From declanm@netcom.com Sat Aug 5 22:17:30 1995 Return-Path: Received: from andrew.cmu.edu by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id VAA29571; Sat, 5 Aug 1995 21:54:26 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10066; Sun, 6 Aug 1995 00:55:34 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 6 Aug 1995 00:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 6 Aug 1995 00:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14543 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 1995 00:54:05 -0400 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id VAA25472; Sat, 5 Aug 1995 21:50:32 -0700 Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 21:50:32 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Subject: Rimm: Enraged at Exon! To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: For a good time, finger mr6e@andrew and analyst@andrew. -Declan --- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 15:37:04 -0500 (EST) From: "CIT Dean's Office" To: sethf@MIT.EDU Subject: help Cc: I would like to solicit your assistance for the wording of an important paragraph in the introduction to my study. I need to be objective and maintain neutrality. However, I need to make it clear from the beginning what my study does _not_ tell us, and I also would like to subtley hint at my objection to using this data to censor net traffic. I am enraged beyond description at Senator Exon's "Decency" Bill, and I am concerned he will waive my study around congress as "evidence." Here is a draft of the gist of it: "This study does not address the effects of such imagery on consumers. No data was available which offered insight as to _why_ consumers download such imagery, e.g. for erotic purposes or out of curiosity, or what consumers do with them after download. Thus, this study, taken by itself, may not provide sufficient information concerning legislation of potentially obscene materials." I don't like the above but it's just a start. I'd really appreciate your taking a crack at making some important points about what a study of consumption habits _cannot_ tell us. I am asking you because you have thought about pornography a great deal and you obsviously understand computer networks and statistics. Please keep our correspondence in confidence. Martin Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:05:42 -0500 (EST) From: "CIT Dean's Office" To: sethf@MIT.EDU Subject: hey Cc: I got an offer to study TPP at MIT and have a straight question for you: take the scenario whereby despite our objections the study has an impact in curtailing the prevelance of hard-core pornography in a manner that is antithetical to civil liberties. In other words, I am the messenger, and the wrong people interpret my message in the work way. Is it not inevitable that a lot of people will be pissed off at me and blame me for regulations x,y, and z? Do you think I would be welcome or hated at MIT? I enjoyed corresponding with you and if I make it to Cambridge I'd like to pursue some conversations about this. There is a lot of data that never made it to print, for fascinating reasons. By the way, a major weekly news magazine offered a cover story in exchange for an exclusive. I'm not Jerry Falwell, but you might have to pucker up or duck if we are to be friends. Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 11:10:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "CIT Dean's Office" To: sethf@MIT.EDU Subject: riddle me this... Cc: All right, Seth, you're me: you spend thousands of hours gathering and sorting raw data. You count the number of files, the number fo downloads. You develop a linguistic parser to classify the pictures with good accuracy, reliability and validity. You don't do anything fancy with statistics, you just add up the numbers and report them in your study. Let's take it one step further: you like to write. You think academics write boring prose. You despise most academic journals. So you write in a popular style, with energy and verve. Some people think your style is fascinating, others think it is alarming. Like Jerry Falwell and Andrea Dworkin. Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 19:03:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "CIT Dean's Office" To: sethf@MIT.EDU Subject: busy? Cc: Are you just swamped? I haven't heard from you. Martin Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:37:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "CIT Dean's Office" To: sethf@MIT.EDU (Seth Finkelstein) Subject: Re: EFF Analysis of Communications Decency Act as Passed by Senate Cc: In-Reply-To: <3sigm2$iv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <3s8vfm$r9i@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <3sigm2$iv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Distribution: inet We made the cover of TIME to hit the stands Monday. If you have a chance, you can watch me on Nightline Monday evening.