Slashdot Mirror

Although I'm sure many /.ers are passing this article off as old hat, I can assure you that issues like this must be dealt with. I'm a 16 year old internet junkie, and I've had several problems with my local highschool's policies. But if I post my frustrations about the school on the net I'm liable to get kicked out of school, banned from computers, and labled a criminal. Why? There's no logical or even reasonable justification for this. Now, I'm not saying that I should be allowed to call a member of the faculty a "drunkard" based upon an uninformed opinion- that does happen to constitute as libel. However, I, just as the student in this article, should be allowed to vent my frustrations about the school system and my peers without fear of the police. Last time I checked my American History books that's one of the main reasons the United States was formed. The ability to publish without fear of legal reprecussions is a liberty that should be enjoyed by all. This student did not make threatening comments, so he is not guilty of any conspiracy charges, yet he is still labled a "dangerous element of society." Why?! So a kid gets frustrated with his peers- big deal. If he had told his frustrations to an adult using the same language would he be sent off to jail? HELL NO What everyone seems to not take into account here is that this was just a way for one kid to vent his frustrations when no other recourse was offered or possible. Why should his computer be taken away from him? Why should he be sent to another state? Do you take away the printing presses of a newspaper simply because that paper calls president Clinton an "idiot"? No! Taking this child's computer was extremely unjustified. What did the police have to gain by taking the computer? The material was already published, and it wasn't even on this kid's computer!! So the taking of his computer was simply gratuidous. Schools have been trying to force students to conform to their standards outside of school for decades. This isn't really all that different. This student should not have had such a hard penality imposed upon him. He should be charged with libel, but for two reasons; he unjustly called faculty drunkards, and he didn't post a legal disclaimer on his page saying "these are only my personal opinions and may or may not have any basis for truth in reality." But then again, why should he have to? The article he wrote wasn't in a public forum (that being, a major newspaper or major newsite.) It was on his personal homepage; undoubtedly only accessable if you knew the exact hyperlink. Thus, it wasn't even intended to reach a vast audience. If I publish a flyer saying "Clinton is a moron!!" should I get charged with libel? Should I go to jail? NO! The first amendment was made to protect speech of that sort, and thus it must be applied in this case. Yes, this student's article was offensive, but it wasn't threatening in any way. It seems to me that the only reason he was punished in such a harsh manner was because when he did offend one of the faculty of that school, he/she took it upon himself/herself to strike back. I wonder what the American Civil Liberties Union would have to say about this...
-Sean Hicks
Superjoker@mailroom.com
Posting under anonymous coward only because I can't remember my /. password :P

You don't have to be actually dealing any drugs to be robbed at gunpoint by the cops. Just drive down I-10 through Louisiana with some cash in your car. Oh, yeah, and it helps - a lot - if you're black.

You think I'm kidding, don't you? God, I wish I were. Here, read this. Or, from the President of the ACLU, this. Or lest you fall for the anti-ACLU business that is so popular with demagogues in this country, and dismiss the above as just the ranting of some left-wing weirdos, here is a statement published by the office of conservative Republican congressman Henry Hyde. In fact, the appaling damage which the logic-twisting pro-police-state judicial activists of the Rehnquist Supreme Court have inflicted upon the Constitutional rights of American citizens has outraged many Congressmen of both the Democratic party and the Republican party, who have responded this year with legislation to undo their excesses and restore those Constitutional rights to the public. This bill has not yet been signed by President Clinton, who has a terrible record of siding with the law enforcement gang against the interests of mere citizens. Let us hope that FBI Director Freeh and Drug Tsar McCafferty (that war criminal) don't talk him into vetoing this bill.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

This site seemed to already have the same idea: Farenheit 451.2

Well, FYI, the ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. It's website is ACLU.org. Click on the Join Our Alert List link on the main page to get on it.

Well, FYI, the ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. It's website is ACLU.org. Click on the Join Our Alert List link on the main page to get on it.

Like I said once before, there is no more freedom when everyone can sue for anything as it is when nobody can sue at all. We have the right to be free from legal (per|pro)secution to at least some degree...

--

But, this piece might be removed become some large company may threaten a lawsuit.

MPAA did not like people commenting on DeCSS, so of course they sued.

Mattel did not like people commenting on CyberPatrol, so they sued. When that www.sorehands.com guy complained about Mattel, they sued him.

*sing* my soma has a first name, it's m-o-n-e-y...

-jcl

[a]ny communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that -- (A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest; (B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manor patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Sorry but this assumption is not quite valid anymore. Pleae refer to:
"CNN" - FCC to appeal court ruling vacating privacy regulations - August 25, 1999. A court ruling overturning federal protection of telephone customer records puts the interests of phone companies over the rights of consumers, a top federal regulator says.

The Federal Communications Commission("FCC") plans to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could enable phone companies to use information about customers for marketing purposes without obtaining their consent.

"FCC" Chairman Bill Kennard said the court's decision to reject the commission's rules remove important protections to consumer privacy.

Political News from "Wired News" - Phone Records Up for Grabs?. A court ruling ( 98-9518 -- U.S. West Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm. -- 08/18/1999 ) with implications for the use and sale of private telephone records sets a disturbing precedent for how the courts regard privacy, watchdog groups say.

But the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") will appeal last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which pleased those privacy groups.

The ruling effectively canceled a vague "FCC" regulation that had forced phone companies to obtain customer permission before using or selling call records for marketing purposes.

ACLU Press Release: 10-25-99 - Consumer and Privacy Organizations, Legal Scholars Urge Appeals Court to Protect Consumers' Telephone Privacy. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, 15 consumer and privacy organizations and 22 legal scholars urged a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that would allow telephone companies to use private telephone records for marketing purposes. The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case is of great importance to consumers across the United States. The brief, filed in support of a petition from the Federal Communications Commission, asks the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a privacy provision that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC.

The Supreme Court ruling Katz referenced is here.

Katz says that this may not apply since the courts have given schools a lot of leeway as far as kids' Fourth Amendment rights are concerned (allowing locker searches and drug tests for example) however, it is not the schools that are the tippers here. If a school employee (or other agent of the school, like a crossing guard) has a suspicion, they are free (perhaps even obligated) to act on it.

WAVE is for young citizens to report on other young citizens, and though WAVE itself maybe an agent of the school, the tipper is not. Therefore, I think the findings of Florida v J.L. would hold in determining that an anonymously reported tip of a mere suspicion that another person may be possible of commiting some undefined crime, is not sufficient to arrest/question/harrass the implicated individual.

IANAL, but given that the system seems unconstitutional by its very nature, I think an attorney, perhaps the ACLU, could easily shut down the program, or force it to ignore any reports that don't indicate an actual crime has taken place (example: bringing a weapon to a public school is crime in itself, so these types of reports would be allowed; wears a black trenchcoat is not a crime, so reporting it wouldn't be allowed.)

My "Topics in Math" seminar at Rutgers did this for the past month. We were divided up into groups, and then into smaller groups. I was part of the American section, which was divided into FBI, ACLU, and EFF. We had to represent and argue the views of the section we represented. Fortunately, I got to be with the ACLU. We discussed national crypto laws, crypto regulations, and I got to cover CyberPatrol and deCSS.
If you're trying to argue a side, the ACLU's homepage has a lot of articles in their favor. We got in (and won, I might add) some fun arguments with the FBI group, who were trying to advocate the illegalization of crypto software that doesn't contain backdoors for the government.
My main advice on how to make it interesting and persuasive is to counter all common opposing arguments using logic, without sounding extreme, paranoid, or arrogant. And it's not that hard.

I'm pretty shure the ACLU opposes the DMCA and UCITA (link), but there are several reasons why they are not dedicating many resources to the fight: (a) The ACLU normally focus more resources on people who can not defend themselves, (b) the intelectual property debate is realitivly new so their is no momentum within the orginisation (the EFF took all the lawyers who really care a lot about these issues), and (c) they see censorship and privcy as more importent (link).

I'm pretty shure the ACLU opposes the DMCA and UCITA (link), but there are several reasons why they are not dedicating many resources to the fight: (a) The ACLU normally focus more resources on people who can not defend themselves, (b) the intelectual property debate is realitivly new so their is no momentum within the orginisation (the EFF took all the lawyers who really care a lot about these issues), and (c) they see censorship and privcy as more importent (link).

Of couse the ACLU won on that, otherwise it would not have been mentioned on their website.

I don't know about the ACLU in particular, but I'm sure that many similar organizations post their prominent defeats as well. I know for a fact that People for the American Way does. Even taking a cynical view of it, they should do so in order to provoke outrage from their readers at the outcome and encourage them to send donations to prevent similar defeats in the future.

We [the ACLU] believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.

Note the phrase "the right of the states".

Now here's the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. It's very short. One sentence:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Note the phrase "the right of the people".

That's a whopping revisionist statement by the ACLU there. Still think their mission is to defend the rights of individuals. Think again.

--
The best weapon is the one provided to you by your opponent.

A bit late, and perhaps pointless, this post. But, perhaps you might want to visit:

www.aclu.org

The ACLU gets a lot of flak, but, they're idealists, and they do stand up for what they believe in, and they do stick to their guns. They remind me a lot of RMS. (and make me want to reconsider my sig...)

The ACLU defends *individual* liberties. The second amendment gives states the right to operate militias, and therefore is not within the mandate of the ACLU.

The ACLU is one of the most important organizations in the history of political freedom. They chose their mission, and IMHO they do a damn fine job of it.

For more info on their position see http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html.

I suppose this is a troll, but I'll reply anyway.

The Libertarians and Objectivists are properly classified as a non-religious right wing utopian movement. These philosophies are fundamentally flawed just like their left wing cousins (but it will probable take a while for these people to notice). You should check out the Critiques of Libertarianism page.

There are some pretty funny contradictions libertarianism, like supporting school vouchers, i.e. we don't like public funding of the schools via taxes, so lets publicly fund even more with taxes. It never crosses their minds to just require schools allow students to mix and match classes from diffrent public and private schools. The ideal outcome of the libertarian's proposed solution (school vouchers): more competitive education system where taxes pay for everything. The ideal outcome of my alternative libertarian proposal: an even more competitive education system where parents pay for everyhitng. Gee, I wonder which would be the more libertarian solution?

All this having been said, I'd be pretty surprised if the libertarians had much beef with the ACLU. I have heard argumentes from very concervative people that there is really no contraiction between being right wing and supporting the ACLU. I would be curious to read any specific account you can find about a conflict. Maybe the libertarians were just pissed about the ACLU actually getting the job done.. while they just lose ellections.

Actually, I'm pretty shure I know where the convlict lies. One of the things which makes the libertarian philosophy a failed utopian philosophy is it's idea that "only government can take away your rights," i.e. whatever the corperations want to do is fine so long as they do not hire gunmen. The ACLU takes the more realistic approach that corperations can abuse your rights too.

BTW> see who the ACLU has helped this year.

I suppose this is a troll, but I'll reply anyway.

The Libertarians and Objectivists are properly classified as a non-religious right wing utopian movement. These philosophies are fundamentally flawed just like their left wing cousins (but it will probable take a while for these people to notice). You should check out the Critiques of Libertarianism page.

There are some pretty funny contradictions libertarianism, like supporting school vouchers, i.e. we don't like public funding of the schools via taxes, so lets publicly fund even more with taxes. It never crosses their minds to just require schools allow students to mix and match classes from diffrent public and private schools. The ideal outcome of the libertarian's proposed solution (school vouchers): more competitive education system where taxes pay for everything. The ideal outcome of my alternative libertarian proposal: an even more competitive education system where parents pay for everyhitng. Gee, I wonder which would be the more libertarian solution?

All this having been said, I'd be pretty surprised if the libertarians had much beef with the ACLU. I have heard argumentes from very concervative people that there is really no contraiction between being right wing and supporting the ACLU. I would be curious to read any specific account you can find about a conflict. Maybe the libertarians were just pissed about the ACLU actually getting the job done.. while they just lose ellections.

Actually, I'm pretty shure I know where the convlict lies. One of the things which makes the libertarian philosophy a failed utopian philosophy is it's idea that "only government can take away your rights," i.e. whatever the corperations want to do is fine so long as they do not hire gunmen. The ACLU takes the more realistic approach that corperations can abuse your rights too.

BTW> see who the ACLU has helped this year.

You should look at some of what the ACLU did last year. It will give you still more reason to join.

Too bad lawyers don't donate their time and expertise like OS programmers do!

Isn't that what the ACLU is for? Read the THE FINANCIAL PICTURE at bottom of their info page

***BZZZZTTTT!!*** I'm sorry; that answer is not correct. Don't forget to pick up your lovely consolation prize....

Also, with an 84-16 vote, if Clinton hadn't signed it, his veto would have been easily over-ridden

Irrelevant. He had a free choice to side with or against the United States Constitution; he chose the latter.
/.

1. As others have pointed out, coke has multiple meanings that no one owns a trademark on (and, of course, can't).
   A trademark on 'Coke' (as in the soft drink) is only valid in the context of soft drinks. If a farmer's market that sold all sorts of fruits (perhaps they're in Washington state and specialize in apples) and veggies had beat the software company to the apple.com domain, the computer company would have had to do something drastic like (gasp!) register applecomputers.com, instead.
   If coke.ch was being legitimately used for a purpose (i.e. the owner is not a cybersquatter), it's Coke's problem for (A) not registering the domain a long time ago or (B) not putting their efforts in the right place -- like lobbying for more-specific top-level domains.
2. That said, I am curious if the owner can present any evidence of intent to use coke.ch as part of a campaign to help cocaine addicts. This was the key issue in a (U.S. District Court) case last year in which a local reporter was busted for trading kiddie porn, which he claimed he was using in a freelance undercover story. Based on stories at the time, the judge hinted that he would have taken that defense seriously had the reporter given evidence that editors were aware of the story, the author had a contract, etc. A number of organizations (1) (2) contested the ruling on other grounds, but I can see the same logic being applied in potential cases of cybersquatting: "Can you give me evidence that you really planned -- to any degree -- to use the microsoft.net domain as a hyperlinked glossary to terms used in William Gibson's books?"
   I'm not saying it'll always happen like this, but it would seem like you'd at least share your great idea w/ someone in a manner more permanant than a verbal chat. I think that would go a long way in helping your argument.

Ah, but I think there are better was to spend money than sending humans to mars, and I'm not sure that exemptions on sales tax for net-made purchases are actually sound policy. So, even in your list of "everyone will agree issues," I agree only 67%. If we wanted a real political party, as you suggest, we'd need to come up with some kind of shared opinion on all issues. This is why I believe that we should join the EFF, possibly the ACLU, and other groups that do what you want (as pointed out, many geeks have enough money. You can afford a couple $50 memberships a year, and even poor students like myself can pay for a few $20 student memberships.) Support the causes you support.

Francis Hwang

> The right of free assocation shall not be infringed.

Not in Il Duce Giuliani's New York! Go to Central Park and attempt to address more than twenty of your fellow citizens. If the tenor of your discussion pleases Il Duce, then you'll be all right, no official will lift a finger to infringe upon that "right" of yours; on the other hand, if you are so injudicious as to displease his majesty he cries out to his Brown Shirts, "Avanti!" and it's a vigorous thrashing with nightsticks and then off to the Tombs for you, you anarchist scum!

Or, for a few years there in Chicago, you retained the right to free association, unless you happened to be young, male and black; then you and your four-or-more friends became, by definition, a "street gang" and were thus subject to immediate arrest and incarceration. As it happens, thanks to those wildeyed radicals at the ACLU that law got invalidated.

Yours WKiernan@concentric.net

> Under UCITA, a software company can make it an actionable breach
> of contract to say anything they don't like about their product.

Maybe that holds for the dumb sucka that actually opened the shrinkwrap, or clicked on the "I agree" button in the EULA dialog box. But whoever they are, they can't stop me from publicly proclaiming that their shitty software sucks, because I didn't buy it, or install it, or agree to any contract. All I did was look over some other guy's shoulder while he muttered curses as he wrestled with that big bag of bugs. And I ain't gonna tell you whose shoulder either, and you can't make me.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

...another card-carrying ACLU member...The ACLU is your friend!

Also, for a rough and ready guide to the reasons why people are against filtering in general, take a look at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/box.html, also from the ACLU's site. It contains some interesting things I haven't seen mentioned here before.

A page that I've found useful in the past is the ACLU's "Act Now!" section of their site. It contains updated information about various issues, as well as a free and easy way to fax, email and mail letters to your representative on certain issues--all by just filling in a zip code and some information. Currently there is a page dedicated to information about bills dealing with mandating filtering in libraries. There is the usual way to contact representatives included as well. Take a look.

http://www.aclu.org/action/jjfilteri ng106.html

Warning: If you are of anything even remotely resembling a "fundamentalist" mindset, you will probably find this post flame-ish at best. You will probably also want to scroll down, because there is probably very little I could do to show you just HOW you are being led about (even to the point of showing you examples of how your own leaders have outright lied to you). I can only say, in this case, that I feel very sorry for you and that I hope that whatever god or gods may exist may take pity on you--especially since the actions of those who lead you are probably against everything the founders of your religions stood for.

I will also forewarn that I am in a generally pissy mood to begin with tonight, and many of my statements may come out more harshly than I meant them to. My apologies. I've had a bad day, and a bad temper to go along with it (I had to deal with Hellsouth about a problem which has been going on for well-nigh over three years). If things sting too bad, I suggest you take heed of Yshua's example and turn the other cheek and forgive me my tresspasses.

Now that THAT disclaimer has been taken care of...

Some anonymous coward dun said:

That's not true, what they want is to protect their families from harmful things. Beleive it or not pornography really is harmful to people, it helps increase rape and child abuse among other things. Porn addiction can occur and it causes real problems with families. This is not something that people need nor is the obsessive viewing of it in public at all healthful.

Assuming that you aren't an outright shill that is astroturfing Slashdot in support of fundy viewpoints--something which I cannot discount, unfortunately, because it is a fairly well-known tactic that is used by Religious Right groups on occasion--allow me to correct some misguidings and rip a few new holes in your argument.

First off:

That's not true, what they want is to protect their families from harmful things.

Well, for starters, I hate to tell you, but the major pusher of censorware in the debates nationally are not "concerned families" but rather multi-million-dollar funded PACs and pressure groups that have as an explicit goal the establishment of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in the United States.

Let me repeat that for you: The vast majority of groups that are pushing censorware in libraries and whatnot are multi-million-dollar PACs and pressure groups that have, as an explicit goal, the establishment of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in the United States .

Yes, you heard that right. They want to set up a fundamentalist Christian version of Taliban Afghanistan, up to and including bringing back Old Testament punishments for such things as homosexuality, sex outside of church-sanctioned marriages, and even "being fresh" to one's parents.

If you want to learn for yourself just how well funded these groups are and just how MANY of them are interlinked, go here and read up all about the Coalition for National Policy (basically the "think-tank" of the Religious Right in the United States; it is invitation-only, and contains many "fortune 500" individuals and state and national legislators). Then go here for some hard info on many of the Religious Right groups and their real agenda...or here or here (or here for a special page for those who've seen how destructive and utterly un-Christian the Religious Right is--I'll get to that in a sec).

For your info, by the way, the major folks pushing it in Holland are a little group called the Family Research Council. They were set up specifically as the "lobbying" wing of a group called Focus on the Family after the IRS threatened to yank FoF's tax-exempt status (it was set up under the same exemption as a church, and thus they aren't supposed to be doing political lobbying). One of the names you might recognise from them is Gary Bauer, their head; he recently did a failed run for the presidency. One of their favourite tactics, by the way, is stuff with stealth candidates who don't reveal links to the Religious Right till they're elected; they are also far, far from being merely a "concerned parent's group" (they are extremely homophobic, push very, very heavily for the entire Religious Right agenda, and incidentially the head of FoF is a "Christian reconstructionist" who thinks the US should be a theocracy complete with religious tests for government office). You can find out more info here or find a big ol' archive of their writing to their membership here.

If you want to know more about the Religious Right's agenda in general, I've put a much longer post here that even goes on about some groups that folks don't traditionally associate with the Religious Right (like, oh, Home Shopping Network's links with the Religious Right, or NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon's links, or the many links the PMRC has with the Religious Right).

Oh, and while we're on the subject of "protecting their families from harmful things"...you'd think if they were really interested in that, they'd be pushing for the Convention on the Rights of the Child to be ratified...but no...they're one of many fundy groups across the US that have lobbied specifically to KEEP it from being ratified, because they think it'll take away their right to force their ways on their kids, forcibly "exorcise" their kids, beat them, etc. (By the way, the US is one of two nations that still hasn't ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The other nation, Somalia, has a reasonable excuse for not ratifying it as it has no working government right now.)

For THAT matter, you'd think they'd work extra hard to protect their families from such destructive things as Bible-based cults (which do everything to isolate their members from birth, use outright deception to recruit members and keep them, and which are every bit as destructive as Scientology is--I've actually put up a post here comparing practices between the two if you odn't believe me, so you can look at the hard evidence for yourself). But no, they don't do that--they actively promote many of the Bible-based cults, because half the Religious Right groups could well be considered coercive in and of themselves and most of their hard-core membership is gotten from people in Bible-based cults (often people who have been members for generations and literally isolated and indoctrinated since birth--there's a college that has been set up for "Christian" homeschooled youths to train them to be politicians for the Religious Right), and their entire mindset shows just HOW cultic the whole mess is.

And before you tell me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about...I do. All too well. I just happen to be a walkaway from a Bible-based cult my family has been involved in for several generations; I was raised up into the whole spiel, and found out quite accidentially at age 12 that I had pretty much been fed lies...I found out later (partly from info regarding Scientology that included "is your group coercive?" checklists) that the group I was formerly involved in WOULD count as a Bible-based cult. The group I walked away from also happens to be one of the largest fundamentalist churches in Kentucky, and is the de facto center of the Religious Right in that state...trust me when I know all too well what I'm talking about here, and I still suffer after-effects from it. I would move heaven and earth if it meant some kid didn't have to go through the absolute hell I went through as a kid, being abused in the name of God. I'd love them not to wince whenever discussions of Christianity were brought up because it makes you flashback to just how fragging twisted some of the things that were done to you were. I'd love for them not to be scared shitless that the very groups you walked away from were working hard to put the entire nation under the same hell you walked away from--complete with force of arms, if they were to get power.

And yes, I can say that as a direct result of that I've been hurt by the Religious Right and it's just a wee bit personal to me. Then again, I think any kid who's been abused by another has the right to be pissed, and more to the point, to work to make sure that abuser can't ever hurt another kid ever again.

Beleive it or not pornography really is harmful to people, it helps increase rape and child abuse among other things

There has been only two studies that have ever shown a negative effect regarding pornography in general--the Meese report, which Edwin Meese III literally bullied through and had to have rewritten after the scientists he hired reached exactly the opposite conclusion, and the Surgeon-General's report on pornography in 1987 (by Dr. C.E. Koop--a Surgeon-General who was also appointed by Reagan, who pandered to the Religious Right on many issues). (As a minor aside--Edwin Meese III is a raving fundy, and is heavily involved with the Religious Right [see here for more info]. In fact, he's SO much in with the Religious Right that he's a member of the very secretive Coalition for National Policy [here's his info from the membership list here], and is involved in a Religious Right group known as the Heritage Foundation [more info on the Heritage Foundation here and here [the last article also contains info on another Religious Right group Meese is involved in]; as a minor aside, "Heritage" is a very common "code word" for fundamentalist/Religious Right interests, along with "family" and "Christian Life Center"]. In fact, he was put in specifically by Ronald Reagan, who was largely elected due to the Religious Right and who started the not-so-great Republican tradition of pandering to the Religious Right...needless to say, Edwin Meese isn't impartial, wasn't impartial, and was looking specifically for evidence he wanted to have "scientific proof" for a very specific agenda of the Religious Right in the US. Even worse, there is a fair amount of evidence from his own public speeches to indicate Edwin Meese may be a "Christian Reconstructionist" [Christian Reconstructionism is the canard that the Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a fundamentalist Christian theocracy and that it is the duty of Reconstructionists to "re-establish" this theocracy]; info here. In other words, he flatly had an agenda and bent the evidence towards it.)

Most scientists who have studied human sexuality, and specifically stuff relating to porn and to sex crimes, see so many holes in the Meese Report that it's not funny. There are no less than five studies which indicate that pornography isn't harmful (at least to normal people); more to the point, many of the statistics which have been argued to show that porn is harmful could also be argued to indicate that people into certain categories of porn are likely to be pathological in and of themselves.

A rather informal example is with the Japanese, and in particular, hentai comics (which feature sex and adult situations). Hentai is pretty popular and readily available in Japan, even to under-18's; some of it goes farther than most US porn does (Playboy just shows naked women, for example). The Japanese percentage of sex crimes is actually somewhat below that of the US, even considering that the Japanese are generally a somewhat more repressed society than the US is.

As a minor aside--rape and child abuse (except for very, very exceptional circumstances in the latter, and even often there) aren't so much crimes of sex as of power--in other words, the main component of these crimes and the motivation for them isn't so much sex as, well, power and domination over another by degrading them in the lowest way possible. Rapists are often found to be hostile against women period, and so rape them as a dominance thing; same thing with the vast majority of child abuse (the major exception may be child abuse in which there has been found actual pedophilia--a sexual paraphilia in which the person is actually sexually attracted to children--but even then, there is a definite dominance streak to this). Also, it's been found that treatments to try to stop rapists and child-molesters from having sex by attempting to curb the sex-drive don't work very well (again, the major exception to this is child molestation in which it's been found actual pedophilia exists)--they simply will rape their victims with objects or will find other ways to "get it up". This is because they're using their gonads as weapons--it's like trying to castrate someone to cure them of beating hell out of someone else.

There is a known correlation between rape (and to an extent, child molestation as well--most notably incest) and other violent behaviours--such as torture of animals when young, assault, etc. Most of these folks seek out violent porn and violent entertainment in general because they're generally prone to violence to begin with; there is some evidence that in extreme cases there may be an actual defect in brain chemistry to account for this. Needless to say, castrating a rapist or child molester isn't going to fix them, and neither is depriving them of pornography.

Another interesting statistic--there are some reports to suggest that there is actually a higher rate of child abuse (including incest) in households in which most of the family are members of coercive groups such as Bible-based cults or Scientology. This, again, probably has a lot to do with the whole dominance thing; coercive groups, which rely VERY much on a "master/servant" relationship to begin with, can't help things much. (In Bible-based cults especially, the whole "spare the rod and spoil the child" bit can't help either.) Based on my own experience (which fortunately did not include sexual abuse, but did include physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual abuse) I'm inclined to agree with this, if only because of all the other kinds of abuse which are the norm in such families.

Porn addiction can occur and it causes real problems with families.

First, a primer about "addiction". Addiction, in the purest sense (and the medical sense) of the word, is where the body chemistry changes to require the use of a drug to maintain normal body function; this tends to occur with narcotics, cocaine, nicotine, most of your "downer" drugs (including alcohol, benzodiazepines [Valium, etc.] and phenobarbital and friends), amphetamines, and (to a lesser degree) caffeine. (The "nicotine cravings" you get if you don't get your smoke, or the "coffee migraines" longtime coffee drinkers get if they don't get their caffeine, are actually withdrawal symptoms resulting from the fact your body has become dependent on that substance to maintain normal function.)

"Psychic addiction" as commonly described (where no actual physical addiction occurs) is a misnomer, and denotes a state where people feel they "need" something to "function". There is no real biological need for it, merely a "craving"; hence the proper term is "psychic dependence" since the effect is more of a "crutch".

Now, in some cases, this does occur; however, "addiction" has been used to describe "psychic dependence" for so many things (from overeating to sex to the Internet) that it's patently ridiculous. Better to say "obsession" because this is closer to what is happening.

I'm certain there have been a few cases where someone has become obsessed with porn to the exclusion of family. This has also happened, by the way, with TV...with the Internet...with religion (no, I'm not making this up--people in coercive religious groups WILL participate to the exclusion of all else including their family)...with food...with jogging...with dieting...and with literally anything else that makes humans "feel good". Does this mean we ban everything that humans find pleasurable? No.

As a minor aside--there is some evidence that people who do develop "obsessions" like this do have a genetic tendency to do so; it's basically a minor brain-chemical defect, much like a milder version of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Turns out that in a lot of cases, they can be treated with the same drugs used for OCD too (this has been especially useful in overeaters and in folks with anorexia and bulimia). It also turns out that most folks who do develop "obsessions" that could be termed "psychic dependence" can, again, develop "psychic dependence" on literally anything that makes them feel good (to an extent, this is why people tend to gain weight when quitting cigarettes; there is a measure of psychic dependence in cigarette smoking (along with the physical dependence), largely related to the rituals of lighting up, etc. when smoking, and many people tend to overeat to compensate with "crutches")...this is related to very, very primal instincts and emotional triggers in humans relating to comfort. One could literally say that small kids can develop psychic dependence on their "woobies" or other comfort-toys ;)

This is not something that people need nor is the obsessive viewing of it in public at all healthful.

Well, people don't need the Internet or Slashdot, either, and obsessive use of the Internet can certainly be non-healthful and harmful (ask any student who has ever flunked out of a semester in college because of excessive IRCing/MUDding/Everquest/MP3-scarfing/etc.). Doesn't mean we need to ban Slashdot or the Internet, though.

In fact, sometimes porn can actually be helpful to a relationship--such as when a couple gets ideas from a bit of pornography to try in their own bedrooms. Such things have actually saved marriages in past, and an increasing number of marriage counselors will actually suggest to couples who have lost lustre in their love-lives to *gasp!* rent porn movies or read articles in Penthouse (or alt.sex.*) to get ideas.

No, we aren't suggesting Junior be made to watch porn. For starters, he's probably not going to be terribly interested and will go "ooh, ickie"--exactly the same way even most adults will go "ooh, ickie" when they see porn that doesn't match their own particular sexual preference (most straight girls gross out at lesbian porn; same with guys and man-on-man pics; I think most of us not into boinking goats go "ooh, ickie" at http://www.goatse.cx, or those of us not into fisting go "ooh, ickie" at sites featuring fisting...I could go on). It doesn't scar us for life--neither kids nor adults.

I honestly expect most kids who even accidentially hit a porn site (which is unlikely if Mommy or Daddy is actually bothering to parent the little monster instead of using the Internet as an electronic babysitter the same way they used tapes of Barney the Insipid Purple Demon From Hell when the little monster was a tyke of 3 or the same way they use Teletubbies tapes with his sister of 2...and even more unlikely unless the little monster is precocious enough to be searching out warez or cracks, in which case you've got a wee bit more to worry about than little Junior maybe being exposed to nekkid women ;) are going to either be grossed out or very, very confused...in which case (assuming Mommy and Daddy are doing their job, and not using the Internet as an electronic babysitter the same way they use Barney tapes and Teletubbies and the entire collected works of Disney [both pre-Eisner and in the Dark Ages]) Mommy and Daddy explain that this is something not meant for Junior to see, and they distract him and steer him to something a bit more appropriate like YaHooligans or the like.

Just like what Mommy and Daddy do (if they're being good parents) if Junior accidentially picks up Madonna's "Sex" in the library. Or if Junior is riding in the car with Mommy in downtown and passes the Show-world Dance Emporium which features "Topless And Bottomless Men And Women". Or if Junior (Cthulhu forbid) sees two doggies Doing The Nasty in front of Goddess and everyone.

If you're doing your job as a parent, it's not going to permanently warp Junior's mind. If he grows up at age 16 and starts raping cattle despite your best job, you can safely assume he was probably bent to begin with (and if you do your job as a parent and actually parent the kids instead of using electronic babysitters or keeping your face buried in stuff while the kids are being babysat by the entire cast of Donkey Kong and each and every one of the characters in each and every game Squaresoft has ever released, you will probably notice the initial signs that the child is Seriously Bent and you will hopefully get help for that kid before he hurts someone).

Unfortunately, a lot of people are too bloody lazy to parent their kids, and are all too content to let folks with horrible, destructive agendas (like the FRC) parent their kids because they get fed the line "It's for the good of the children" (and these people are too busy with the grownup equivalent of electronic babysitters they don't even bother to research that these people are very, very, very good at lying or covering up their bad parts when they have to). No offense, but those kids would honestly be better off being raised by wolves IMNSHO--at least the kids would learn how to get along in a structured society, and have loving parents that gave a damn for them. (Yeah, they'd have a hell of a time getting along if/when they returned to human society...but half the kids now have a hell of a time, period.) And don't even get me started on those parents who look at their kids not so much as humans but as pawns or tools or (worse yet) all-so-much-more cannon-fodder for the Army of Gawd...if anything, those are as bad if not worse than those who just use TV and the net as a babysitter, because those kids get warped into more Borg just like their folks if they aren't lucky enough to have just enough of a factor that leads them to walk away from it all...

The constitution gives legislative power solely to Congress for good reason.

Other recent examples:

1. Who: Dept. of Health and Human Services
   What: Medical privacy regulations
2. Who: Post Office
   What: Mandatory use of SSN's for PO box holders
3. Who: FDIC
   What: "Know Your Customer" proposal for mandatory bank account activity profiling

The list goes on and on. I am afraid that until we force Congress to assert its sole right to legislate, we will be running around trying to stamp out these fires as they pop up. Inevitably some of this shit is going to slip by. We need to solve the root problem.

Make sure you all write to your congresspeople if you want to make your position known!

It seems that every day our rights are being taken away from us. Our right to privacy, our right to free speech, our rights to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.... You want to keep this from happening, Do something! Below are a myraid of links to the ACLU which will allow you to contact your congressional representitive (via a FREE fax) to speak out against new laws that would restrict our freedoms and eliminate our privacy further.


Secret Evidence - Currently, about two dozen people are being held in American prisons solely on the basis of evidence that neither they or their lawyers have been able to review and dispute. This completely un-American process was authorized in 1996 as part of a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.

Person possibly affected : Linus Torvalds

Senate must stop law enforcement from seizing American's property - Abuses in law enforcement's ability to seize your property have become a nightmare for many Americans. Under a system called "civil asset forfeiture," federal law enforcement officials have the right to seize your home, your car, your business - even when you haven't even been convicted of a crime!

Person possibly affected : YOU - for posting the DeCSS code.

MedicalRecords Privacy - For the first time in history, national medical privacy regulations were proposed on November 3, 1999 by the Clinton Administration. These regulations were proposed after Congress missed its self-imposed deadline to enact legislation that dealt with privacy concerns in an increasingly connected health-care industry. The ACLU believes that these proposed regulations are an important first step in a process that we hope will lead to comprehensive medical privacy protections, but we strongly urge that the regulations be strengthened.

Person possibly affected : YOU - when you apply for your next job. *NOTE = this is a good law to protect our private medical records.

Join the ACLU. Join the EFF. Protect your rights!

- Stuart Horner
/me steps off soapbox.

It seems that every day our rights are being taken away from us. Our right to privacy, our right to free speech, our rights to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.... You want to keep this from happening, Do something! Below are a myraid of links to the ACLU which will allow you to contact your congressional representitive (via a FREE fax) to speak out against new laws that would restrict our freedoms and eliminate our privacy further.


Secret Evidence - Currently, about two dozen people are being held in American prisons solely on the basis of evidence that neither they or their lawyers have been able to review and dispute. This completely un-American process was authorized in 1996 as part of a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.

Person possibly affected : Linus Torvalds

Senate must stop law enforcement from seizing American's property - Abuses in law enforcement's ability to seize your property have become a nightmare for many Americans. Under a system called "civil asset forfeiture," federal law enforcement officials have the right to seize your home, your car, your business - even when you haven't even been convicted of a crime!

Person possibly affected : YOU - for posting the DeCSS code.

MedicalRecords Privacy - For the first time in history, national medical privacy regulations were proposed on November 3, 1999 by the Clinton Administration. These regulations were proposed after Congress missed its self-imposed deadline to enact legislation that dealt with privacy concerns in an increasingly connected health-care industry. The ACLU believes that these proposed regulations are an important first step in a process that we hope will lead to comprehensive medical privacy protections, but we strongly urge that the regulations be strengthened.

Person possibly affected : YOU - when you apply for your next job. *NOTE = this is a good law to protect our private medical records.

Join the ACLU. Join the EFF. Protect your rights!

- Stuart Horner
/me steps off soapbox.

It seems that every day our rights are being taken away from us. Our right to privacy, our right to free speech, our rights to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.... You want to keep this from happening, Do something! Below are a myraid of links to the ACLU which will allow you to contact your congressional representitive (via a FREE fax) to speak out against new laws that would restrict our freedoms and eliminate our privacy further.


Secret Evidence - Currently, about two dozen people are being held in American prisons solely on the basis of evidence that neither they or their lawyers have been able to review and dispute. This completely un-American process was authorized in 1996 as part of a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.

Person possibly affected : Linus Torvalds

Senate must stop law enforcement from seizing American's property - Abuses in law enforcement's ability to seize your property have become a nightmare for many Americans. Under a system called "civil asset forfeiture," federal law enforcement officials have the right to seize your home, your car, your business - even when you haven't even been convicted of a crime!

Person possibly affected : YOU - for posting the DeCSS code.

MedicalRecords Privacy - For the first time in history, national medical privacy regulations were proposed on November 3, 1999 by the Clinton Administration. These regulations were proposed after Congress missed its self-imposed deadline to enact legislation that dealt with privacy concerns in an increasingly connected health-care industry. The ACLU believes that these proposed regulations are an important first step in a process that we hope will lead to comprehensive medical privacy protections, but we strongly urge that the regulations be strengthened.

Person possibly affected : YOU - when you apply for your next job. *NOTE = this is a good law to protect our private medical records.

Join the ACLU. Join the EFF. Protect your rights!

- Stuart Horner
/me steps off soapbox.

It seems that every day our rights are being taken away from us. Our right to privacy, our right to free speech, our rights to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.... You want to keep this from happening, Do something! Below are a myraid of links to the ACLU which will allow you to contact your congressional representitive (via a FREE fax) to speak out against new laws that would restrict our freedoms and eliminate our privacy further.


Secret Evidence - Currently, about two dozen people are being held in American prisons solely on the basis of evidence that neither they or their lawyers have been able to review and dispute. This completely un-American process was authorized in 1996 as part of a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.

Person possibly affected : Linus Torvalds

Senate must stop law enforcement from seizing American's property - Abuses in law enforcement's ability to seize your property have become a nightmare for many Americans. Under a system called "civil asset forfeiture," federal law enforcement officials have the right to seize your home, your car, your business - even when you haven't even been convicted of a crime!

Person possibly affected : YOU - for posting the DeCSS code.

MedicalRecords Privacy - For the first time in history, national medical privacy regulations were proposed on November 3, 1999 by the Clinton Administration. These regulations were proposed after Congress missed its self-imposed deadline to enact legislation that dealt with privacy concerns in an increasingly connected health-care industry. The ACLU believes that these proposed regulations are an important first step in a process that we hope will lead to comprehensive medical privacy protections, but we strongly urge that the regulations be strengthened.

Person possibly affected : YOU - when you apply for your next job. *NOTE = this is a good law to protect our private medical records.

Join the ACLU. Join the EFF. Protect your rights!

- Stuart Horner
/me steps off soapbox.

Perhaps an issue which few have addressed is that far too many people simply give away their right to privacy. Example: Many states use your social security number as your drivers license number. Also, many people put their SS# on their checks. (Stupid, stupid, stupid.)

The ACLU has started to get proactive on the privacy issue. Consider that the ACLU has been entrenched and accepted (or, at the very least, acknowledge) in American socio-politcal much longer than the EFF. It is a valid authority to which one can plea. Check the Link.

Perhaps an issue which few have addressed is that far too many people simply give away their right to privacy. Example: Many states use your social security number as your drivers license number. Also, many people put their SS# on their checks. (Stupid, stupid, stupid.)

The ACLU has started to get proactive on the privacy issue. Consider that the ACLU has been entrenched and accepted (or, at the very least, acknowledge) in American socio-politcal much longer than the EFF. It is a valid authority to which one can plea. Check the Link.

Regarding the letter to the Family Research Council--I honestly wish you the best of luck there.

I also think you will probably have better luck having an in-depth conversation on the merits of Red Hat versus Slackware with the walls of your home than convince the Family Research Council of the fact the software is flawed and even blocks partisan material.

This is largely because the Family Research Council would consider this a feature and not a bug. :P

For those who aren't aware--the Family Research Council is, essentially, the lobbying arm of a group called Focus on the Family. FoF is probably the largest Religious Reich organisation in the US now (yes, even bigger than the Christian Coalition) and basically split off Family Research Council some years back in order to preserve their tax-exempt status. (As an aside, often state FoF branches will operate under different names to hide their affiliation with FoF.)

To be perfectly blunt, FoF and its affiliates have an agenda--to basically get as many raving fundamentalists in office as possible and to get the fundamentalist vote out, in hopes of getting enough people in office to essentially turn the United States into a fundamentalist theocracy. If you want to get a good idea about the "face" politics they support, just look at the political platform of (recently dropped out) presidential candidate Gary Bauer--this is the guy who founded Family Research Council when it was split off of FoF.

To these folks, pushing censorware is just another way of them "saving" us--whether or not we particularly want to be "saved" or not--and making the US into a "nice Christian nation again". (Many of these folks, by the way, also subscribe to "Christian Reconstructionism"--that is, the canard that the Founding Fathers actually meant the US to be a theocracy.) This is also why they tend to run "stealth" candidates (candidates who do not reveal their links to Religious Reich groups until elected) specifically to things like school boards--they want to get them young so they can indoctrinate them young, because they know that if they're gotten young they likely won't walk away. (This is also why they push homeschooling a lot, by the way, as well as vouchers for private schools--it's been the actual stated goal of many Religious Reich groups to get the school system totally dismantled so that kids are forced to go to sectarian schools.)

FoF's president, Bob Dobson, also makes a rather lucrative career selling books on "disciplining your kids"--usually involving a mix of censorship, forcing God down their throats, and liberal amounts of spanking the kids (part of the reason corporal punishment is NOT illegal in the US--or, for that matter, why the US is the only nation besides Somalia which has still not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child--is because fundamentalist groups like FRC lobby heavily against such laws, claiming that it'll take away their right to "spare the rod and spoil the child" or to "raise their kids as they see fit". In some cases where it has crossed the line into child abuse, some fundies have even argued in court that the state prohibiting them from beating the living hell out of their kids is a violation of their First Amendment rights to religion and that beating the hell out of their kids is actually a duty of their religion).

I happen to be a walkaway from what may be described as a "bible-based cult", and I can say that a fair percentage of the harder-core membership of many (if not most) Religious Reich groups in the US happen to be from churches that use coercive tactics on their membership. In other words, the ones who are doing the lobbying are more than likely brainwashed, they have probably already mentally defined anyone who isn't on their side and who dares to tell them about "flaws" in the software is directly in league with Satan (most Religious Reich groups, and most bible-based cults, DO have a very "us-versus-them" attitude--many Bible-based cults even go to the point of "deliverance ministry" (even your doubts are caused by demons, and the only cure is to "pray them out" or get an exorcism...rather like some of the nastier mind-control techniques in Scientology, actually)...). It is going to take a considerably larger clue-by-four than that to make them change their minds.

The FRC has a rather long record of lobbying not just for censorship, but for the entire Religious Reich platform. On occasion, this has even gone to slandering folks who speak against them...don't be surprised if you find possibly much of the town turned against you (I've read in previous reports that the town in general is quite conservative and beholden to the Religious Reich).

Some links so that the curious may learn more (and educate themselves thereby):

Religious Reich Database F section--also info on FoF

Extended coverage of FRC from above site

ACLU's open letter to FRC

People for the American Way speaks out against FRC campaign against hate-crimes laws that would protect gay/les/bi/trans folks

PFAW's "Who's Who on the Religious Right"--FRC section

here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and even here very recently, you can see what the FRC and the rest of the Religious Reich have to say to their own members

QRD's info on FRC--this also has a lot of quotes of the FRC in their own words to their supporters

Info on the FRC from the Matthew Shephard website--more FRC "in their own words" and at their worst

EFF's "Know Your Enemies--includes info on FRC

Walk Away--a good resource not only for those walking away from "bible-based cults" but also gives you a glimpse of the mindset these groups have--important in debating them. (The head of Institute for First Amendment Studies is himself a walkaway from a bible-based cult.)

And since I don't want to just talk about them without providing some way to fight the Religious Reich (otherwise I wouldn't have posted the damn warning about the FRC's agenda ;):

Arguing Against Faith--basically, how to debate fundies

A whole big mess of resources on how to fight the Religious Reich

Another mess of good links

and still another mess of good links

Skipp Porteous (walkaway and head of IFAS) writes on how to win against the Religious Reich

A really good expose of the Religious Reich, including info on the "code words" they use with their members

Defending Yourself Against The Religious Right

11 Things You Can Do To Fight The Religious Right--this is good for regular folks too. (As an aside--Domino's is no longer owned by fundies, but Coors Brewery is)

Major groups fighting the right wing:

EFF (as if you didn't need any more reasons to send that donation in ;)--they fight censorware initiatives)

Peacefire--the source for info on censorware, including how most censorware has just a wee bit of a fundamentalist agenda

Institute for First Amendment Studies--highly recommended. Includes info on the Coalition for National Policy (basically the "think-tank" of the Religious Reich) including membership lists. Head of group is walkaway from a fundamentalist "Bible-based cult".

People for the American Way. Highly recommended is their "Right Wing Watch Online" section.

ACLU

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

The Interfaith Alliance--progressive religious groups united for tolerance

Rock Out Censorship--naturally concentrates on music censorship, but has really good info on other school-related issues, including filtering. (I'm a wee bit biased on this one, much as I am with IFAS--I have done volunteer work for ROC before. They're a damned good group, though.)

In any case, I wish y'all the best of luck in fighting them...I'm not sure you realised just what the hell you were getting into, but if there's anything we can do to help here on Slashdot, let us know.

Regarding the letter to the Family Research Council--I honestly wish you the best of luck there.

I also think you will probably have better luck having an in-depth conversation on the merits of Red Hat versus Slackware with the walls of your home than convince the Family Research Council of the fact the software is flawed and even blocks partisan material.

This is largely because the Family Research Council would consider this a feature and not a bug. :P

For those who aren't aware--the Family Research Council is, essentially, the lobbying arm of a group called Focus on the Family. FoF is probably the largest Religious Reich organisation in the US now (yes, even bigger than the Christian Coalition) and basically split off Family Research Council some years back in order to preserve their tax-exempt status. (As an aside, often state FoF branches will operate under different names to hide their affiliation with FoF.)

To be perfectly blunt, FoF and its affiliates have an agenda--to basically get as many raving fundamentalists in office as possible and to get the fundamentalist vote out, in hopes of getting enough people in office to essentially turn the United States into a fundamentalist theocracy. If you want to get a good idea about the "face" politics they support, just look at the political platform of (recently dropped out) presidential candidate Gary Bauer--this is the guy who founded Family Research Council when it was split off of FoF.

To these folks, pushing censorware is just another way of them "saving" us--whether or not we particularly want to be "saved" or not--and making the US into a "nice Christian nation again". (Many of these folks, by the way, also subscribe to "Christian Reconstructionism"--that is, the canard that the Founding Fathers actually meant the US to be a theocracy.) This is also why they tend to run "stealth" candidates (candidates who do not reveal their links to Religious Reich groups until elected) specifically to things like school boards--they want to get them young so they can indoctrinate them young, because they know that if they're gotten young they likely won't walk away. (This is also why they push homeschooling a lot, by the way, as well as vouchers for private schools--it's been the actual stated goal of many Religious Reich groups to get the school system totally dismantled so that kids are forced to go to sectarian schools.)

FoF's president, Bob Dobson, also makes a rather lucrative career selling books on "disciplining your kids"--usually involving a mix of censorship, forcing God down their throats, and liberal amounts of spanking the kids (part of the reason corporal punishment is NOT illegal in the US--or, for that matter, why the US is the only nation besides Somalia which has still not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child--is because fundamentalist groups like FRC lobby heavily against such laws, claiming that it'll take away their right to "spare the rod and spoil the child" or to "raise their kids as they see fit". In some cases where it has crossed the line into child abuse, some fundies have even argued in court that the state prohibiting them from beating the living hell out of their kids is a violation of their First Amendment rights to religion and that beating the hell out of their kids is actually a duty of their religion).

I happen to be a walkaway from what may be described as a "bible-based cult", and I can say that a fair percentage of the harder-core membership of many (if not most) Religious Reich groups in the US happen to be from churches that use coercive tactics on their membership. In other words, the ones who are doing the lobbying are more than likely brainwashed, they have probably already mentally defined anyone who isn't on their side and who dares to tell them about "flaws" in the software is directly in league with Satan (most Religious Reich groups, and most bible-based cults, DO have a very "us-versus-them" attitude--many Bible-based cults even go to the point of "deliverance ministry" (even your doubts are caused by demons, and the only cure is to "pray them out" or get an exorcism...rather like some of the nastier mind-control techniques in Scientology, actually)...). It is going to take a considerably larger clue-by-four than that to make them change their minds.

The FRC has a rather long record of lobbying not just for censorship, but for the entire Religious Reich platform. On occasion, this has even gone to slandering folks who speak against them...don't be surprised if you find possibly much of the town turned against you (I've read in previous reports that the town in general is quite conservative and beholden to the Religious Reich).

Some links so that the curious may learn more (and educate themselves thereby):

Religious Reich Database F section--also info on FoF

Extended coverage of FRC from above site

ACLU's open letter to FRC

People for the American Way speaks out against FRC campaign against hate-crimes laws that would protect gay/les/bi/trans folks

PFAW's "Who's Who on the Religious Right"--FRC section

here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and even here very recently, you can see what the FRC and the rest of the Religious Reich have to say to their own members

QRD's info on FRC--this also has a lot of quotes of the FRC in their own words to their supporters

Info on the FRC from the Matthew Shephard website--more FRC "in their own words" and at their worst

EFF's "Know Your Enemies--includes info on FRC

Walk Away--a good resource not only for those walking away from "bible-based cults" but also gives you a glimpse of the mindset these groups have--important in debating them. (The head of Institute for First Amendment Studies is himself a walkaway from a bible-based cult.)

And since I don't want to just talk about them without providing some way to fight the Religious Reich (otherwise I wouldn't have posted the damn warning about the FRC's agenda ;):

Arguing Against Faith--basically, how to debate fundies

A whole big mess of resources on how to fight the Religious Reich

Another mess of good links

and still another mess of good links

Skipp Porteous (walkaway and head of IFAS) writes on how to win against the Religious Reich

A really good expose of the Religious Reich, including info on the "code words" they use with their members

Defending Yourself Against The Religious Right

11 Things You Can Do To Fight The Religious Right--this is good for regular folks too. (As an aside--Domino's is no longer owned by fundies, but Coors Brewery is)

Major groups fighting the right wing:

EFF (as if you didn't need any more reasons to send that donation in ;)--they fight censorware initiatives)

Peacefire--the source for info on censorware, including how most censorware has just a wee bit of a fundamentalist agenda

Institute for First Amendment Studies--highly recommended. Includes info on the Coalition for National Policy (basically the "think-tank" of the Religious Reich) including membership lists. Head of group is walkaway from a fundamentalist "Bible-based cult".

People for the American Way. Highly recommended is their "Right Wing Watch Online" section.

ACLU

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

The Interfaith Alliance--progressive religious groups united for tolerance

Rock Out Censorship--naturally concentrates on music censorship, but has really good info on other school-related issues, including filtering. (I'm a wee bit biased on this one, much as I am with IFAS--I have done volunteer work for ROC before. They're a damned good group, though.)

In any case, I wish y'all the best of luck in fighting them...I'm not sure you realised just what the hell you were getting into, but if there's anything we can do to help here on Slashdot, let us know.

Obviously, this is similar to the NSA-based Echelon. Although, echelon does monitor all technology based communication, while the russian system doesn''t. The major problem, though, with the Russian system, of goverment-mandated black boxes that monitor all internet traffic, is that people can possibly tamper with them. On the other hand, since the "No Such Agency"'s Echelon system uses the concept of security by obscurity, and since no one know's truly anything about it, besides what it does, there is almost no chance that it could be broken into.

The funniest part of Echelon, is that, there might not even be an Echelon.

> ...defends all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not just
> the popular ones (ACLU, I'm looking at you).

Look, the ACLU does its job and it does it damn well. And it has done it for more than eighty years in the face of fierce opposition from all sides - not only from the oligarchs and thought police whose entire business consists of forcing you to shut the fuck up, which makes sense as the ACLU is directly opposed to their interests, but also opposition from misguided types like yourself, who fail to realize that the number one reason they can complain about the government so freely and openly is spelled "A-C-L-U".

So God damn what if the ACLU focuses on the First Amendment to the exclusion of supporting your gun hobby? They're plenty busy defending the First Amendment, without which you God damn gun nuts wouldn't even get a chance to publicly protest. Keep in mind that you're not going up against a pack of perfumed postmodernists here; you're taking on the U.S. government! Go read about A. Mitchell Palmer, circa 1918, sometime. Go read about Martin Dies and Joseph McCarthy. In case you forgot, the first principle of all governments throughout history is, "Stamp on your critics." I get so God damned tired of people putting the ACLU down because it doesn't do the NRA's job for them. That's bullshit; you want the ACLU lawyers to come over to your house and wash your car while they're at it?

Instead of knocking the ACLU, why don't you go join the ACLU instead? They really need your money, and if you want to continue to have the freedom to shoot your mouth off the way you (and I) seem to enjoy doing right here and now, you want to give them some money too. Also go sign up with the EFF too while you've got your credit card out.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

ps the first poster is wrong, you know; all the gun nuts I happen to know are libertarians, not theocrats. Or at least the bloodthirsty theocrat-terrorists, would-be Talibani, amongst my acquaintances keep quiet about their nefarious plots in my presence.

I haven't heard anything from the ACLU about this case. A cursory search of their website turns up nothing. It seems to me that this is exactly the type of issue that they frequently deal with. Their resources are MUCH larger than the EFF's, and they have a lot more political clout.

Does anyone know if the ACLU has a position on this matter? If not, how do we alert them to the tangible threats to civil liberties inherent in this ruling and all it foreshadows?

I can't say more. Join some people who are fighting this sort of thing.

• Students for Sensible Drug Policy
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Drug Reform Coordination Network

There are many more. You can always get in touch with Columbia University NORML for more information. That is my current vehicle for my activist tendencies. We are also in the process of changing into an SSDP chapter.

Stay strong.

This Goner posting this by the way... I thought I knew my password...

The above should be moderated up because, contrary to what many United States citizens believe, it is true.

Here are some examples from the aclu:

Unconstitutional Vehicle Seizure Ordinance

Mayor's Authority to Seize Property

and

A License to Steal !!

Imagine that the police have the right to seize your property -- your home, your car, your business, your cash -- and you haven't even been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime.

Then stop imagining, because such conduct by the police is perfectly legal under the law of civil asset forfeiture.

The above should be moderated up because, contrary to what many United States citizens believe, it is true.

Here are some examples from the aclu:

Unconstitutional Vehicle Seizure Ordinance

Mayor's Authority to Seize Property

and

A License to Steal !!

Imagine that the police have the right to seize your property -- your home, your car, your business, your cash -- and you haven't even been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime.

Then stop imagining, because such conduct by the police is perfectly legal under the law of civil asset forfeiture.

The above should be moderated up because, contrary to what many United States citizens believe, it is true.

Here are some examples from the aclu:

Unconstitutional Vehicle Seizure Ordinance

Mayor's Authority to Seize Property

and

A License to Steal !!

Imagine that the police have the right to seize your property -- your home, your car, your business, your cash -- and you haven't even been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime.

Then stop imagining, because such conduct by the police is perfectly legal under the law of civil asset forfeiture.