
to link the cited email address for a direct sending by Minitel of an
email...
it's a new forthcoming service!

Some problems will occur with companies sending fax to all owner
indicated in the "11" (electronic repertory). In some months, it will
be possible to do some electronic mailing directly from the "11". The
sending of the fax number is availbale by 3614  MARKETIS, a new France
Telecom service. Perhaps, the email address will permit the control of
all the Internet Service Providers in France by the French secret
services, like the DST, and hurge email mailings...

But I have five email address... and don't known the first that I can
give to the "11"... the long one, or the short? The "12", phone answer
for having a phone number canot understand the @... that can be read
as an "(a)" or an "(at)" on the Minitel screen. France Telecom must
learn to all "Mademoiselle" on the phone answering service what is
Internet and an Internet email address :->)

Bon courage...

-- Jean-Bernard Condat
   Computer Security and Phone Fraud Expert
   [e-mail]
   (Paris, France)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.

CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest

Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message:  SUB CUDIGEST  your name
Send it to  [e-mail]

DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.

The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax [phone])
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.

To UNSUB, send a one-line message:   UNSUB CUDIGEST
Send it to  [e-mail]
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS [phone] (and via Ripco on  internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) [phone].
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE:  In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS:  [phone] (ringdown)
         Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS [phone]:291/[e-mail]
         In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: [phone]
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  [phone]

  UNITED STATES:  etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8)  in /pub/CuD/
                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
                  world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)


The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

------------------------------

End of Computer Underground Digest #7.96
************************************