Worthwhile cause (fwd)

[Burton & Rachel Davis]

I thought I'd take a minute to respond to Jouko Lindstedt's and Ernest
Scatton's objections to my post.  Generally, I agree with their attitude
toward chain letters.  I usually treat them the same way I treat junk snail
mail - I trash them without even reading them.  The reason I decided to
treat this one differently is that I felt that the issue deserved
attention.  I debated posting it to the list for several days and one of
the reasons I eventually decided to post it is because I thought it might
be of interest to other people on the list.  But the main reason I decided
it would not be completely inappropriate was that I have seen similar types
of messages on this list in the past.

Personally, I see no functional difference between the message I posted and
similar messages that have been posted in support of Slavic Departments
threatened with dissolution.  They are all chain letters in that they
include either prepared letters or at least suggestions for letters and
requests to email them to the appropriate authorities as well as requests
that the recipients forward the messages on to friends and colleagues for
the same purpose.  What distinguishes my post from these others?  Is it
that my post included the actual words "chain letter"?  Or is it that the
issue of censorship on the Internet does not hit us and our profession as
close to home as the possible dissolution of an entire Department?

I knew when I posted the message that some people might object and I
attempted to be sensitive to that when I posted it.  But should some
people's opinion that this material is objectionable prevent me from making
it available to others who might not feel the same way?  Isn't that
precisely the point of the whole debate?

As for Robert Beard's point about the Communications Decency Act of the
40's prohibiting free speech on radio and television, I haven't heard of
anyone who is against the intent of the law, i.e. keeping obscene materials
out of the hands of minors.  The obvious distinction between the 1940's law
and the 1996 law is the difference between the technology available in the
40's and the technology available today.  But because of the difference
between the technology of radio & TV and the technology of the Internet, it
is virtually impossible to enforce this law.  We cannot control the
availability and distribution of material on the Web the way we control the
availability and distribution of Budweiser and  Playboy magazine.  We have
no control over other countries nor should we wish to.  The only way to
restrict access to this type of material is the way we control access to
900 numbers - from each individual point of access.  Like most people I
have heard that are against the law, I feel that there are better
solutions, like the v-chip and software programs like Surf Watch, that
allow parents, school administrators, etc. to block out objectionable
material without infringing on the rights of other adults.

Again, I apologize to those who feel that my post was inappropriate, but as
for me, I plan on emailing the White House on Thursday.

Rachel Kilbourn Davis
University of Wisconsin - Madison
twoofus at execpc.com