From declanm@netcom.com Tue Oct 24 11:50:49 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po7.andrew.cmu.edu by netcom19.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id LAA27711; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:49:02 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po7.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08986; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:43:38 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maelstrom.weh.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:42:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maelstrom.weh.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mms.4.60.Jun.13.1995.12.55.34.pmax.ul4.EzMail.2.0.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.maelstrom.weh.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax.ul4 via MS.5.6.maelstrom.weh.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax_ul4; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:41:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:41:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Fight Censorship Mailing List Subject: TIME PR Tries to Kill Godwin IW Article Reply-To: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu Status: RO X-Status: Attempting to stifle critics is rarely a good move. Mike's WELL post that sparked TIME's indignation is at the end of this message. Andrew, care to comment on Internet World's policies? -Declan [replies to f-c] --- Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #245 of 255: Avant Garde A Clue (mnemonic) Mon Oct 23 '95 (18:37) 5 lines Have I mentioned yet that Time's Robert Pondiscio is trying to persuade my editor at Internet World not to print my article in which the cyberporn primer appears? --- FAX SHEET TO: Michael Neubarth COMPANY: Internet World FAXNUMBER: 203-454- DATE: 10-2-95 NUMBER OF PAGES: 3 COMMENTS: [Preprinted text on fax sheet] Any questions please feel free to call Robert Pondiscio, 212-522-5196, RPTime@aol.com or Nancy Kearny, 212-522-4859, NKTime@aol-com Fax Number,: 212/522-0003 Time Magazine, Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, N.Y. 10020 [Letterhead] Time Inc. Time Time & Life Building TIME Rockefeller Center Now York, NY 10020 Robert Pondiscio 212-522-5196 Director of Public Affairs 212-522-0003 Fax [Text begins] October 2, 1995 Michael Neubarth, Editor-in-Chief Internet World Mecklermedia Corp. 20 Ketchum Street Westport, CT 06880 VIA FAX Dear Mr. Neubarth. A member of the WELL has been kind enough to forward to me a copy of a column by Mike Godwin, which apparently is set for publication in a future edition of Internet World. I am writing to protest for several reasons- Beyond the obvious sin of poor journalism -- taking one post out of a long series of posts, thereby robbing my words of their proper context -- Mr. Godwin has breached two important rules on online conduct: First, he has at no time sought my permission to use my words in his column. Clearly, it is a convention, not a legal requirement to seek my permission, but someone of Godwin's experience should not require a reminder on such an important point of netiquette. It's also considered good journalistic practice to ask for comment for the target of a hatchet job. To date, he has not made that request. Second, and most importantly, be is ignoring the well-established convention within TIME Online of hosts signing their full name and magazine affiliation to positions that reflect the tnagazine's official stance on issues. All otbrr posts, including the one of mine that Godwin quotes, represcnt my personal opinion, not the words of (in Godwin's dismissive and redundant phrase) "a public-relations flack, for Time magazine." I suspect he is aware of this. Indeed, it probably explains why he has not sought my permission to be quoted. [Letterhead] A Time Warner Company In any event, I doubt the editors of Internet World consider my personal viewpoints worthy of an entire column of rebuttal. I also encourage you to read the entire thread from which Godwin takes my words without permission. In doing so, you will amply satisfy yourself that Godwin bas built a straw man, not reflective of the content of my posts, whicb he now proceeds to attack in your pages. Lastly, I can only assume that Mr. Godwin is well aware that he has stepped over the line for all of the reasons listcd above. How else to explain why he has posted his column on the WELL, where I am not a mernbcr, but not on TIME Online, the scene of a vigorous debate, lasting several months. I look forward to speaking with you about this matter. Sincerely, [no signature appears] --- Topic 1067 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare #770 of 1020: Avant Garde A Clue (mnemonic) Mon Sep 18 '95 (08:54) 68 lines Over on Time Online on AOL, Robert Pondiscio has been implying that the FBI raids last week somehow vindicate Time's cover story. Even if we accept the absurd notion that the cover story was not, in fact, primarily about the Rimm article and its implications, the implication demonstrates real confusion about what the issues are. So I came up with a quick-and- dirty primer to help folks out. And since I posted it there, I might as well post it on the WELL. Here are some rough-and-ready definitions: 1) PORNOGRAPHY. In general, material that presents sexual activity of some sort, with the intent of being arousing. It is presumptively legal under the First Amendment. To be illegal, pornography must be found to be "obscene." (See definition of "obscenity" below. 2) OBSCENITY. To be "obscene," pornography must meet all parts of a three part test designed by then-Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1973 in a case called Miller v. California. The three parts are as follows: a) State statute. Normally, there must be a state statute in place that describes with specificity the particular sexual (or excretory) acts that cannot be depicted. (If the state doesn't have such a statute, federal prosecutors can look to the state's prior caselaw, but this doesn't happen often.) b) Community standards. The depiction of the sexual acts must be "patently offensive" and "appeal to the prurient interest," as judged by a reasonable man applying the standards of the community. c) The escape clause. To be obscene, the material must fail to meet the requirements of the Miller v. California "escape clause." That is, it must lack "serious" literary, artistic, scientific, political, or other social value. 3) CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. This is material that is illegal regardless of whether it is obscene. Which means you don't even bother to ask any questions about "community standards." Under federal law, "child pornography" is any *visual* material that depicts a child either engaging in explicit sexual acts or posing in a "lewd and lascivious" manner, when the manufacture of such material involves the actual use of a real child. Thus, verbal material can't be child porn under federal law, although it could be obscene. Similarly, computer-generated material that seems to depict children engaged in sexual activity but in the manufacture of which no child was used would not be child porn, although it almost certainly would be obscene in every community in this country. 4) CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. Sometimes children are abused sexually, yet no one takes any pictures of it. This is not child porn, although of course it is illegal under other statutes in every state in the Union. 5) CHILD SEDUCTION. Sometimes child abusers (see 4 above) will attempt to seduce new victims. They may try to contact such victims via an online service. Note: it is possible to engage in child seduction without ever using pornography, obscenity, or child pornography. Sometimes all the seducer has to do is offer a sympathetic ear or arrange a meeting "just to talk." 6) EXPOSURE TO INAPPROPRIATE MATERIALS. Most states make it illegal to expose minors to sexually explicit material even when such material is otherwise legal (that is, when it's neither obscenity nor child pornography). It is *this* that has been the primary subject of the "indecency" legislation that we've seen so much of in Congress this year. Now, one doesn't have to have a particularly high IQ to note that the FBI raids involve material described in (3) above, yet the critics of Time's "Cyberporn" cover story have been addressing issues under (1), (2), (5), and (6) as they relate to Time's coverage or to Martin Rimm's fraudulent study. (Note: there may be evidence of child seduction using online media, but there is, as yet, no evidence of the use of "cyberporn" in such seduction in this case.) ###