F I D O N E W S -- Vol.12 No.17 (24-Apr-1995) +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | A newsletter of the | ISSN 1198-4589 Published by: | | FidoNet BBS community | "FidoNews" BBS | | _ | +1-519-570-4176 | | / \ | | | /|oo \ | Sheep affairs desk: | | (_| /_) | Doc Logger 1:163/110 | | _`@/_ \ _ | Rev. Richard Visage 1:163/409 | | | | \ \\ | | | | (*) | \ )) | Editors: | | |__U__| / \// | Donald Tees 1:221/192 | | _//|| _\ / | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 | | (_/(_|(____/ | | | (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. | | | -- JOSEPH PULITZER | +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Submission address: editors 1:1/23 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | MORE addresses: | | | | submissions=> editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | | Don -- don@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | | Max -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | | Tim Pozar -- pozar@kumr.lns.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | For information, copyrights, article submissions, | | obtaining copies of fidonews or the internet gateway faq | | please refer to the end of this file. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== 1. Editorial..................................................... 2 2. Articles...................................................... 3 Terror Strikes in America's Heartland....................... 3 Subject: Oh how exciting.................................... 4 Random Fido and Internet-related thought.................... 4 Dear Ms. Syvlia,............................................ 7 ..................................................... 7 Computer Users and the Graphic Age.......................... 8 Response to "Who owns an Echo".............................. 10 Following is FIDONEWS 1214 :................................ 11 Comments On ECROC........................................... 12 PGP Signatures and Forgery.................................. 14 EFF AABBS Amicus Brief in Support of the Thomases (Appellant 15 FOXSFTV...Why take half measures?........................... 27 3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 28 FidoNews 12-17 Page: 2 24 Apr 1995 ======================================================================== Editorial ======================================================================== Don is forcing me to write an editorial, even though there's a bowl of popcorn beside the computer. We just watched a Whoopie Goldberg movie called "telephone", about an actress whose only connection with reality was through a telephone. She can't pay her deposit after her phone is disconnected so she goes crazy and stabs an obnoxious guy who invades her apartment. You SEE THIS is what happens when people get chopped from the nodelist. oh gaud, i didn't mean anything about the bomb blast by that. Don said maybe we should say something about the bomb blast but i can't becuase it's too horrible and i don't want to puke popcorn. stupid destruction is everywhere and what can we do about it? Fortunately this issue contains an article which rescues this blathering statement WHY the hell would anyone think anything at all good would come from setting off a bomb? k. Now it's time to rethink the gun law issue, now that we can compare guns to bombs. BTW, there was an ad at the back of the Friday's globe and mail last week for donating used but useful equipment of all kinds to places where people are struggling to become consumers. Hopefully the so-called third world, (i guess by that i mean groups of people who are everywhere but near me who are poor, or maybe by that i mean places which get lousy odds from international banking schemes), will make a better job of becoming affluent than "we" recently did, considering that i popped a whole lot of popcorn out of an air popper on the kitchen table so that it flew out over the floor and i thought it was funny and it never occurred to me that some people are hungry. Anyway, i thought i'd mention the equipment ad, because that kind of thing was all i meant by the "be nice and send used equipment to Cuba" campaign. I merely meant, "hey some people are trying to help out some other people and here's an article". I DID NOT mean "i am making a grand statement about international politics and i am on some particular side or other". Jeez. I do not like having my brain squeezed into geography. i still haven't sorted out the computers, freedom and privacy conference in my mind, even though i have huge plans for writing stuff. it was intensely confusing there, but mostly nice. Jane Radin sounded a lot like Margaret Atwood, and i did not understand the Esther Dyson lecture, which i only heard from a tape recorder. She dosn't seem to know that Fidonet technology brought the freedom of computer communications to the former USSR. i'm really sorry about the bomb blast. things like that shouldn't happen. Earth quakes and tidal waves are disasters too, but the disaster image is especially sad and twisted when caused by human malice. How completely rotten, that this has happened, and i'm sorry i have the gaul to even mention it with my ineffectual words. FidoNews 12-17 Page: 3 24 Apr 1995 What is worth more, intentions or actions? Waco was nasty, Oka was nasty, the Levesque crisis wasn't nastier only because of luck?; the power of governments scares me a lot. That's why i don't like beurocracy to become too intense on Fidonet, among other reasons. Beurocracy is great when it's starting up and everyone is excited and wants to do things, but when it accumulates upon itself enough to become a thing rather than a group of people with a plan, it chokes. But bombs solve nothing. If i were superstitious i would say "they are evil". I wish i could put this marble that Red gave me yesterday in your one hand, and this tiny pebble i found on the sidewalk in your other hand, and ask you what you think of them. The marble seems to be made of glass. Don was explaining about how glass is made which he knows about from designing a glass plant. He said that glass melts like sugar in a pan. As soon as a little of it starts, then the rest follows quickly. This sounded to me like people in groups, or Freud and the horde mentality. Then he said it gets dropped in a chamber, where it forms a perfect sphere as it falls, due to surface tension. I was amazed to hear that the tear shape i had been imagining was really a myth, and that the teardrops are really globes and the falling is really orbit. You can see the spin, of worlds, in the marble. The pebble is the same shape. I do not know which is more precious. ======================================================================== Articles ======================================================================== Terror Strikes in America's Heartland TERROR STRIKES IN AMERICA's HEARTLAND john burton FidoNET 1:147/34 john.burton@s-box.misc.uoknor.edu As many of you may know, approximately 0910 CDT, 19 April 1995, terrorists struck in America's heartland. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, OK was rocked by a massive explosion injuring several hundred and investigators expect the death count to top 100. Oklahoma City is home to FidoNETs MetroNET, Net147, and we thought we'd pass on to the BBS community that it's our chance to shine again. This town has been hit with bad press lately, and we can stand a bit of "good press". Currently, the folks in Oklahoma City are in dire need of leather work gloves, hard hats, sun screen, dry food, disposable diapers, AA and AAA batteries. The local Merrill Lynch office has set up a fund to help pay for the burial and care of the many children involved in this disaster. Their phone number is (405)270-1803, please speak with Debbie FidoNews 12-17 Page: 4 24 Apr 1995 Lambrecht. As Network Coordinator of Net147, I've received many calls from FidoNETters all over the country requesting information. To these queries I offer the following address. Point your InterNET browser to http://www.kwtv.com/kwtv for the local CBS television staion's updated review of what's been going on. I am attempting to get permission to put an ASCII listing of survivors and other pertinant data from KWTV, but as yet do not have that permission... Thanks !!! We appreciate your support john burton 1:147/34 john.burton@s-box.misc.uoknor.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Oh how exciting From: Paul Cuni (1:141/515) Puppy had kittens today. Puppy, for those of you that are not regular readers, is our cat. There is nothing like a gaggle of kittens thundering arround a house to remind one what is important, and what is not. I am looking forward to watching them discover the world. I am not looking foward to having this shit in your crappy fidonews. The articles in it are long and drawn out. It's like reading a Novel to express a simple point. I could go on but I'd just be wasting my breath like your Newsletter wastes my bandwidth. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Random Fido and Internet-related thought by Chip Morrow, 1:226/730 I was rummaging around in the extensive "unfinished files" section of my hard drive (well, ok... so that covers my WHOLE HARD DRIVE). In the process, I ran across an editorial that I started putting together for the users here around the first of the year. I never finished it and put it online, so I'll do it now and send it to 1:1/23 as a Fidonews article instead. From 12/31/94: ----- So it's New Year's Eve - a time to reflect on the past and look ahead to the future. Hardly anyone actually DOES that, but I guess we're supposed to anyway. And with me being in a rambling kind of mood, I decided to take it out on you. Lately I've been looking around me and wondering where bulletin boards and online services are going to be in another 5 or 10 years. FidoNews 12-17 Page: 5 24 Apr 1995 At the moment everyone seems to be stumbling all over themselves on the way to being connected in some way to the Internet, so lets talk about that. Simple email gateways aren't enough anymore - it seems like everybody who's already online wants to *be* there, and yesterday. It's looked upon as kind of the "end of the road" for data communications. The ideal thing is "connect here, and you're connected to everybody." We're not quite there yet, but things sure seem to moving in that direction. There's some kind of a strange force at work here... I've been spending a fair amount of time there myself, including a few nights long into the wee hours hopping around the WorldWide Web from site to site, forgetting where I am, and eventually looking up and realizing that I've been online to France for the last hour. Ending up on a computer overseas via a local phone call is a strange thing, but it's surprisingly easy to get used to. Hooking up to the net keeps getting cheaper and easier as time passes, and that's going to continue. If the net doesn't collapse on itself from the sheer weight of everyone getting online all at once, this "info highway" thing (I hate that term) is likely going to end up being available to just about everybody with a PC for next to nothing. Maybe it'll end up as a option through the cable TV companies... or maybe it will just be a service you can get through the phone company, but eventually it looks like it will be a lot easier to do than it is at the moment. With operating systems like OS/2 Warp having full Internet access software included as part of the package, a whole lot of people will have the tools at hand to get connected. The trick is whether they'll actually do it, or just talk about it. Consider what I went through to get my SLIP account going. (For those of you who don't know what that is, it's a way of hooking your PC directly to the Internet over the phone line and modem). I got it in the first place by catching the one of our local Internet Providers on the voice phone one weekday afternoon (a very difficult thing to do). After that I spent about a week traveling around the net picking up various bits and pieces of software that was supposed to work on a PC. I eventually collected about 10 megabytes of Windows sofware that was supposed to do the trick, and then spent a few days figuring out what worked and what didn't. Eventually I ended up with: - Trumpet Winsock (the basic Engine that makes the rest work) - Netscape WWW Browser (A "Mosaic"-like thing) - The Trumpet newsreader - WS_FTP for standalone FTP sessions - EWAN (Emulator Without A Name) for Telnet sessions - BCGopher for standalone gophering - WSIRC for IRC (Internet Relay Chat), and - Various misc utilties to play movies and sound files. FidoNews 12-17 Page: 6 24 Apr 1995 It all works. Usually. Sometimes. Mostly. But it sure took a while to find it all and make it work, or even figure out what I was supposed to do with it once I found it. It has to get easier than this if the masses are ever going to hook up and make it fly. But you know what? Some of the most interesting places on the net are the little backroads and corners, the spots that a single guy takes care of and maintains. Exploring those little back alleys brings a smile to my face once in a while. These look like the BBS's of the future. But instead of numbers in a dialing directory, they're "bookmarks" of places to go, in a little corner of a BBS that you're already connected to. And that BBS is the Internet. It doesn't really matter whether I like it or not, that just looks like the way it's going to go. Coming down out of my cloud, I notice that you still have to pick up your modem and dial a phone number to connect to this little corner of the world. Maybe someday I'll just be a mouse click on a menu somewhere. Who knows. But it'll be fun finding out. ----- Appended 4/23/95: I don't really know where all of that leaves Fidonet. I notice that nobody got bent out of shape in the snooze when the nodelist hit 3 megs a while back. You'd have thought the world was going to end the week it hit 2 megs. My brain turns to a rather impressive coil of confusion and conflicting ideas whenever I try to figure out how Fidonet fits into all this. I don't know how it can ever go completely away, as it seems like it will always (or at least for the foreseeable future) be cheaper and easier for someone to allow direct-dial into their BBS, rather than put together all the hardware and software (and $$$) to connect it to the Internet. There will always be the "locals" on any given BBS, and Fidonet is considerably cheaper and easier to get going than an equivalent Internet link. Fidonet conferences vs. Internet newsgroups... but you can always hook newsgroups up to your BBS... and after that, well by golly, I guess we need to actually get *ON* the net and let the callers do ftp and telnet and... suddenly we're back to the point one. So I don't know where it will all lead. But it's something to think about, and it *will* be fun finding out. And by the way... it's a very amusing thing the first time you telnet to a bbs halfway across the country and find as the first thing that greets you....... a fidonet mailer. :) We now return you to your regularly-scheduled snooze. FidoNews 12-17 Page: 7 24 Apr 1995 Dear Ms. Syvlia, Hi! This is Chris Leung from Hong Kong Net (6:700/0). Just a little suggestion. Internet is becoming popular in Hong Kong. The service charge of many ISPs is affordable for the populace. So, I am thinking that... if all the internet address of fidonet related site, such as ftp, nodelist, sds map...etc can be listed on the last page of fidonews, I think fidonews will become a very resourceful magazine for fidonet members. Also, is it possible to add some introduction of windows-based fidonet software...? Will there be any amendment in the FTSC documents so that GUI Fidonet software can be invented...?? Thank you. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Chris Leung cleung@iohk.com 6:700/703@fidonet.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- by Bob Moravsik 2606/583 I almost fell on the floor after reading Mr. Rice's nonsentical response to who owns echo. An educated person who gets a threat of legal action, analyses the source of the threat and the theory behind it. Mr. Rice justifies his position because "being in the public eye" , a property that is irrelavant. I guess he tried to impress us peons that we should take him serious... we don't. "being in the public eye" is just a ineffective bosterious statement. A mere threat is just that. One of my hobbies is taking up threats, not wasting the use of fax machines or bothering attorneys with utter nonsense. If Mr. Rice gets that many threats, he must be acting outside the norms of society. His article is certainly bizzarre. Tossing people out of Fidonet for uttering legal threats is Draconian. Mr. Rice has confused OZ with America. "being in the public eye" must have change his ability to look at the world realistically. Conferences are not capable of being owned. When I gave an example, Mr Rice just redid the facts. Mr. Rice...if you as a moderator were cut out of the conference you moderate, YOU WOULD HAVE NO Fidonet POLICY 4 remedy. That was the clear point. It wasn't hard material. In fact it FidoNews 12-17 Page: 8 24 Apr 1995 was basic stuff. Address that...go ask you lawyers. Fidonet needs a policy on echomail to balance the relative rights of the interests. There must be a review of all decisions. Unilateral action should be avoided. That was the point. None of Mr. Rice's ravings had any basis in fact or logic. ECROC is not Draconian, it provides due process against Rice's Draconia ! Mr. Rice... YOUR DECISIONS WILL BE REVIEWED ! Fax that you your lawyer; listen to the laughter. You got mixed up on that issue. As to editor's being objective...good ones are...poor ones; well they use the position to push their positions. As to lying... the analogy to Sadam was just that. Cutting out a person from a conference amounts to electronic execution in that communication path. Mr. Rice...calm down...learn about analogies. The point lack of due process. Again, not hard stuff. Hopefully these interchanges will point out that there is a need. A need to put limits on petty dictators like Mr. Rice. Cause their decisions to be reviewed. That is what ECROC provides. Fidonet will have a golden day, when ECROC is replaced by a balanced policy on echomail. Until then....its ALL WE GOT. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Computer Users and the Graphic Age. by Robert LaPrise 1:282/4098 Computer Users and the Graphic Age. Having recently turned 30 I am increasingly alarmed at what I see occuring in our computer world. From a time when one had to be able to correctly key in the command instructions to achieve any useful system operations we are now in the age of point and click. While this opens the computer to those less knowleadgable of it's operation and helps considerably in the business/work environment, here in FIDOdom where our computers are our link to each other, our passion, and (yes admit it) obsession it is becoming a thorn in our side. The current hot and heavy issue is that of echo moderation policy, but let us look at the roots of some of the problems there. This has more to do with the callers behaviour than that of the moderators themselves. Here is my observation on this matter. In todays graphic age, young computer users/BBSer's do not learn the older more "verbal" methods of communicating with their system and this trend carries over into their communications skills with others as well. How many of us have seen the 13 or 14 year old Sysop (face it, every kid with a modem is eventually a Sysop cause it's *cool*) who's general message format is about 4 or 5 lines of misspelled text. FidoNews 12-17 Page: 9 24 Apr 1995 They are abundant these days and as a result I have gone to an 18 or over access policy on my BBS which led to another discovery. These same young callers either cannot read, or they are just to lazy to do so. I have posted conspicuously the age restrictions of my BBS yet consistently get callers who endure the complete new account process to then leave me bitch & moan feedback that none of the menu keys will work for them but the logoff function. These same callers are also our new generation of programmers growing up not with GWBASIC or BASICA as many of us did (with the attention to detail it required helping us to develop our language skills) but with Visual BASIC and Windows and a general lack of communication skills. Personally I would be very hesitant to run a program written by someone who misspells their own name half the time, cannot (or will not) read the rules and instructions presented them when calling a new BBS and whose general discourse in a message area consists of topics like "Well" or "Yea" or best of all "...". Were these same young computer users to put as much effort into improving their communications skills as they do into learning the latest cheats for DOOM perhaps the echos would not have as many of the problems as they now encounter and the issues of moderation would not be boiling over as they are. In a communications medium where the sole impression one leaves upon those they connect with is that of their message content and form I for one would be embarrased as hell if I werre to post some of the messages that I have seen left by our younger callers (and sadly some of our older ones as well). Perhaps we should not concern ourselves as exlusivley with who is running the show as much as who we are letting in to watch it. And perhaps (as a hopeful future parent to those that currently are) we should spend more time making sure our younger generation is developing proper reading and writing skills rather than patting ouselves on the back because "Our little Johnny just wrote another program with Visual BASIC. Isn't he wonderful?" Maybe so but Johnny just logged on to my BBS, and after entering his birthdate (which placed him at 13) the system locked the menu functions so he left me feedback cussing me out like a trucker with every other word spelled wrong. Robert LaPrise 1:282/4098 FidoNews 12-17 Page: 10 24 Apr 1995 Response to "Who owns an Echo" by Phillip Murray of 1:3648/12 I've always meant to write something for the snooze, but have restrained myself until now. I want to tell you about the joys of being a "regional" [ i.e. "out in the sticks" (actually its out in a cornfield)] BBS and ask why I should have to participate in a cost sharing plan which while appropriate to metro areas, for there you are actually sharing costs, hardly applies to those outside the "area". I thought the chief thing about fidonet was the FREE exchange of information, and it only seems that Planet Connect has blurred this even further, and is seeking to do to fidonet what cable TV has done to free TV and public airwaves... but I ramble. While I mostly agree with much of what Phillip wrote about who owns an echo [I moderate an echo in another net] >My point behind all of that is this: A moderator should have complete >control over an echo The question then becomes what does this mean? If a writer becomes unruly, I can suspend/banish/expel him from the echo. To do so, I depend on the sysop from which the offending msgs originate. Knowing that most bbs's operate on autopilot for periods during the year and that routed netmail occasionally gets lost [I haven't gotten any since Nov. 1994] you have to give adequate time for a response [say a week or 2]. I have noticed that people often refer to us as fight-o-net, apparently because our tempers flare, and on occasion seem out of control. If I were a commercial network developer, I would want to encourage this, for as long as fidonet functions for the free exchange of information, I won't be able to sell the services that we provide for free. But if people perceive us as lords, kings and gods, with ego's 10 times larger than our footsize, why would they want to be part of us, or thank us for the great job we do in the free exchange of information? So what happens when a moderator asks a sysop to remove an unruly poster, and the sysop refuses? Seems like that's when we pick teams and start fighting. Problem is that this is not going to resolve the problem of the unruly poster. Seems like the first thing we need to do is to see if we can agree as to why we are cooperating together in a way that makes this network function, and remind each other why we are in this network. Sometimes its work to cooperate, and we must work at our cooperation levels. Let me repeat, we must continue to work, at working together. All of this brings us back to the next step, if a sysop fails to handle the problem, then moderators often seem to rush to cut the offending feed. I have seen this [in another network] all take place in the span of 24 hours. Moderator reads annoying FidoNews 12-17 Page: 11 24 Apr 1995 msg, gets ticked, bans the user, sends netmail to that effect, 15 minute later, sends netmail to the sysop wondering why the user hasn't been banned yet. 30 minutes later sends msg to NEC saying that sysop is unresponsive. Next day sends msg to REC saying that NEC is not doing his duty, and asking that the whole network be cut from feed. This is still not going to solve the problem, as the resourceful user just finds another bbs in another net and continues posting [believe me, I have seen this happen too!] and the problem persists. I suppose that when it comes right down to it, I do believe that the moderator does have absolute control over his echo, but by becoming a member of the fidonet fellowship, the NEC, REC, ZEC also have an obligation to moderate the moderator and remind him/her of why it is that we are in a net together, and work with the moderators so that they can effectively deal with the problems, and not the symptoms. We have elected all the "EC" type people to their positions of leadership so that they might lead us, and help us to cooperate with each other, and work together, and understand one another. I hope we are electing our leaders because they posses these qualities, and not for lesser reasons. It is therefore my contention that as removing an echo from the backbone is an exceptional step rarely taken, so also the removal an entire net from the feed of that echo, would be something that the leadership would not tolerate from any moderator without extensive negotiations, and seeking to come to an understanding, for such actions undermine the whole net, and the free exchange of ideas. Moderators might have absolute control of their echo, but they must also make allowances for the fact that their echo exists inside a network, and without the network, the echo probably ceases to be an echo. Moderators need the network to make the echo successful. Networks need the moderators. We need to work at cooperation, [with patience and understanding]. regards Richard Jordan - sysop 1:14/624@fidonet [jordan@slip.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello , Following is FIDONEWS 1214 : - These law can protect the human rights. - These law can block the people to do some illegal things in network world. - These law can make the network citizen have a equal opportunity to use "Information Highway". - These law is easy to execute. FidoNews 12-17 Page: 12 24 Apr 1995 - These law can up-date very easily. - These law can make some pressure to every ISP provide better services in the acceptable prices. "Information Highway" is a turning point of human history, "Information Highway" development is another important revolution of human history.I hope every government in the world can use the suitable policy to welcome this revolution, don't do any stupid thing to welcome. What is Information Highway ? How to connect it ? Can FidoNews add one column is talking about Software News ? I hope you can. Sincerely, Lawrence Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments On ECROC Comments On ECROC by Kay Shapero (1:102/524) The following is a series of quotes from the text posted recently, followed by comments of my own enclosed in ##s. "Backbone" is here used to refer to Zone 1 FIDOnet backbone echoes specifically, and any similar structures that may exist in other zones. "ECHOMAIL ROUTING CODE v 1.05 1. Preface: This is a voluntary code which a router of echomail may adopt to insure that echomail links, routing and procedures are consistent." ##Any voluntary code that isn't adhered to by everybody may cause more confusion than anything else. Either we should create something at least as binding as Policy 4 (well.. you know what I mean. :->) on at least the zonal level or leave it alone.## "Conferences are operated and routed for the benefit of the participants. They are generally topic oriented and the topic is an expansion of the AREA: tag. The routing of echomail is subject to policy 4 of Fidonet as if the messages are NETMAIL. The AREA tag does not change that." ##Looks about right, with the proviso that actual delivery of backbone echoes is the province of the *EC structure, not the *C structure. Other echoes, of course, are delivered in whatever way those involved care to come up with.## "2. Coordination: All coordination of traffic in a NET is under the supervision of the NC. To fulfill these responsibilities he may delegate all responsibilities except the resolution of disputes to any node or group of nodes. They may function as conference coordinators echomail coordinators or any title the NC determines to assign." FidoNews 12-17 Page: 13 24 Apr 1995 ##Codifying the *EC structure makes more sense here at least for zone 1 - after all, it already exists...## "3. Routing: Any node may agree with any other node to accept or provide netmail messages, which are further identified by AREA tags. If a node has more then one address in a routing file (generically known as an areas.bbs file) then he is functioning in the capacity of a router." ##With the proviso that any node receiving a backbone echo from outside their own net should be very careful not to set up a dupe loop. Not difficult, but very important.## [skipped some stuff I've no particular comments on] "b. Deleting a link: If you are requested to delete a link, you should ask that some explanation is given:" "1. If the person is a conference moderator, look in the latest issue of the ELIST available at 1/201. If the person is the Elisted moderator (or alternate moderator), request the conference rules, any messages that break them and at least proof that two netmail warning were given." ##This is possibly the most incomplete segment of the document. Most importantly, it makes no provision for handling cuts due to technical problems. If someone is generating dupe loops in something like the C echo (which had over a thousand posts per day when I last read it several years ago), or crosslinking alt.sex.stories into TEEN, there may not be time for discussion. It's simple enough to cut the feed while messaging the sysop, then bring it back up as soon as the problem is fixed. Remember - this is one of the reasons moderators exist; to spot things like this while they're still small. The *Cs and *ECs are busy enough just keeping the traffic flowing without having to try to read it all. And so are most sysops. Also there are times when notification is impossible. For example, a system which appears to accept inbound netmail, only to drop it into the bit bucket due to an unsuspected technical flaw before the sysop ever sees it. I know of one case where after several attempts at both direct and routed echomail, a moderator attempted to log on directly and leave a message, and even that didn't work. If the node is causing the sort of serious trouble that would warrant asking the feed to be cut, it may be necessary to proceed without warning, if none can be delivered. Other problems like the difficulty of "proving" a message was delivered (or even written), or folks who come across a new and improved way of being obnoxious that isn't yet against the rules because nobody thought anybody would do it (sorta like the kid who tries to flush the tablecloth down the drain because "nobody said not to.") or even the problem of the poor router having to figure out whether some esoteric post breaks a set of equally esoteric rules on an echo on a subject he knows nothing about also come to mind. There FidoNews 12-17 Page: 14 24 Apr 1995 are ways of dealing with these, but the above does not do so.## "2. If the person is OTHER then the Elisted Moderator or co- moderator, refer them to your NC." ##Or directly to the bit bucket. Some method for dealing with echo hijacking and the One True King syndrome does seem to be required, but wishing it on the poor NC seems a bit much.## "Quite often a request to cut a link is done in the heat of a strong debate. You as a router serve to "time" the parties out for a cooling off period. You are well within your right to refuse to cut a link UNLESS the linked node has been excommunicated." ##Cooling off period? Not if the feed is maintained, and nothing is done to mitigate the apparent offense. More likely you'll find you're just providing more time to get a really nasty flamewar going as the regular users of the echo find it impossible to resist flaming back at the guy posting hate literature or starting up one of the Permanent Floating NetWars (Homosexuality, Abortion, Gun Control, and Whatever the Government is Hiding from Us for example) in a place where it's manifestly off topic. Some things have to be dealt with quickly, and by the time the question of cutting a link comes up the sysop has already refused to cut off the problem user (or *is* the problem user), and thus it's already been going on for quite some time. Cutting the feed does provide a true cooling off period; whatever offense was going on in public stops instantly, while the feed can easily be reactivated later if necessary.## ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- PGP Signatures and Forgery by Frank J. Perricone It has come to my attention that a SYSOP has taken to forging my name and address and sending netmail in this guise, in an attempt to avenge himself on me for having his access to an echo I moderated until recently. I know he has told one person to apologize in public to him, and attempted to banish another from the echo. I am sure that he will be, if he hasn't already, sending fake messages to uplinks and NECs to get feeds actually cut; sending insulting and offensive posts in my name in an attempt to get me in trouble; etc. I therefore request that if you receive anything ostensibly from me, you check it against the PGP signature I am now using on ALL my posts. I would post my public key here; but of course you have no way to know that this isn't really him writing this article. The way to be sure is to FREQ the file PGP from my system; he can't have his BBS answer my phone, so the file you get is trustworthy. I know that it's a pain to have to FREQ a file just to read a message, but I see no other solution. It seems to me that there is no recourse against this. Even if my FidoNews 12-17 Page: 15 24 Apr 1995 complaint against this behavior (if this isn't excessively annoying, what is?) causes the ultimate punishment -- excommunication -- that does NOTHING to stop him from doing this again and again. No one can take away his BBS software, and nothing else is required. Even if he couldn't forge my name because everyone read this article and knew I used PGP, he could start forging other people's names. I know it seems like a lot of hassle to start signing EVERYTHING with PGP, and a lot of cost to carry around those extra five or six lines on the bottom of EVERY message. God knows we moderators (or in my case ex-moderators) have complained enough about less! But I see no other way to prevent this. Right now, one person armed with nothing but some BBS software and a few serious chemical imbalances, is able to hold all of North America FidoNet hostage for the cost of a few long distance calls. Surely there must be a second person as petty as he, in all of North America, and still more in other zones. I have no illusions of perfect security, but even so: is it right that one disgruntled SYSOP could be able to ruin another's reputation -- or in fact, the reputation of anyone in the net? Something must be done. PGP-signing everything is the only solution I can see. If you wait until he (or his ilk) come for you, it'll be too late, as it may well be for me. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: FREQ the file PGP from my system any time for a trusted public key. iQBVAwUBL5qhheVfXP3Fmh31AQHZtgIAuy4jBFsGFDMRlC9w3f6wLF7LjjbkEdGx bT3ohybL5C6jkAXUuFntaRZeofpUc1NGaECxbOvQCF9/cApRn28l7g== =DaPw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- respectfully "borrowed" from: Computer underground Digest Wed Apr 19, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 31 From: Stanton McCandlish EFF AABBS Amicus Brief in Support of the Thomases (Appellants) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 21:06:40 -0400 (EDT) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT . . . No. 94-6648 No. 94-6649 . . . ROBERT ALAN THOMAS AND CARLEEN THOMAS . FidoNews 12-17 Page: 16 24 Apr 1995 Appellants, . v. . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . Appellees. . . ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION . . . BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION . . . . Shari Steele Michael Godwin ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Suite 801 1667 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 861-7700 Internet: ssteele@eff.org APRIL 19, 1995 INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a privately funded nonprofit organization concerned with the civil liberties, technical and social issues raised by the application of new computing and telecommunications technology. EFF was founded by Mitchell Kapor, a leading pioneer in software development who was the first CEO of the Lotus Development Corporation and developed the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet software, and John Perry Barlow, an author and lecturer interested in digital technology and society. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is concerned with the chilling effect the District Court's decision will have on the freedom of speech of users of electronic communications and on the growth of online communications technology and communities. EFF respectfully asks this court to overturn the lower court's decision regarding the files downloaded from the Amateur Action bulletin board system. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE 4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 5 FidoNews 12-17 Page: 17 24 Apr 1995 ARGUMENT 6 I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S APPLICATION OF THE MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, COMMUNITY STANDARDS TO THE AMATEUR ACTION BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT IT RESTRICTS EVERYONE IN THE WORLD TO ONLY MATERIALS THAT ARE DEEMED FIT FOR CITIZENS OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 6 II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, WHEN THE MATERIALS WERE DOWNLOADED TO A COMPUTER DISK IN MEMPHIS BUT NEVER ACTUALLY ENTERED THE "MEMPHIS COMMUNITY" 7 III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, BECAUSE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS GIVE INDIVIDUALS THE AUTONOMY TO SELECT THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNITIES THEY WISH TO JOIN AND PROVIDE SCREENING MECHANISMS TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO CHILDREN 11 IV. THIS IS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE SERIOUS CHILLING EFFECT ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE LIMITING OF SPEECH ON ALL COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS TO THE STANDARDS OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE COMMUNITY 16 CONCLUSION 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 20 TABLE OF CASES, STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITY CASES City of Belleville v. Morgan, 60 Ill. App. 3d 434, 376 N.E.2d 704 (1974) 8 Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp., 371 Mass. 374, 357 N.E.2d 753 (1976) 8 FCC v. Pacifica Found.,, 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978) 16 LaRue v. State, 611 S.W.2d 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) 8 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1974) 6,9,14 People v. Better, 33 Ill. App. 3d 58, 337 N.E.2d 272 (1975) 8 People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 426 N.Y.S.2d 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140 (1980) 8 People v. Ridens, 59 Ill. 2d 362, 321 N.E.2d 264 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 993 (1975) 8 Pierce v. State, 292 Ala. 473, 296 So.2d 218 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1130 (1975) 8 Price v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 490, 201 S.E.2d 798, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 902 (1974) 8 Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 492 U.S. 115 (1989) 9 Sedelbauer v. Indiana, 428 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1035 (1982) 8 Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1972) 8 State v. DePiano, 150 N.J. Super. 309, 375 A.2d 1169 (1977) 8 United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973) 8 United States v. Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826, 836 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047 (1983) 8 United States v. Dachsteiner, 518 F.2d 20, 21-22 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 954 (1975) 8 United States v. Danley, 523 F.2d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1975) 8 United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973) 8 FidoNews 12-17 Page: 18 24 Apr 1995 United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 354 8 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) 15 OTHER AUTHORITY Julian Dibbell, "A Rape in Cyberspace," The Village Voice, December 21, 1993, 38(51): pp. 36-42. 13 Hiltz and Turoff, The Network Nation 29 (1993). 12 Karo and McBrian, Note: The Lessons of Miller and Hudunt: On Proposing a Pornography Ordinance that Passes Constitutional Muster , 23 U. Mich. J.L. Rev. 179 (1989). 7 Howard Rheingold, "A Slice of Life in my Virtual Community," Global Networks: Computers and International Communication 57 (1993). 11 Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (1994). 11 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE SHOULD MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, BE PERMITTED TO DICTATE THE APPROPRIATE COMMUNITY STANDARDS FOR ALL ONLINE COMMUNITIES THAT CAN BE ACCESSED FROM MEMPHIS, EVEN WHERE WARNINGS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE MATERIALS ARE CLEARLY POSTED, CHILDREN ARE DENIED ACCESS TO ADULT MATERIALS, AND USERS SELF-SELECT WHICH ONLINE COMMUNITIES TO JOIN? SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT This is a case of first impression regarding jurisdiction over computer networks. Online communications are physically nonterritorial, and individuals have a heightened ability to self-select which electronic "communities" to join, and are empowered to willingly and knowledgeably accept or block access to materials available electronically. Any obscenity definition that relies on the boundaries of the physical world is dangerous to the growth of online communications, in that such a definition would require all electronic communities to limit acceptable speech to only what is acceptable in the most restrictive of physical-world communities. In a realm where adults can easily avoid unwanted materials and prevent their children from accessing these materials, the state's interest in protecting the unwanting or underage from exposure to materials is substantially weakened, and First Amendment protections of speech and association must prevail. Computer communications are still in their infancy, but we already know that they implicate long-standing speech and privacy issues under the Constitution. The precedents we set today may radically affect the course of the computer networks of the future, and with it the fate of an important tool for the exchange of ideas in a democratic society. When the law limits or inhibits the use of new technologies, or when it fails to provide the same degree of protection for a new communications technology that it provides for older methods of communicating, it creates a grave risk of compromising speech and privacy interests protected by the Bill of Rights. In this brief, Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation respectfully asks this Court to make the determination that utilizing geographical community standards to satisfy the test for obscenity is inappropriate when FidoNews 12-17 Page: 19 24 Apr 1995 dealing with networked communications that never actually enter any physical community. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S APPLICATION OF THE MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, COMMUNITY STANDARDS TO THE AMATEUR ACTION BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT IT RESTRICTS EVERYONE IN THE WORLD TO ONLY MATERIALS THAT ARE DEEMED FIT FOR CITIZENS OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE. Under the current obscenity test, first articulated by the Supreme Court in 1974 in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1974), materials are considered obscene if 1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the materials, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest, 2) the materials depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically prohibited by applicable state law, and 3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The community standards criteria was included in this three-prong obscenity test because "our nation is simply too big and diverse for [the Supreme] Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists. . . . It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas, or New York City. [People] in different States vary in their tastes and attitudes, and this diversity is not to be strangled by the absolutism of imposed [uniformity]." Id. Tennessee is but a single locality that can access the international telecommunications network generally and the Amateur Action bulletin board system specifically. Robert and Carleen Thomas had no physical contacts with the State of Tennessee, they had not advertised in any medium directed primarily at Tennessee, they had not physically visited Tennessee, nor had they any assets or other contacts there. The law enforcement official in Tennessee, not the Thomases, took the actions required to gain access to the materials, and it was his action, not the Thomases, that caused them to be "transported" into Tennessee (i.e., copied to his local hard disk). The Thomases may indeed have been entirely unaware that they had somehow entered the Tennessee market and had subjected themselves to the standards applicable in that community. This case is operationally indistinguishable from one in which a Tennessee resident travels to California and purchases a computer file containing adult-oriented material that he brings back to his home. Whatever sanctions the local community in Tennessee might impose on the purchaser -- and we note here that the Supreme Court has consistently held that private possession of obscene materials cannot be outlawed -- the seller, who had not "knowingly transported" material into Tennessee, would not have violated federal law. Application of geographically-based community standards to FidoNews 12-17 Page: 20 24 Apr 1995 transmissions over the global network, if interpreted to allow conviction on the basis of any access of a bulletin board system by a member of any community with standards that would disapprove of the materials in question, will have the perverse effect of prohibiting, worldwide, anything disapproved in any single territorial location -- precisely the kind of uniform national (or global) standard that the community standards test was designed to avoid. II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, WHEN THE MATERIALS WERE DOWNLOADED TO A COMPUTER DISK IN MEMPHIS BUT NEVER ACTUALLY ENTERED THE "MEMPHIS COMMUNITY." Courts have struggled with the concept of "community standards" and have upheld a wide variety of geographic definitions of community. See, Karo and McBrian, Note: The Lessons of Miller and Hudunt: On P roposing a Pornography Ordinance that Passes Constitutional Muster, 23 U. Mich. J.L. Rev. 179 (1989). State courts have approved units ranging from state (People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 426 N.Y.S.2d 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140 (1980); LaRue v. State, 611 S.W.2d 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp., 371 Mass. 374, 357 N.E.2d 753 (1976); People v. Better, 33 Ill. App. 3d 58, 337 N.E.2d 272 (1975); and Pierce v. State, 292 Ala. 473, 296 So. 2d 218 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1130 (1975)) to county (Sedelbauer v. Indiana, 428 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1035 (1982); and State v. DePiano, 150 N.J. Super. 309, 375 A.2d 1169 (1977)) to city (People v. Ridens, 59 Ill. 2d 362, 321 N.E.2d 264 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 993 (1975); and City of Belleville v. Morgan, 60 Ill. App. 3d 434, 376 N.E.2d 704 (1974)) to local community. (Price v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 490, 201 S.E.2d 798, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 902 (1974)). Federal courts have held community to mean state (United States v. Danley, 523 F.2d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1975)), county (United States v. Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826, 836 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047 (1983)), and federal judicial district (United States v. Dachsteiner, 518 F.2d 20, 21-22 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 954 (1975)). In addition, courts have recognized a distinction between what is distributed to the community and what is simply possessed in the home. In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1972), the Supreme Court first made the legal distinction between the distribution and the possession of obscene materials. In Stanley, the Court held that an individual had the right to possess obscene materials, based on the privacy of the home. While that case has been challenged throughout the years, the Court has continued to hold that possession of obscenity cannot be outlawed. While the Court has refused to hold that Stanley requires states to permit obscene materials to be imported (United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973)), transported through interstate commerce (United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (1973). See also, United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 354) or sent over telephone wires (Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 492 U.S. 115 (1989)), the Court's reasoning has been "that the States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material _when the mode of dissemination carries with it a significant danger_ of offending the sensibilities of unwilling recipients or of exposure to juveniles." FidoNews 12-17 Page: 21 24 Apr 1995 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 18-9 (1973) (emphasis added). The "mode of dissemination" of electronic communications actually minimizes the stated dangers. Unlike any other form of communication, networks and online services require passwords. This is an important point, because the password provides the disseminator of the information with the opportunity to refuse access to children. It also permits disseminators to prescreen and warn potential users of the system of the nature of the materials to be found online. There is advance notice of the nature of the communications, which provides an uninterested consumer with the knowledge to avoid access. In preparing the case against Robert and Carleen Thomas, Federal Postal Inspector David Dirmeyer applied for and was granted a password to the Amateur Action bulletin board system. Before Inspector Dirmeyer was granted the password, he was screened to ensure that he was not a minor and was warned about the explicit nature of the materials. In spite of the warnings, he chose to access the Amateur Action bulletin board system database and to download files -- a process that does not happen automatically or accidentally, but rather requires the knowledgeable and active participation and decision-making of the recipient to select specific items to retrieve and to run the program necessary for the retrieval and viewing of those items. This was clearly not an undesired exposure to these materials. In applying the federal law against interstate distribution of obscene material, the U.S. government is seeking to prevent adverse impacts on local communities that stem from causes that have a range and source too great to be handled by the local territorial community. Absent some real or threatened adverse impact on the local community, the rationale for federal intervention fails. Here, there was simply no such impact. The fact that someone in Tennessee could call a computer in California, or indeed anywhere else in the world, to access materials the physical sale of which might be prohibited in Tennessee, is neither news nor reason for concern. As noted, a citizen of Tennessee might get on a plane and go anywhere in the world in short order and be exposed to or obtain and bring home similar material. Accessing materials through a computer screen is most often, and was in this case, an entirely private matter with no risk of accidental or incidental exposure. Even if conducted in groups in a private setting, it is akin to reading books or other materials that might be physically obtained and imported into the local jurisdiction with impunity. It does not involve posting signs, entering into sales transactions, establishing a building, or taking other steps of any kind that might even become known to, much less adversely impact upon, the members of the local geographic community. Acknowledging the lack of impact of the actions involved in this case on the local community, and finding that the federal government had no legitimate basis on which to prohibit such activity, does not amount to a concession that the local geographic community might not regulate actions that had such an impact. If a local system operator or user were to sell admission to view the screens in question, FidoNews 12-17 Page: 22 24 Apr 1995 for example, or if the local user were to have displayed the screens in question in a store window, then perhaps the local community could impose some sort of regulation. But no such local commercial activity nor any such public exhibition occurred in this case. III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, BECAUSE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS GIVE INDIVIDUALS THE AUTONOMY TO SELECT THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNITIES THEY WISH TO JOIN AND PROVIDE SCREENING MECHANISMS TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO CHILDREN. Communities, it seems, no longer depend on physical location, and old legal definitions that look to physical location no longer work in a world where individuals regularly "visit" places that have no physical location. Howard Rheingold, who has authored a book describing his interactions on the WELL, a virtual community he considers home, described the relationship: A virtual community is a group of people who may or may not meet one another face-to-face, and who exchange words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks. In cyberspace, we chat and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, perform acts of commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them, play games and metagames, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk. We do everything people do when people get together, but we do it with words on computer screens, leaving our bodies behind. Millions of us have already built communities where our identities commingle and interact electronically, independent of local time or location. Howard Rheingold, "A Slice of Life in my Virtual Community," Global Networks: Computers and International Communication 57 (1993). See also, Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (1994). Each participant in this form of communication chooses not only whether, when and where to participate, but also whether to send or receive information at any specific time; at what rate writing and reading (sending and receiving) will occur; and what topic this communication will concern. Hiltz and Turoff, The Network Nation 29 (1993). Participants also have the option of "filtering" out messages and files in many ways, ranging from simply choosing not to download files to sophisticated text analysis programs that can effectively block receipt of all messages containing non-text files such as graphics or containing certain words, phrases or names. If application of local, geographically-based community standards to determine whether material is "obscene" is inappropriate in this new context, how, then, can that determination be made with due regard to the rights of members of various communities to establish FidoNews 12-17 Page: 23 24 Apr 1995 their own divergent standards? EFF respectfully submits that the very best source of a definition regarding what constitutes "obscenity," for purposes of determining when U.S. (or other) law should intervene to prohibit electronic distribution of materials, is the standard set by the community of users that, collectively, set the rules applicable to any particular online forum in question. Where, as here, the nature of the materials is clearly disclosed on warning screens encountered as the users access the system, or is otherwise made plain, those who sign on -- who voluntarily join the community -- have already determined that the materials in question do not violate their own sensibilities, or have accepted responsibility for their own sensibilities should the material offend them after all. If the operators of a system were to post materials that violated the collective standards of that user community, the community in question could quickly correct things by voting with their modems to go elsewhere. Like any other community, online communities use censure and other peer group actions to enforce their own rules. Violators of these rules will find themselves ejected, ignored, lambasted, or gently guided as apropos to the transgression. This process is directly and incontrovertibly analogous to its physical-world counterpart. When violators of the standards of geographical communities become unbearable, people either remove themselves from the violator's presence, eject the violator, or attempt to correct the violator's behavior. When legal action is sometimes required, the standards of the local community are applied, not those of a distant town in another state, nor those of any hypothetical national censorship body. As one might expect, online communities have in practically all cases developed their own arbitration and dispute-resolution systems -- applying their own community standards to their own issues and problems spontaneously in the absence of directives compelling them to do so. These compromise and arbitration systems vary with the scale and sophistication of the online community, and range from a single arbitrator or moderator, through "town hall" committee-like structures (often informal, but still effective), to complex systems of community- approved (and enforced) regulations complete with fines and even "incarceration" (temporary removal from the online community, with no ability to send or receive messages or files to and from the group in question). In fact, some communities have even invoked the "death penalty," completely deleting a recalcitrant's user i.d. from the system. See, e.g., Julian Dibbell, "A Rape in Cyberspace," The Village Voice, December 21, 1993, 38(51): pp. 36-42. We reaffirm the right of communities to regulate the contents of the materials to which their members are exposed. Part of this right is the right of a community not to have its standards dictated by another community. Miller v. California, supra. Those who wish to associate for religious purposes, for example, should have a right to establish places where materials inconsistent with those purposes are excluded. Those who wish to exchange speech offensive to others should have an ability, indeed have a right, to establish spaces where such speech can be exchanged. The First Amendment exists to protect potentially offensive speech, as no one tries to ban the inoffensive kinds. Communities and places should not be defined exclusively in terms of FidoNews 12-17 Page: 24 24 Apr 1995 physical geography, particularly when community standards and self- regulation are already evolving rapidly in the online world. The trial court's decision, if allowed to stand, will tear apart these years of online community self-moderation and internal arbitration development, all without any notable benefit or protection to any community, geographically defined or otherwise. This is an age when computer networks allow the formation of virtual communities, globally, without any significant impact on local, territorial communities. Any decent regard for preservation of freedom of expression and the free flow of information (at least other than information posing more direct physical threats to local communities than those presented in this case) requires protection of the right of each individual to associate with others, to communicate freely with others and, in effect, to "travel" throughout the online spaces made available by the global networks. The boundaries between online places and communities are the tools used for ensuring voluntary association, such as the passwords and warning screens used in this case. These passwords and screens provided ample opportunities for anyone in Tennessee to avoid coming into contact with the materials in question. They also provided the opportunity for people who share the standards of the community to establish and implement that community standard. In most online contexts, receipt of materials must be actively and willfully initiated by the receiver, not the sender. In addition, password schemes permit parents to readily supervise (and, if the parents choose, to easily prevent) their own children's access to online materials. Determining what is appropriate for their children are parents' rig hts and responsibilities (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)), and this screening capability is not available in telephony or postal mail and package shipping, nor in broadcast television or radio. Today's technology provides "space" in which system operators like the Thomases can form communities with others of similar interests. Communication in this space happens quietly and does not interrupt, offend, or otherwise intrude upon people of differing interests. The materials that travel in this space should be judged by the standards of the local "residents" therein. The community of Memphis citizens has few or no members in common with the community of Amateur Action bulletin board system users and maybe even the larger community of adult-oriented bulletin board system users. The standards of the bulletin board system users are the correct community standards to apply. The Thomases may reasonably have believed that California standards, like the standards of the Amateur Action bulletin board system community, permit the materials in question. This is clearly not a case in which the electronic community's standards are beyond the pale. To punish this speech, the government must establish a more compelling interest which would prohibit using an online community's standards to judge speech and publication in that community. The standards of the group that voluntarily joined together to establish and use the bulletin board system in question should govern. FidoNews 12-17 Page: 25 24 Apr 1995 IV. THIS IS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE SERIOUS CHILLING EFFECT ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE LIMITING OF SPEECH ON ALL COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS TO THE STANDARDS OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE COMMUNITY. Electronic communications are different than other forms of communications, and this difference must be legally recognized in order to avoid a severe chilling effect on speech on the networks. The Supreme Court has "long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems." FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978). Broadcast radio and television are treated differently under the law than cable television, which, in turn, is treated differently than magazines and books. Factors such as risk of exposure to children and uninterested adults, level of intrusion, and spectrum or bandwidth scarcity have all been taken into account in determining appropriate limitations of speech by government. The requirements placed on the Thomases and other system operators by the trial court's ruling will have a chilling effect on the provision of online services. Given that it was lawful for the system operators convicted in this case to maintain their bulletin board system system physically in the geographical community where it was located, the only way in which they might have avoided violation of the distribution law, as interpreted by the trial court, would have been to establish elaborate technical means to screen incoming calls. This may not even be physically possible, in light of the growing ability to route networked communications through numerous locations, and the failure of technology like calling line identification ("caller i.d.") to be deployed globally and interoperably. Even if some steps might provide some such screening of calls originating from territories that disapprove of the content in question, however, no obligation to take such steps should be established. Any such doctrine would seriously burden the entire communications infrastructure. It would impossibly require system operators, who may not have the resources to retain regular legal counsel, to stay informed regarding the rules of countless local jurisdictions. In effect, only the wealthy would afford to operate. And it would interfere with the interoperability of computer based communications systems. Additionally, the invasiveness of some forms of the technology that might in the future be able to provide enough identifying information to be used for such screening is controversial and may pose very serious privacy problems. Given this, the lack of clear standards, and other reliability and authentication issues, no court should mandate the use of this unproven and possibly easily-exploitable technology. Cases upholding convictions of those who send physical objects through the U.S. mail are distinguishable. In such cases, it is easy for the distributor of material obscene under Tennessee standards to decline to send physical objects to that jurisdiction. In contrast, the system operators in this case had no way to check in advance where any particular person might be calling from. They did not themselves take the steps required to send the copy to the local jurisdiction. And FidoNews 12-17 Page: 26 24 Apr 1995 the installation of mechanisms designed to protect against such an occurrence would be both expensive and unfeasible, and, in fact, probably physically impossible. The question presented by this case is, in essence, how best to protect Tennessee citizens from what they consider the adverse effects of "obscene" materials while preserving, as fully as possible, the right of groups with differing sensibilities to associate and to form communities that establish and enforce different standards. Ultimately, that question reduces to one involving who should bear the burden of preventing undesired exposure to offensive material -- combined with the question of how, generally, to preserve the free flow of lawful information and the right of all groups lawfully to associate. EFF submits that the appropriate answer is to be found in exactly the kinds of labeling and password protection schemes found in this case. Requiring system operators like the Thomases to accurately label and appropriately fence off potentially offensive materials is appropriate. Thereafter, any local territorial community that wants to enforce its own obscenity standards has a duty to use tools to help it stay away from the offending materials. CONCLUSION Applying Tennessee community standards to the Amateur Action bulletin board system would have the perverse effect of imposing unworkable burdens on system operators and all providers of electronic communications and computer based information services, or of imposing a single national (or perhaps even global) standard regarding what constitutes obscenity, or of prohibiting an otherwise constitutionally protected free exchange of speech under circumstances in which no significant detrimental impact on local territorial communities could be shown. For the foregoing reasons, Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation respectfully asks this Court to reverse the District Court's convictions regarding files downloaded from the Amateur Action bulletin board system. Respectfully submitted, Shari Steele Michael Godwin ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 1667 K Street, N.W. Suite 801 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 861-7700 Internet: ssteele@eff.org . By: . Shari Steele . By: FidoNews 12-17 Page: 27 24 Apr 1995 Michael Godwin ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION has been mailed, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following: Matthew Paul Thomas J. Nolan NOLAN & ARMSTRONG 600 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301-2976 James D. Causey CAUSEY, CAYWOOD, TAYLOR & MCMANUS 230 Adams Avenue Suite 2400, 100 North Main Building Memphis, TN 38103 Dan Newsom Office of the U.S. Attorney 167 North Main Street Suite 1026, Federal Office Building Memphis, TN 38103 . on this the 19th Day of April, 1995. . . By: Shari Steele ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FOXSFTV...Why take half measures? by Zorch Frezberg, 1:205/1701 It's been interesting for science fiction fans to watch television lately, even in the areas where the Sci-Fi Channel hasn't reached... The FOX Television Network has been a dream come true. No more malignancies of the brain like SPACE RANGERS was, but quality programming for the general science fiction fan has been a key programming point for FOX. The highest rated programs, per capita, have been the FOX science fiction shows since the network began several years ago. ALIEN NATION, SLIDERS, X-FILES, VR.5, WEREWOLF...and more. And now, there is a place to discuss these programs. FOXSFTV. FidoNews 12-17 Page: 28 24 Apr 1995 Request it from your NEC or REC now...it's making the move for BackBone status. Currently, it is in private distribution, in the US East Coast, West Coast and Canada as well. In effect, we cover most of the places that can receive and watch the programs that we discuss. Send a netmail and we can help you get linked in now. Thanks for your support. Zorch Frezberg Scott Raymond Moderator Co-Moderator 1:205/1701 1:278/216 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ======================================================================== Fidonews Information ======================================================================== ------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ---------------- Editors: Donald Tees, Sylvia Maxwell Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello, Tim Pozar Tom Jennings "FidoNews" BBS FidoNet 1:1/23 BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/V.32bis/HST(DS) more addresses: Rev. Richard Visage -- 1:163/409 Don -- 1:221/192, don@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Sylvia -- 1:221/194, max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com (Postal Service mailing address) FidoNews 128 Church St. Kitchener, Ontario Canada N2H 2S4 voice: (519) 570-3137 Fidonews is published weekly by and for the members of the FIDONET INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR ELECTRONIC MAIL system. It is a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews. Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is FidoNews 12-17 Page: 29 24 Apr 1995 Copyright 1995 Donald Tees. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or the eds. Articles by Madam emilia may be retransmitted freely through cyber-space. OBTAINING COPIES: The most recent issue of FidoNews in electronic form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet. PRINTED COPIES may be obtained by sending SASE to the above paper-mail address, or trade for copy of your 'zine. INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.fidonet.org, in directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. Anyone interested in getting a copy of the INTERNET GATEWAY FAQ may freq GISFAQ.ZIP from 1:133/411.0, or send an internet message to fidofaq@gisatl.fidonet.org. No message or text or subject is necessary. The address is a keyword that will trigger the automated response. People wishing to send inquiries directly to David Deitch should now mail to fidonet@gisatl.fidonet.org rather than the previously listed address. SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it. "Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered trademarks of Tom Jennings, and are used with permission. "the pulse of the cursor is the heartbeat of fidonet"... -- END ----------------------------------------------------------------------