From declanm@netcom.com Thu Sep 21 16:18:48 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id QAA23624; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 16:16:59 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19988; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:19:26 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:19:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pcs28.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:17:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pcs28.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mms.4.40.Nov..4.1993.10.34.00.sun4c.411.MacMail.0.9.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.pcs28.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c.411 via MS.5.6.pcs28.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:17:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Fight Censorship Mailing List Subject: December 1994 letters from Marty and GLJ Cc: Jonathan.Hardwick@cs.cmu.edu, Paul.W.Placeway@cs.cmu.edu Status: RO X-Status: Carlin Meyer is one of the three reviewers whose comments appeared in the GLJ along with Marty's paper. Last December, Marty sent her a letter asking her to say something nice about the study since he has a feeling it will be attacked as anti-porn. (!) In an unlikely fit of humility, he adds: "I hope you will agree, given that I have asked that the study be referred to as the Carnegie Mellon study, that I am not trying to vainly throw my name about in the popular press." Mike Godwin also located a letter to Meyer from the GLJ, which is attached below. Note the "billboard operators" reference and the planned May 1995 publication date. Was Marty's article delayed to coincide with Grassley's legislation and judiciary committee hearings? -Declan --- December 5, 1994 Professor Carlin Meyer New York Law School 57 Worth Street New York, NY 10013 Dear Professor Meyer: I am writing on behalf of The Georgetown Law Journal to let you know about an important study we are publishing and to invite you to write a response to the study. The study, conducted by Martin Rimm at Carnegie Mellon University, is entitled _Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway_. Mr. Rimm and his research associates have performed a computer study of over 900,000 pornographic images on the Internet online computer system. The study reveals the consumer demand for different categories of pornographic material. The findings are likely to be quite surprising to most readers; for example, a large percentage of the images involve either pedophilia or paraphilia. Additionally, the study discusses the marketing techniques of Robert and Carleen Thomas (see enclosed articles) and other billboard operators. Mr. Rimm will be issuing a press release on the study later this week, and it will first become available in printed form when we publish it in may of 1995 in Volume 83, Issue 5 of The Georgetown Law Journal . Time magazine recently published an article discussing the potential importance of the study; the author could not make many conclusiong, however, as he has not seen the study (see enclosed Time article). This study raises a host of fascinating legal issues, ranging from the likely disintegration of the "community standards" obscenity test due to the onset of internet pornography, censorship and privacy concerns, and Fourth Amendment issues raised by investigatinq Internet activity. We will publish 2 to 4 comments along with the study in order to examine the important and controversial issues the study brings to the forefront. We are familiar with your article, _Sex, Sin, and Women's Liberation: Against Porn-Suppression_, published earlier this year in The Texas Law Review, and believe you would be an ideal scholar to offer commentary on Mr. Rimm's study. Professor Mark Tushnet and Nan Hunter have also both recommended you highly. Because the study is extremely sensitive, I cannot send it to you at this time. However, if you agree to write a comment for us, either I or Mr. Rimm will send you a copy. We are looking for a comment of roughly 25-35.double-spaced pages. Because we are publishing the study in May, we would need your comment by Monday, February 20, 1995. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to let me know if you are interested. I look forward to discussing with you the possibilities of a comment. You can reach me during the day at the Law Journal office (202)662-9240 and in the evening at home (703)521-1560. Sincerely, Meredith Kolsky Senior Articles Editor ### From declanm@netcom.com Thu Sep 21 19:51:51 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id TAA19968; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:29:22 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24261; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:31:29 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:31:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from well.com (well.com [198.93.4.10]) by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02305 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:29:48 -0400 Received: (from mnemonic@localhost) by well.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA22026; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:29:44 -0700 From: Mike Godwin Message-Id: <199509220229.TAA22026@well.com> Subject: Re: December 1994 letters from Marty and GLJ To: declan+@CMU.EDU (Declan B. McCullagh) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Cc: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu, Jonathan.Hardwick@cs.cmu.edu, Paul.W.Placeway@cs.cmu.edu, mnemonic@well.com (Mike Godwin) In-Reply-To: from "Declan B. McCullagh" at Sep 21, 95 07:17:24 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 483 Status: RO X-Status: Declan writes: > Carlin Meyer is one of the three reviewers whose comments appeared in > the GLJ along with Marty's paper. Last December, Marty sent her a letter > asking her to say something nice about the study since he has a feeling > it will be attacked as anti-porn. (!) No, it was on April 19, 1995, at 9:54 am, that Marty faxed the letter to Meyer. He faxed it from "CIT DEAN'S OFF.", whose phone number is 412-268-6421. Please circulate this correction. --Mike