From declanm@netcom.com Sun Jul 30 21:45:12 1995 Return-Path: Received: from andrew.cmu.edu by mail3.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id VAA27717; Sun, 30 Jul 1995 21:41:34 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08114; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:42:48 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:40:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom11.netcom.com (netcom11.netcom.com [192.100.81.121]) by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14015 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:40:33 -0400 Received: by netcom11.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id VAA20868; Sun, 30 Jul 1995 21:38:43 -0700 Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 21:38:42 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Sender: D B McCullagh Reply-To: D B McCullagh Subject: Trib Letters and Rimm's Next Book To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: I've appended a post from alt.internet.media-coverage by Dean Benjamin, which reproduces, with painstaking accuracy, the letters to the editor printed in yesterday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. (The Trib editor told me last week he was tickled to get a letter from the Netherlands.) Unapologetically stolen from the WELL: Steven Levy posted that tomorrow's Newsweek reveals Rimm's working with the Elaine Markson Literary Agency in NYC. Seems as though there's a book deal in the works. (Followups say that Mr. Rectum Rocket had better hire a ghostwriter. But I'm not so sure. I kinda liked his palaverous prose.) Rompishly yours, Declan PS: Steven, now that you're on the mailing list, perhaps you can elaborate on this? --- From: drb@COCORICO.SPEECH.CS.CMU.EDU (Dean Benjamin) Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: Your letters published in the Pgh Tribune-Review Date: 30 Jul 1995 20:14:34 GMT Organization: Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA USA Hey, folks! Your letters to the editor got Center Stage coverage on the opinion page in Saturday's issue of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The a.i.m-c regulars might recall that I posted their front-page article of a week ago, headlined "CMU's Rimm Won't Testify at Senate". Yesterday, three emailed LTTEs were printed, as appended below. But not *just* printed. The T-R save up its LTTEs over the week, for batch publication on weekends, mainly in the Saturday issue. About 25% of the Letters page, in a feature called the "Center Stage", is devoted a topic of the week. These letters are graphically set apart from the others, with a political cartoon or other graphic at the top and a bold headline to introduce the topic. The casual reader, skimming the page, cannot miss the Center Stage. The graphic at the top, attributed to the LA Times Syndicate, portrays an adolescent boy staring intently into the screen of his PC, drawn in the shape of an open mouth with tongue protruding evocatively. Behind the PC, facing away from the boy, sits an adult male, presumably the boy's father, in an easy chair reading a newspaper. Implicit message: Beware what the kid's doing behind your back while you are read the old media! I was emailed advance copy for two of the three letters published. In the transcripts below, [bracketed text] in the originals were edited out of the printed text. {Curly braces} indicate T-R editorial insertions. My own comments look <>. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Sat 29-Jul-95, p.A6 (Letters to the Editor) ============================ CENTER STAGE ============================ <> <> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERNET PORNO STUDY IS REVIEWED Public Outcry Precedes CMU's Belated Investigation <> The Tribune-Review [reports today] {reported recently} that the provost of Carnegie Mellon University has launched a review of what is now nationally known as "the CMU Study" of pornography on the internet. (Because Carnegie Mellon has taken no steps to disavow its sponsorship of this study, I will continue to refer to it as "the CMU study".) As a CMU student and computer science researcher, I'm grateful that public attention is turning to the problems with this study. However, there is an important detail that your article did not mention. The [provost, Paul Christiano,] {administration} was aware of the CMU study long before it was published. Last November, [Christiano used] the [CMU] study {was apparently used} [to justify] {as justification for} banning public computer bulletin boards{,} which [he found] {some consider} distasteful{,} from CMU computers. {New graf} [He stood behind the study] {T}hroughout the months leading up to [its] publication {of the study}, [during which] other researchers were prevented from having access to it. When the study finally became public, there was a reaction from CMU faculty and students who may have been used as human subjects without their consent, in violation of university, professional, and federal government guidelines. Only when this reaction grew into an outcry did [Christiano] {the investigation} begin [an investigation]. We all have an interest in preventing a recurrence of quack science being used to justify censorship. Therefore it's critical that the role of the CMU administration in the CMU study be carefully examined. Erik Altmann <> {Pittsburgh} {Editors note: The writer is a graduate student in CMU's School of Computer Science.} Statistics on Pornographic Images are Deceptive In [your] {Lillie Wilson's Saturday, July 22,} article "CMU's Rimm won't testify at Senate" -- of which I learned {about} through Usenet -- [you] {she} write{s}: "The Rimm study -- which did not undergo peer review -- claimed, among other charges, that `83.5[%] {percent} of all images posted on Usenet are pornographic.'" >From this quote it appears that [you] {Ms. Wilson} [have]{has}n't read the so{-}called study. [If you say] {The claim} that Rimm's [article says] {study held} that "83.5[%] {percent} of all images posted on Usenet are pornographic" {must be read in the context of the full report}[, you are just repeating what is now on Usenet known as "the Big Lie". This is deplorable because every time this untrue statement is repeated it helps to engrave it in the public's mind, whatever may be said to the contrary]. You see, what Rimm did say was: [B. Results] [1. Intensity of Activity With Respect to Pornographic Imagery] "Seventeen of the 32 alt.binaries newsgroups located on the Usenet contained pornographic imagery. Among the pornographic newsgroups, 4,206 image posts were counted, or 83.5[%] {percent} of the total posts." So 83.5[%] {percent} of the pictures in the 32 of the 14,000 newsgroups on Usenet have something to do with pornography. Rimm goes on to say: "The best data concerning network pornography consumption comes from the Usenet, which itself constitutes only 11.5[%] {percent} of Internet traffic. Of this 11.5[%] {percent} approximately 3[%] {percent} by message count is associated with Usenet newsgroups containing pornographic material." To carry these figures to their logical conclusion: 3% of 11.5%=0.5% of material on Internet traffic has something to do with pornography, according to the Rimm study. The 83.5[%] {percent} has begun to live its own life thanks to the exag{g}erated Time article and the noise [Mr] {Sen. Charles} Grassley{, R-Iowa, has} made about it. Ted Friethoff <> Holland [(Where we do read Time too and are intensive Internet users.)] Taking Issue with `Computer Science' Identification <> The text of your front-page article on the Rimm study was forwarded to a CMU bulletin board in the CS department. I find it necessary to make a correction, with respect to this misguided observation: "Rimm, a computer science researcher who wrote the controversial study last year as a CMU undergraduate, recently hired a lawyer, Hale said." Martin Rimm is not from the computer science department. His affiliation is with Electrical and Computer Engineering (yes, there is a difference). As for whether am undergrad, doing non-peer-reviewed work which his own adviser may well not have examined in detail, can be described as a "researcher" in the first place...the court of public opinion seems to have voted firmly against such an attribution. Karl Kleinpaste <> Editor's note: The writer is a senior research programmer in CMU's Computer Science Department.