Return to CLS Bibliography Page
Date: Thu Jan 16, 1997 2:20 pm CST
From: David J. Loundy
EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 3765414
MBX: David@loundy.com
TO: * Nicholas Johnson / MCI ID: 1035393
Subject: VTW BillWatch
>DeliveredTo: aliasloundy_dom/David@Loundy.com
>Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:46:02 0500 (EST)
>From: Voters Telecommunications Watch <shabbir@vtw.org>
>To: fightcensorship+@andrew.cmu.edu
>Subject: VTW BillWatch
>Sender: ownerfightcensorship@vorlon.mit.edu
>Precedence: normal
>XFCURL: FightCensorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/
>XFCURL: To join send "subscribe" to fightcensorshiprequest@vorlon.mit.edu
>
>===========================================================================
> Published by the Voters Telecommunications Watch and the
> VTW Center for Internet Education
> http://www.vtw.org/ http://www.vtwctr.org/
>
> Issue #71, Date: Jan 10, 1997
>
> Do not remove this banner. See distribution instructions at the end.
>___________________________________________________________________________
>TABLE OF CONTENTS
> New York State comes under fire for Internet Censorship bill
> CaseWatch:Jurisdiction on the Net this time it's gambling
> (Diana Jarvis, Staff Counsel VTW Center)
> Editorial (Steven Cherry, Cofounder, VTW)
> Subscription Information and donation policy (unchanged 12/23/96)
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>NEW YORK STATE COMES UNDER FIRE FOR INTERNET CENSORSHIP BILL
>
> NEW YORK INTERNET ADVOCATES GEAR UP FOR FREE SPEECH FIGHT
>
>January 14, 1996 Press Contact
> Shabbir J. Safdar
> Cofounder, VTW
> (917) 9788430 (beeper)
> shabbir@vtw.org (email)
>
>New York City: New York Internet advocates gear up today for a fight
>over free speech online. At the heart of the dispute is the New York
>State law, S.210, which prohibits communication between adults online.
>VTW is no stranger to this dispute, having trekked up to Albany to
>lobby against the bill in 1996.
>
>"We helped remove a number of objectionable provisions before passage,"
>said Alexis Rosen, owner of Public Access Networks (Panix), New York's
>oldest Internet Service Provider. Rosen, who traveled with a VTW
>delegation to Albany worked hard to explain the flaws of the bill to
>sponsors, with some measure of success. "We're addressing the ones we
>couldn't agree upon through this lawsuit," said Rosen.
>
>VTW's trip to Albany also delivered a letter from over a dozen of New
>York's emerging Internet businesses outlining their grave concerns with
>the bill. Several of these companies later became plaintiffs in the
>lawsuit. VTW is also participating in the lawsuit by providing
>technical assistance to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and
>filing an amicius brief outlining the unique concerns of Internet
>users.
>
>VTW is also holding a fundraiser on Friday February 21st to allay some
>expenses of the lawsuit at Outernet, a New York City Internet Service
>Provider at 626 Broadway. "This will be the cyberrights social event
>of the year," said VTW President Shabbir J. Safdar, "you can have a
>blast and help defray expenses of the suit at the same time."
>
>More information on the fundraiser, pictures from the press conference, and
>a RealAudio transcript of the press conference will be posted at
>http://ww.vtw.org/speech/
>
> ###
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>CASEWATCH: JURISDICTION ON THE NET THIS TIME IT'S GAMBLING
>
>[This is an excerpt of this week's "CaseWatch": a series of articles
> focusing on how the legal system develops methods of dealing with
> Internet issues. Read CaseWatch at http://www.vtwctr.org/casewatch ]
>
>The Minnesota Attorney General's Office already famous for
>announcing that it had a right to chase Internet pornography, wherever
>based, because of the possibility that it might corrupt the good clean
>souls of Minnesota folk (did these people ever see the movie Fargo?)
>has now filed a series of lawsuits against scams which, according to
>the Attorney General's office, haunt the Net.
>
>One of these is an online sports betting service (WagerNet) offered by
>a Las Vegas corporation, Granite Gate Resorts. The gambling site is
>alleged by Minnesota to engage in deceptive trade practices, false
>advertising, and consumer fraud per Minn. Stat. 325D.44, 325F.67, and
>325F.69, subd. 1 (1994).
>
>A state judge has held that the Attorney General can sue WagerNet in
>the state court of Minnesota because the Internet site alone provides
>sufficient minimum contacts to confer personal jurisdiction over the
>defendants, for if gambling's illegal in Minnesota, the owner of a Web
>page can be prosecuted for offering gambling to its inhabitants via the
>World Wide Web.
>
>[You can read this week's "CaseWatch" at http://www.vtwctr.org/casewatch ]
>
> /s/
>
>Diana Jarvis, Staff Counsel, VTW Center for Internet Education
>daj@vtwctr.org
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>EDITORIAL
>
>What do
>
>. being on the Internet
>. owning a firearm
>. drinking to excess
>. hanging out in places where illegal drugs are common
>. consorting with known criminals without permission
>
>all have in common?
>
>They are all activities that at least some of the 12,000 parolees subject
>to the edicts of the U.S. Parole Commission are restricted from engaging
>in.
>
>Add the U.S. Parole Commission to the evergrowing list of organizations
>that Just Don't Get It when it comes to the net.
>
>Recollective readers will recall that the New York Times joined that list
>last month when it carried a story concerning the activities of some
>convicts in a Minnesota prison. (See BillWatch #67
><http://www.vtw.org/archive/961204_003307.html>)
>
>That story described how the prisoners, some of whom were convicted for
>child molestation, used a variety of research tools to compile a list of
>children they might want to molest. The main tool used by the prisoners
>were inprint regional newspapers. Naturally the stillmostlyprint New
>York Times focussed on the prisoners' rather peripheral use of the
>Internet.
>
>Naturally as well, the stillmostlyprint New York Times mentioned the
>Minnesota story in their reportage of the U.S. Parole Commission action.
>They "report" that "The prohibitions address the growing national concern
>that criminals, particularly sex criminals, are using the Internet to
>gather information for criminal purposes and to hook up with other
>criminals."
>
>We'd like to know what exactly their source is for the idea that there's a
>"growing national concern." We'd also like to know if there would be a
>"growing national concern" were it not for the yellow journalism of the
>traditional print and broadcast media.
>
>Leaving irresponsible journalism aside, if the parole commission already
>has rules restricting parolees' consorting with known criminals,
>presumably that restriction already applies online as well as off. The
>parole commission's action goes well beyond this to restrict a completely
>general activity that has nothing in particular to do with criminality.
>Why doesn't the commission restrict access to the Yellow Pages, since
>convicted robbers might use it to find banks, liquor stores, convenience
>marts, and other possible targets?
>
>The Times quoted commission chairman Edward F. Reilly, Jr., as saying, "We
>cannot ignore the possibility that such offenders may be tempted to use
>computer services to repeat their crimes." How can they ignore the
>possibility that such offenders may be tempted to use automobiles, buses,
>and taxicabs to repeat their crimes?
>
>For the Just Don't Get It crowd, we'll try to put it as simply as
>possible. The Internet is not an inherently criminal tool, just as phones,
>cars, highways, and coffee shops aren't, though they may all be used by
>criminals in the planning, and even execution, of their crimes. The
>Internet is not a gun, it's not an explosive device, it's not an
>intoxicant; it's not a drug bazaar, nor a haunt for suspicious
>individuals.
>
>We can't wait for the day when the net disappears from view as a separate
>entity, when every seat in a classroom or airplane has a port, when every
>refrigerator in every home and every traffic light on every road has
>digital intelligence in the same way that it has electricity.
>
>It's already started. When WebTV commercials can scream, "you don't need a
>computer" while selling you a "disappeared" computer. When that day comes,
>the net will be beyond the reach of the Just Don't Get It crowd. Good
>thing too, since they show no signs of getting it anytime soon.
>
> /s/
>
>Steven Cherry, Cofounder, VTW
>stc@vtw.org
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION AND DONATION POLICY
>
>We do not accept unsolicited individual donations at this time. If you
>want to help let us know who your legislator is by "adopting" them at
>http://www.crypto.com/ You'll become part of the army of net users that
>gets involved when trouble brews in Congress.
>
>To subscribe via email, send mail to majordomo@vtw.org with
>"subscribe vtwannounce" in the body of the message. To
>unsubscribe from BillWatch send mail to majordomo@vtw.org with
>"unsubscribe vtwannounce" in the body of the message.
>
> Copyright 19941996 (use without permission prohibited)
>===========================================================================
Return to CLS Bibliography Page