From declanm@netcom.com Wed Sep 6 13:46:35 1995 Return-Path: Received: from well.com by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id MAA13687; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:39:20 -0700 Received: (from mnemonic@localhost) by well.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24572; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:42:05 -0700 From: Mike Godwin Message-Id: <199509061942.MAA24572@well.com> Subject: Re: GLJ Editor Responds to Conspiracy Theories To: declanm@netcom.com (D B McCullagh) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:42:04 -0700 (PDT) Cc: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu, ped@panix.com, kruemmler@aol.com In-Reply-To: from "D B McCullagh" at Sep 6, 95 06:49:53 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1829 Status: RO X-Status: On another point: Ruemmler writes: >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. Actually, the first thing I asked Philip Elmer-DeWitt was for a copy of the study (this when he called me for comment on its conclusions). He told me that the Law Journal had embargoed the study, and that Time had agreed to that as part of its exclusive. I believed him (and still do, for that matter), but offered to agree myself to any nondisclosure conditions, asking Philip to vouch for me with the GLJ and/or anyone else. Nothing came of my offer. Steven Levy of NEWSWEEK, who did attempt to acquire a copy of the article prior to publication, was denied access to it prior to the appearance of the Time cover story and the GLJ. Ultimately, he acquired a copy from me the following week. Another reporter attempted to find out the source of the embargo. Rimm said it was a condition imposed by the Law Journal; Ruemmler said it was a condition imposed by Rimm and, uh, "the research team." Indisputably, *somebody* is not telling the truth. To the extent that Ruemmler's inaccuracies are a function of her having been lied to, I can only be sympathetic. But some of her RUMOR/FACT comments strike me as sufficiently disingenuous to cause me to suspect whether she is entirely a victim in this. I also must express some surprise at the willingness of law-review editor to go the record regarding a factual matter without having done the necessary research. Normally, law-review staff are pretty painstaking about such things. --Mike