From declanm@netcom.com Wed Sep 6 09:37:07 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id HAA22763; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:14:43 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03491; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:54:48 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom3.netcom.com (netcom3.netcom.com [192.100.81.103]) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07708 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:52:44 -0400 Received: by netcom3.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id GAA10395; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 06:49:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 06:49:53 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Subject: GLJ Editor Responds to Conspiracy Theories To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Phil, Can you respond to Ruemmler's V and VI "facts?" Although I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, I'm a bit suspicious: * Ruemmler wasn't the GLJ editor last year, so may not have been privy to the decisions. * [I] In November, Marty was shopping around for journals in which to publish his study. (In an post to a CMU bboard, he asked for help on finding journals, citing his desire for a multidisciplinary one.) I can't see him waiting to be contacted by the GLJ. * [II] If only three professors were allowed access, that's hardly wide- scale distribution. Sure, everyone knew about Rimm's study from the November TIME article -- AND multiple AP articles, two articles in the Washington Post, and so on, but that doesn't mean they knew details. Mike had an abstract that I forwarded him that Marty sent to me, but that's not the same as having the full text of the paper. * [III] Sure, maybe Kaplan didn't have the power to decide to run the study. But a word in the ears of the right people... * [IV] Not Exon, *Grassley*. -Declan --- >From kruemmler@aol.com Wed Sep 6 06:31:12 PDT 1995 Article: 110 of alt.current-events.rimm-study Xref: netcom.com alt.current-events.rimm-study:110 Path: netcom.com!noc.netcom.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: kruemmler@aol.com (KRuemmler) Newsgroups: alt.current-events.rimm-study Subject: Dispelled rumors Date: 6 Sep 1995 03:38:05 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 58 Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com Message-ID: <42jj4t$o3t@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Reply-To: kruemmler@aol.com (KRuemmler) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com Many rumors about Marty Rimm's study and the related "conspiracy" to ruin the net should be dispelled: I. RUMOR: Marty Rimm deliberately published the study in The Georgetown Law Journal (not the Georgetown Law Review) in order to subvert the rigors of peer review. FACT: The Georgetown Law Journal asked Rimm if he would be interested in submitting the study for possible publication after learning of it through a TIME magazine article published in November of 1994. The Law Journal was only interested in publishing the study with accompanying legal commentary. Rimm agreed. II. RUMOR: The study was embargoed and the Law Journal refused to allow anyone access to it. FACT: The three law professors who wrote legal responses to the study each had a copy. Additionally, many people including folks at EFF knew of its existence, and that it would be published in the Law Journal, but never asked to see it. III. RUMOR: The Rimm study was placed by a Journal editor who is an antipornography advocate. FACT: One member of the Law Journal does work with an antipornography coalition. He had absolutely no decisionmaking authority with regard to the publication of the study or any other articles published by the Journal. The Journal consists of approximately 100 members. Many of those members have worked for or belong to the ACLU, have worked or work for the U.S. Justice Department, have worked in law firms that defend pornographers, have worked for Senators and Congressmen and the White House, etc. In short, no one person decides what the Journal will publish, and the people who do decide bring with them a variety of different perspectives and experiences. IV. RUMOR: Senator Exon used the study as persuasive rhetoric to pass his bill in the Senate. Further, the study was purposely published at a time that would enable it to have the most political splash and influence. FACT: The Senate voted on Exon's bill weeks before the study was published and TIME did its story. The study was accepted for publication in late 1994. It was slated for the June issue. The fact that the study was so "timely" was merely fortuitous. V. RUMOR: TIME was restricted from having the study independently reviewed by an agreement with Law Journal. FACT: The Law Journal had no such agreement with TIME. Isn't TIME the one who referred to it as an exclusive? VI. RUMOR: In a Boston Globe article Elmer-DeWitt claimed that the Law Journal denied him from seeing the entire study before the TIME cover story went to press. FACT: Elmer-Dewitt had two copies of the study (in its entirety) before the cover ran (one prior to pagination and one after pagination). Further, even if that were true, would any self-respecting journalist admit to writing a cover story on a study that he had never even seen in its entirety? I hope that this clears up at least some of the confusion. K. H. Ruemmler