Old Email Archive
Return to old archive list
log 2_1_95-2_27_95
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:44:52 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "Nancy A. Barta-Smith"
Subject: SLS Panel
Sarah SStein and I are preparing a proposal for the Los Angeles SLS on
Merleau-Ponty and concepts of space in VR. The deadline is approaching,
but if you would like to make this a panel and could get a proposal
ready, let me know. She works in documentary film and I have been
exploring Merleau-Ponty and concepts of space. Nancy Barta-Smith
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:06:46 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "Allyn B. Brodsky"
Subject: Re: Kate Hayles' email
In-Reply-To: <199501291652.IAA20844@mail.netcom.com>
On Sun, 29 Jan 1995, Charles Bazerman wrote:
> I lost Kate Hayles email address.
> Can someone help.
> Chuck Bazerman
>
Last one I had (Spring 94) was ibcrben@muc.oac.ucla.edu
Hope it helps.
abbrdsky@netcom.com
Allyn B. Brodsky, Consulting Philosopher
International Synergy Institute
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 16:06:11 +0000
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Simon Rogerson
Subject: Re: ETHICOMP95
ETHICOMP95 28-30 March 1995
Do not miss this major international conference on the ethical issues
of
using Information Technology.
The conference will be attended by delegates from about 10 countries
around the world. Many of the leading authorities will be speaking.
For details of speakers and the programme see
http://www.cms.dmu.ac.uk/Research/ETHICOMP95/refpaper.html
For further information contact:
Simon Rogerson
Co-Director ETHICOMP95
Tel: +44 533 577475
Fax: +44 533 541891
Email: srog@dmu.ac.uk
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 13:58:07 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: jal@PORTIA.CALTECH.EDU
Subject: panel for sls meeting
Linda Henderson (Art, U. Texas) is organizing a panel on artistic and
literary modernist responses to early 20th century science, and is
looking
for someone on the literature side to participate. Interested? Please
contact her by fax (she's not on e-mail yet) at 512-471-5539.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 20:04:04 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Sukhumi@AOL.COM
Subject: errata for Config. 2-3
Now that volume 3, number 1 of Configurations has been printed without
an
"Errata" listing, I felt the need to dig out my copy of
Jaynes' 1976 book,
which has been rattling around my various apartments for close to a
decade.
I hope to see a correction of the misattributed Edward Jayne citations
on p.
564 of volume 2, number 3 in the next issue, according to the
publisher's
information as such:
Jaynes, Julian.
The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Consciousness.
2. Consciousness-History.
I. Title.
BF311.J36 128'.2 76-28748
ISBN 1-395-20729-0
ISBN 0-395-32440-8(pbk.)
Printed in the United States of America
v 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16
See last page of book for credits.
Houghton Mifflin Company paperback 1982
If this notice is not appropriate for the mailing list, please have it
forwarded to the right editorial staff member.
Thank you - J. Swift Kramer
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:48:43 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Stephen Ogden
Subject: Re: panel for sls meeting
In-Reply-To: <199502040640.WAA02316@whistler.sfu.ca> from
"jal@PORTIA.CALTECH.EDU" at Feb 3, 95 01:58:07 pm
I'd be glad to participate in Linda Henderson's panel -- do you have a
phone #?
Stephen
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:29:18 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: JAL@PORTIA.BITNET
Subject: Re: panel for sls meeting
>I'd be glad to participate in Linda Henderson's panel -- do you have
a
>phone #?
>
>Stephen
Sorry, no--just the fax # I sent out.
Jay
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 12:48:59 EST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: John Greenway
Subject: Re: panel for sls meeting
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:48:43 -0800 from
Stephen--
Linda Henderson's dept. number is (512) 471-7757.
John Greenway
Univ. of Kentucky
ENGJLG@UKCC
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 17:15:58 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Eric Smith
Subject: ALERT!!! (fwd)
here's a message that was forwarded to me. Sure, it's jeremaiadic,
perhaps strident, but it bears our attention. Let's not cede our world
to
the Gingrich agenda. et smith.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 14:32:36 -0800
From: msgreen
To: asle@equinox.unr.edu
Subject: ALERT!!!
Reposting a post I just got on the ecofem list. (Very glad it
was posted -- I had received a copy of this alert in the mail,
and am relieved I don't have to retype it so I can send it out to
you!) -- Mel (anmsg@orion.alaska.edu)
> #19 JRCECON@LEWI Wed 08 Feb 15:08 T
>
> From: jrcecon
> Subject: ALERT!!!
> Reply-To: jrcecon@LEWIS.UMT.EDU
>
> Greetings:
> We all probably knew, after the last election, that we were
in for a
> nasty couple of years, but this is almost beyond belief....its
making the
> rounds on environmental lists and I thought I'd post it here for
the activists
> on the list. Please forward it to anyone you can think of, and call
or write or
> fax your representatives if you are so inclined.
-JRC
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>TO: All NRDC Earth Advocates
>>FROM: John H. Adams, Executive Director
>>Subject: ATTEMPT TO DISMANTLE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
>>
>> I want to update you on the situation in Congress and
ask you to
>>make your voice heard there right away.
>> Congress is now moving at breakneck speed to enact into
law a
>>section of the Contract with America that is so
environmentally
>>destructive, ITS REAL CONTENTS HAVE BEEN KEPT CAREFULLY HIDDEN
FROM THE
>>AMERICAN PUBLIC.
>> This legislative bombshell is deceptively titled the
"Job
>>Creation and Wage Enhancement Act." In reality, 70 of its
82 pages are
>>devoted to one goal:DISMANTLING THE VITAL FRAMEWORK OF LAWS THAT
NOW
>>SAFEGUARD AMERICA'S ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH.
>> Let me repeat: Congress could vote in a matter of weeks
on an Act
>>that would sweep away virtually every legal barrier that now
shields us
>>against polluted air, toxic waste, rampant logging, deadly oil
spills,
>>and dozens of other environmental threats.
>> How could such a dangerous legislation get so far with
so little
>>public attention? I'll tell you how: its authors and corporate
sponsors
>>have disguised the true destructive intent of this radical
proposal.
>> This massive sneak attack has been so successful that
even
>>Business Week magazine -- one of the few publications to pay
attention --
>>is calling the Job Act a "stealth environmental
policy" that amounts to
>>"a guerilla war on green laws."
>> Make no mistake: the sponsors of the so-called Job Act
know that
>>Americans would not AND DID NOT vote against the environment on
Election
>>Day. In fact, the Contract with America that was so widely
advertised
>>BEFORE the elections never even mentioned the word
"environment." It was
>>only AFTER the elections that Newt Gingrich and his allies
released their
>>true anti-green agenda.
>> Their blueprint for environmental destruction is buried
inside
>>the fine print of the sadly-misnamed Job Act. Instead of
directly
>>attacking popular laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water
Act, THE
>>JOB ACT WILL SIMPLY DISMANTLE THEM RULE BY RULE.
>> If there was truth in advertising, this legislation
would be
>>called THE POLLUTERS BILL OF RIGHTS because it would blatantly
hand
>>polluters new and unprecedented powers to evade, veto, or
cripple
>>environmental laws.
>> NRDC attorneys have completed a thorough analysis of
this
>>POLLUTERS BILL OF RIGHTS. Here are a few of its most frightening
highlights:
>>
>> 1. THE RIGHT TO EVADE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
>>
>> The act would give polluters and other special interests
the
>>right to compensate if they claim an environmental rule reduces
the value
>>of their property by 10%. About all they would have to do is
send a
>>letter demanding payment and the government would have to make
them a
>>cash offer. In the meantime, the government would have to cease
its
>>environmental protection controls.
>> RESULT: MORE CLEARCUTTING. MORE STRIP-MINING. MORE OIL
DRILLING.
>>Polluters and exploiters will claim it is too costly to obey the
laws
>>which control their devastating activities. So we will have to
pay off
>>companies TO OBEY THE LAW. In this Alice-in-Wonderland world,
you and I
>>will be paying polluters NOT to pollute. If we refuse to pay
this
>>blackmail we may have to let them destroy the environment!
>>
>> 2. THE RIGHT TO VETO ENVIRONMENTAL RULES
>>
>> The Act would create new panels of "outside
experts" with VETO
>>POWER over environmental rules. And it would allow these panels
to be
>>made up of "experts" EMPLOYED BY THE POLLUTERS. In
other words: the
>>corporate fox will run the hen house.
>> RESULT: MORE AIR POLLUTION. MORE OIL SPILLS. MORE
POISONED
>>DRINKING WATER. Industry's regulatory hit-men will simply veto
new rules
>>that would clamp down on dangerous threats to our environment.
Our
>>children will be hardest hit since their bodies are most
vulnerable to
>>toxic chemicals.
>> 3. THE RIGHT TO CRIPPLE ENVIRONMENTAL RULES
>>
>> The Act will paralyze environmental protection by
requiring
>>agencies to produce an avalanche of new "cost-benefit"
studies and
>>"risk assessments" before they can issue a rule. And
polluters will have
>>the right to sue the EPA BEFORE it proposes a rule, WHEN it
proposes the
>>rule, AFTER the rule is issued and WHEN THE RULE IS
ENFORCED> While its
>>lawyers have a field day, the polluters get to keep on
polluting!
>> RESULT: MORE LUNG DISEASE. MORE CANCER. MORE
CONTAMINATED FOOD.
>>If air polluters, or sewage dumpers, or pesticide makers don't
like an
>>environmental control, it's no problem! They can just sic
their
>>lawyers on the EPA while they continue to pollute. We pay the
price in
>>doctors bills and lost wages.
>>
>> 4. THE RIGHT TO AVOID PROSECUTION
>>
>> The Act will give environmental violators an arsenal of
new
>>weapons with which to dodge prosecution. For example, the
government
>>would have to "tip off suspected lawbreakers before
inspecting them so
>>they can have a lawyer or accountant present! With that warning,
the
>>polluters can clean up falsified records or hide illegally
dumped chemicals.
>> RESULT: MORE POLLUTED RIVERS. MORE ILLEGAL DUMPING.
MORE
>>ABANDONED MINES. Corporations will be able to poison or destroy
your
>>local environment, then use delaying tactics and technical
defenses to
>>walk away scot-free. They even have the right to sue government
employees
>>PERSONALLY to scare them off the case!
>>
>> Now that you know what is in the so-called Job Act, I
trust that
>>you are horrified as I am at its vision for our future. Yes,
our
>>environmental laws may still exist on the books -- but they will
be
>>lifeless and irrelevant. Giant polluting corporations will
control the
>>regulatory process while they run roughshod over our
environment.
>> In short, this Act will turn back the clock by 25 years
-- TO A
>>TIME WHEN OUR ENVIRONMENT HAD NO PROTECTION A ALL. We will live
once
>>again with uncontrolled smog, dead lakes and rivers,
strip-mined
>>landscape, treeless forests and dying wildlife.
>> But most shocking of all: THIS POLLUTERS BILL OF RIGHTS
COULD BE
>>ENACTED WITHOUT AMERICANS EVEN KNOWING IT EXISTS-- because
Congress is
>>rushing this "stealth" act to a vote before the public
can find out
>>what's in it.
>> MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD IN CONGRESS!
>>
>> 1. CALL THE WESTERN UNION "CONTRACT HOTLINE"
AT 1-800-651-1424
>> (the call costs $8 and can be billed to your telephone,
Visa, or
>> Mastercard.You can call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.)
>>
>> 2. CALL OR FAX YOUR CONGRESSPERSONS
>>
>> WHERE TO CALL: Call Capitol Switchboard at
202-224-3121.
>> Ask to be connected to the office of your Senator or
Representative.
>> WHERE TO FAX: Call the Capitol Switchboard and
speak to
>> the office of your Congressperson. Tell them you are a
constituent and
>> need their fax number in order to send an urgent
message.
>>
>> PLEASE ACT TODAY. WE WILL NOT GET A
SECOND
>> CHANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP AT THIS
CRITICAL TIME.
>>
>>National Resources Defense Council- 40 West 20th Street, New
York, NY 10011
(originally posted to me from ecofem@csf.colorado.edu,
"STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT)
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 20:45:57 +0900
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: John Constable
Subject: Oppeheimer etc.
It is common to find references to the fact that Oppenheimer wrote
poems
(there is, for example, that famous anecdote where Dirac teases him
about
it - "Why do you, a scientist, bother to write poetry, of all
things? In
science we try to express the most complicated, obscure and puzzling,
ideas
in the simplest, clearest, form, whereas in poetry..." [paraphrased
from
memory]), but I have never seen any of the things in print, or found
any
promising leads in the usual reference sources. Does anyone have any
idea
whether they were published, or where the manuscripts can be found?
John Constable,
Department of International Culture,
Faculty of Integrated Human Studies,
Kyoto University,
Yoshida Nihon-matsu-cho,
Sakyo-ku,
Kyoto, 606-01,
JAPAN.
Tel: 075 753 6620
Fax: 075 753 6647
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:04:23 -0500
Reply-To: John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was
lav@BLAZAR.BILL.CONNCOLL.EDU
From: John_Lavagnino@BROWN.EDU
Subject: A poem by Oppenheimer
Crossing
J. Robert Oppenheimer
It was evening when we came to the river
with a low moon over the desert
that we had lost in the mountains, forgotten,
what with the cold and the sweating
and the ranges barring the sky.
And when we found it again,
in the dry hills down by the river,
half withered, we had
the hot winds against us.
There were two palms by the landing;
the yuccas were flowering; there was
a light on the far shore, and tamarisks.
We waited a long time, in silence.
Then we heard the oars creaking
and afterwards, I remember,
the boatman called to us.
We did not look back at the mountains.
(From *The Hound & Horn: A Harvard Miscellany*, Volume 1, Number 4,
June, 1928, page 335. Signed ``J. R. Oppenheimer.'')
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 10:02:47 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Peter MacKay
Subject: CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
CALL FOR POETRY SUBMISSIONS
You are invited to submit poems for the upcoming issue of PEN AND INK
MAGAZINE.
The work of both new and established poets can find a home with this
publication. PEN AND INK is interested in all forms of poetry,
including
free verse, experimental, and traditional styles. The magazine is
digest-
size, laser printed, and published semiannually (in spring/summer and
fall/winter). Manuscripts are read throughout the year. Poets receive
a complimentary copy of the issue in which their work appears.
GUIDELINES:
1. Poems under 25 lines are preferred, but any length is acceptable.
2. Typed submissions are preferred, but legible handwritten work will
also be considered. (Please keep copies of the poems you send.)
3. Name, address, and phone number should be included on each page.
4. A self-addressed, stamped envelope (SASE) or international reply
coupon
(IRC) must accompany any submission.
5. Only unpublished poems should be sent for consideration.
SEND POEMS (WITH SASE OR IRC) TO:
PEN AND INK MAGAZINE
P.O. BOX 130574
ANN ARBOR, MI 48113-0574
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 07:40:34 +0001
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: B+R Samizdat Express
Subject: Internet-on-a-Disk #9, February 1995
INTERNET-ON-A-DISK #9, February 1995
Newsletter of public domain and freely available electronic texts
Circulation: direct = 5,300, indirect (estimated) = 100,000+
This newsletter is free for the asking. To be added to the
distribution
list, please send requests to samizdat@world.std.com. If you don't
have an email address, we can send it to you by snail-mail on IBM or
Mac diskette. ($30 for ten diskettes -- one with all the back issues,
followed by the next nine issues.) B&R Samizdat Express, PO Box
161,
West Roxbury, MA 02132.
Permission is granted to freely distribute this newsletter in electronic
form.
All other rights reserved. (Parts of this will soon be collected in a
book --
I-Time: The Internet Era by Richard Seltzer).
We plan to produce new issues about once a month (with time off for
vacation). We welcome submissions of articles and information
relating to availability of electronic texts on the Internet and their
use in
education.
*************************************************
WHAT'S NEW
(texts recently made available by ftp, gopher, www, and LISTSERV)
from the Gutenberg Project --
ftp mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu /pub/etext/etext95
NEW ADDRESS http://jg.cso.uiuc.edu/pg_home.html
My Antonia by Willa Cather (myant10.txt)
Stories from the Old Attic by Robert Harris (attic10.txt)
William Gibson Interviewed by Giuseppe Salza (wmgib10.txt)
Child Christopher, by William Morris (chilc10.txt)
Sister Carrie, by Theodore Dreiser (scarr10.txt)
Radar Map of the United States [Graphic File] (usmpr10.txt)
Dear Enemy by Jean Webster #2 [Twain Grandneice] (drnmy10.txt)
Propertius [in Latin], [Sexti Properti Carmina] (prpti10.txt)
The Jungle Book, by Rudyard Kipling (jnglb10.txt)
The Georgics [English] by Virgil (geore10.txt)
The Bucolics/Ecloges [English] by Virgil (bucoe10.txt)
The Bucolics/Ecloges [Latin], by Virgil (bucol10.txt)
The Aeneid [English], by Virgil (anide10.txt)
The Aeneid [in Latin] by Virgil(anidl10.txt)
Cicero's Orations [in Latin, Selected Orations] (ccero10.txt)
At the Back of the North Wind by George MacDonald (nwind10.txt)
A Pair of Blue Eyes, by Thomas Hardy (pblue10.txt)
Clotelle; or the Colored Heroine by William Wells Brown (clot11.txt)
Live from Antarctica
gopher Quest.arc.nasa.gov and select NASA K-12 Interactive
Projects
If the last time you looked at this site was a month ago, check again.
Now you'll find everything you ever need to know about Antarctica,
scientific research based there (e.g., ozone hole and other
environmental
issues), and the life/career of a research scientist. Over 550 files
were placed on the Internet at this gopher server in support of the
LIVE
FROM ANTARCTICA Program, including the teacher's guide,
background info from the National Science Foundation, all the
questions and answers from students and teachers, detailed journals
of the scientists and other participants/observers, and .gif and .jpg
files
of photos. This "electronic field trip" included a
mini-series of four
forty-minute LIVE educational television programs distributed over PBS
(in the U.S.). For more information on the project call
1-800-626-LIVE. If you cannot access the gopher site, the on-line
materials (including the images) are also available on IBM diskettes
for
$50 (five diskettes) or Macintosh diskettes $60 (six diskettes) from
the PLEASE COPY THIS DISK Project. (To order, send email to
samizdat@world.std.com).
from Data Text Processing Ltd.
http://www.dircon.co.uk/datatext/index.html
This company in the U.K. is making available a growing library of
out-of-copyright fiction, currently including:
Stevenson: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
Treasure Island
Hardy The Mayor of Casterbridge
Kipling Kim
Meade-Faulkner Moonfleet
Lermontov A Hero of our time
Wilde A selection of short stories
These are all in html (the hypertext markup language used on the Web.)
from The Freethought Web
http://freethought.tamu.edu/freethought/
This is a large and growing collection of public domain etexts on the
common theme of "freethought." Current authors include:
Aletheia, M.D.; Allen, Ethan; Avery, Martin; Baker, I. Newton;
Bradlaugh, Charles; Burbank, Luther; Conway, Moncure D.; Crowley,
Jeremiah J.; Cohen, Chapman; ; Colcord, Lincoln; Darrow, Clarence;
Dreiser, Theodore; Fields, Emmett F.; Floyd, William; Foote, George;
Fulks, Clay; Gardner, Helen H.; Gauvin, Marshall; Goldberg, Issac;
Graves, Kersey; Haldeman-Julius, E.; Hughes, Rupert; Ingersoll, Robert;
Kessler, John J.; Kittredge, Herman E.; Mangasarian, M. M.; McCabe,
Joseph; McGee, John Edwin; McLaren, A. D.; Paine, Thomas;
Patterson, J. H.; Potter, Charles F.; Remsburg, John E.; Reade,
Charles;
Renan, Ernest; Shelley, Percy Bysshe; Sinclair, Upton; Teller, Woolsey;
Washburn, Lemuel K.; Watts, Charles; White, Andrew Dickson;
Wheless, Joseph
*************************************
SUGGESTION -- PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD
While very few K-12 schools have good Internet connections, nearly all
have PCs or Macintoshes. And one of the best ways to introduce them
to the treasures of the Internet is by providing them with electronic
texts
on disks. (That's a lot easier and cheaper than giving them
printouts.)
For those who do not have the capability or the time to retrieve
electronic texts from the Internet, many are available at a nominal
price
from PLEASE COPY THIS DISK, a project of The B&R Samizdat
Express. For further information, send email to
samizdat@world.std.com
*********************************************************
WEB NOTES
From Hillside Elementary in Minnesota
http://hillside.coled.umn.edu/others.html
Six months ago it was a rarity to find an elementary school on the
World
Wide Web. Today, there are so many its hard to keep track of them all.
Hillside, one of the first schools on the Web, is now making that a lot
easier, with an interactive map of the US. Click on Massachusetts and
you
get to a hypertext list of all the K-12 schools in Massachusetts that
are
on the Web today. In addition, they have listings of schools in
Australia,
Brazil, Canada, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Japan, Malaysia,
Singapore, Taiwan, and Turkey. Plus, they have global listings of
elementary
schools, secondary
schools, school districts, and educational organizations on the Web.
From the U.S. Library of Congress -- the Thomas Web Server
http://thomas.loc.gov/
This site provides the full text of all versions of House and Senate
bills
searchable by keyword(s) or by bill number, plus background information
on how laws are made. It will also soon provide the full text of the
Congressional Record and the full text of the daily account of
proceedings on the House and Senate Floors, searchable by keyword(s).
"Future Enhancements to THOMAS will include adding the Library's
Bill
Digest files, summaries and chronologies of legislation, and will
integrate
them with the full text of bills, thus creating a unique presentation
of
legislative information."
From Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
http://www.mciu.k12.pa.us
Check out what Montgomery County is doing for its teachers through the
MCIU Internet Project: "This project provides every educator in
Montgomery County schools (estimated to be around 6,000) with their
own Unix shell or SLIP/PPP account. This service is free to the end
user,
since the cost is subsidized by the IU [Intermediate Unit] and their
districts. This is the first step in a plan to connect all the schools
in
Montgomery County into one large Wide Area Network connected to the
Internet,
for the purposes of interaction and distribution of educational
resources>"
**********************************
CURIOUS TECHNOLOGY
html to ascii conversion --
If your Web browser won't let you save files as plain text, you can use
a conversion program to remove the html code. You can download this
software (htmlcon.zip) from
ftp://ftp.crl.com/ftp/users/ro/mikekell/html/satftp.htm
converting files to html --
If you want to create pages in html for publishing on the Web,
Microsoft's
Internet Assistant (beta version) is available for free downloading from
their
Web site (http://www.microsoft.com). Click on "What's new."
To use this, you need the US version of Word for Windows 6.0a or 6.0c.
hypermail --
Check out http://www.mid.net:net/NET/ You'll want to go there both for
the content (messages sent over Gleason Sackman's net-happenings list)
and also to see an implementation of "hypermail," which turns
those mail
messages into Web pages.
***************************
READERSHIP -- WHO'S OUT THERE?
Someone recently forwarded to me John Buckman's Top 40 List of
Listservs. I was surprised to see the low circulation numbers.
My own little mailing list Internet-on-a-Disk (which I maintain by hand
rather than by Listserv) would have ranked #26 a month ago (with 4600
subscribers). And with the 700 new subscribers, it would rank #23.
Of course the numbers are misleading, because of the nature of the
Internet.
Any interesting item gets forwarded and posted and reposted many times.
(Based on the responses I get from people who receive my
newsletter in roundabout ways, I estimate my own readership at over
100,000). But still, with an estimated 30 million people with email
access to the Internet, I would have thought that a direct subscriber
list of around 5000 was miniscule. Strange.
Out of curiosity, I did a breakdown of my subscriber list by domain and
country. About half are definitely in the US. About a quarter are
probably
in the US, but could be anywhere in the world. About a quarter are
definitely outside the US. About half are definitely in education.
About a
quarter are definitely commercial. If you'd like a more detailed
breakdown,
send email to samizdat@world.std.com and ask for "domain.txt".
If you'd
like us to forward to you John Buckman's list, ask for
"listserv.txt."
***************************************************
THE INTERNET AND THE HUMAN SPIRIT
by Richard Seltzer, B&R Samizdat Express
We see today -- while it is still in its early stages -- that the
Internet
enables new behavior and new ways for people to interrelate. If we are
indeed products of our environment, will this new environment shape us
in new
ways? Might human nature "progress"?
Personally, I doubt that our basic human nature is
"perfectible." Rather,
I believe that the human potential for good and ill, for creativity,
for
reason, and for random senseless violence remains relatively constant
over
the centuries. But there are aspects of human nature which may never
have
been exercised before because there never before existed the technical
means for their expression.
In other words, the human potential for the exercise of mass
destruction
existed before the invention of the weapons that made it possible. The
potential for people to temporarily submerge their identity and their
individual reason in large-scale crowd hysteria existed before the
invention
of mass communication media. And the potential for large-scale
reasoned
discourse, for thousands or even millions of people to arrive at mutual
understanding and consensus through dialogue existed before there was
any means to allow ideas to be spread instantaneously in a global forum
where they could compete on the basis of their merit.
I contend that the Internet today reveals positive aspects of human
nature,
and in particular the nature of people working together as a unit on a
global
scale, that we have never seen before. It isn't likely to change the
nature of man; rather it allows us to express aspects of our potential
which
previously were hidden from us.
Before the coming of the Internet, the only image we had of large
numbers
of people working together was the image of the crowd and the
crowd-like
mass hysteria that can be induced by modern one-way mass communication,
where one person's nightmare becomes projected onto the many and
becomes their nightmare as well.
We had come to presume -- from the examples of history and the writings
of novelists and philosophers --- that an individual in isolation --
Thoreau
alone on a hillside -- is more likely to be good and rational than any
large
group of people. People together become a crowd, enforce conformity,
and sometimes become an unreasoning mob that acts out wild unconscious
impulses that the isolated individual could have kept under control. We
see
the boys in Golding's Lord of the Flies working themselves into a
savage
frenzy, and we are dramatically led to recognize the beast which is in
us
all.
As Robert Penn Warren once said, "Things exist in you without you
knowing it." But those unknown "things" may be good as
well as evil.
And today the culture of the Internet reveals vast and unexpected human
potential for unselfish collaboration.
*************************************
HOPE FOR THE DISABLED --
MICROSOFT OPENS WINDOWS FOR THE BLIND
In previous issues we noted that thanks to devices that can convert
plain
text to voice or other forms of output, the blind can readily navigate
the
Internet and take advantage of the resources of the Internet, but that
the
widespread use of graphics on the Internet threatens to lock them out.
Alternatives are technologically possible, such as Lynx, a text-based
browser for the World Wide Web. But overwhelmingly, the software
developers are focusing on Windows technology and making programs
that require the user to see the graphics and use a mouse to initiate
commands.
Now, thanks to the lobbying efforts of people concerned about
this issue, Microsoft has made a commitment to design future products
to be far more accessible to the blind, and to make it easier for
software
developers to do likewise.
Attached is a note we just received from Jamal Mazrui reporting on this
event, and the full text of the letter from Microsoft to the National
Council on Disability.
From: "Jamal Mazrui"
To: B+R Samizdat Express
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 09:43:39 EST
Subject: Re: Microsoft letter to NCD
Yes, you may publish my note and the letter. I am quite familiar
with your publication, having received it since the beginning. You
may remember me as a blind computer user who complimented you on
the editorial you ran in that recent issue concerning accessibility
of the Internet.
I'm not sure which note of mine you mean though. I assume it is the
one that prefaces the letter. Let me share them both again as
follows:
Since arranging a meeting at Microsoft headquarters in August
1994, the National Council on Disability--a federal advisory
board appointed by the President--has been diligently advocating
for improved access to the Microsoft Windows operating
environment, particularly for people who are blind or visually
impaired. Marca Bristo (the chair), Bonnie O'Day (an appointee),
and Billie-Jean Hill (a staff person) deserve particular credit
for this work, which--combined with the efforts of others--seems
to be achieving substantive results.
In January 1995, NCD received a responsive letter from a
senior vice president at Microsoft. With NCD's permission, I am
sharing it here.
Jamal Mazrui
jamal@ksgdfs.harvard.edu
------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
January 25, 1995
Ms. Marca Bristo
Chairperson
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, N.W. -- Suite 1050
Washington, D.C. 20004-1107
Dear Ms. Bristo:
Thank you for your letter to Bill Gates concerning blind
accessibility to Microsoft Windows and other products. I am
sorry to be so long in getting back to you. As you can imagine,
we've been very busy ensuring the upcoming release of Windows 95
does the best job possible addressing the issues that you raise.
I want to emphasize Microsoft is very committed to making
computers easier to use for everyone, including individuals with
disabilities. Personal computers are powerful tools that enable
people to work, create, and communicate in ways that might
otherwise be difficult or impossible. The vision of enabling all
people can be realized only if individuals with disabilities have
equal access to the powerful world of personal computing.
That said, I would like to share with you some of the areas we
are focusing our resources on for Windows 95:
* New API's (Application Programming Interface) and
"hooks"
are being developed to allow Independent Software Vendors
(ISVs) to develop third-party accessibility aids, especially those
which allow blind individuals to use Windows by
way of a screen reader. These include the ability to access both
low-level graphics operations as well as higher level graphics
information, methods to retrieve window focus change and system
carat location information, and methods for screen readers to bypass
system criteria dialog boxes and messages. By providing documented
and supported interfaces to this information, it allows the
ISV community to be innovative in their own accessibility products
for Windows.
* We're also developing a Windows 95 tutorial for blind users
to better introduce the rich set of functionality now available, as well
as
the ability for the computer to read text to a user ('text to speech')
and
the ability for a user to tell a computer what to do ('voice command').
* For people with limited vision, we've designed the Windows
95 visual interface to be very easy to customize. This includes
a customizable mouse pointer, high-contrast color schemes, high
contrast mode, and customizable windows titles, scroll bars,
borders, and menu text. In addition to be easy to customize,
we're working on utilities for users with limited vision such as
a screen enlarger.
* We're integrating and improving the features from the Access
Pack which compensate for difficulties some individuals have
using the keyboard mouse. These features include
'stickkeys' (allows users to type with a single finger or
mouthstick), 'filterkeys' (allows users to brush against keys
without any ill effect, and when the user gets a finger on the
proper key, they can hold the key down until the character prints
to the screen), 'repeatkeys' (allows users to adjust the speed at
which the keys repeat), 'bouncekeys' (instructs Windows to ignore
unintended key strokes), and 'mousekeys' (allows users to control
the mouse pointer using the keyboard).
* Aside from the above features, we're also developing an
on-screen keyboard for users who have difficulty navigating with
a keyboard.
* We're providing additional visual feedback for users who are
deaf or hard-of-hearing, including 'showsounds' (allows Windows
to tell applications to show audible information, akin to 'close
captioned' television broadcasts), and 'soundsentry' (tells
Windows to send a visual cue, such as a blinking title bar or
screen flash whenever there is a system beep).
* We will be making Windows 95 documentation in an accessible
format.
Since your meeting here on campus in August, we have assembled a
sizable group of employees who are working to devise a means of
making all of our products more accessible. I know that Windows
95 has been of particular concern. As indicated above, Windows
95 will have improved support for blind access techniques over
Windows 3.1, as well as the many other features mentioned. Some
features may not ship in the initial release of Windows 95, but
we will find a way to include these additional features as soon
after the initial release as possible. We have also stepped up
our efforts to work with accessibility software vendors and to
provide them with better technical access, so that they can
address the limitations of current software. To provide this
opportunity, we will be holding an "Accessibility Summit"
where
software vendors will be invited to participate in an exchange of
ideas and experience creating products for people with
disabilities. We won't, however, rely solely on software vendors
to do all the work. Some additional utilities we'll build
ourselves.
We are continuing to hear, from a variety of sources, about the
problem that graphical interfaces, and Windows in particular,
present to individuals who are blind. We understand the need to
address these shortcomings as soon as is feasible and are
committed to making Windows the most accessible operating system
available. To adequately ensure each issue is addressed, we are
initiating an internal research effort on making graphical user
interfaces more accessible for the disabled. We're also
investigating establishing an independent effort for
accessibility criteria for all Windows-based applications.
We hope that in the interests of greater accessibility for blind
computer users we can enter into a productive dialog with the
National Council on Disability and with other disability
organizations to reach our common goal. In fact, we are in the
process of setting up an advisory board and are eager to involve
you if possible. I would personally like to meet with you to
discuss these issues. A member of my team will contact you in
the near future to set up a meeting where we can begin working
closely together.
Sincerely,
Brad Silverberg
Senior Vice President
Personal Systems Division
cc: Bill Gates
***********************************
Back issues are available from us on request, and are also found at the
archives of the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/E-jounrals/Internet_on_a_Disk/
They are also available from a web server in London (NB -- this
site will be moving soon.)
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/people/gordo/samizdat.html = catalog of
disks
available from PLEASE COPY THIS
DISK
" " /internet_disk1.html =
issue #1
" " /internet_disk2.html =
issue #2 etc.
They are also found at such sites as:
gopher sjuvm.stjohns.edu /Disabilities & Rehabilitation Resources/
/EASI/EASI's list of available Internet etexts
And also at the GRIST On-Line BBS at (212)787-6562.
You are welcome to include this publication on your bbs or ftp or
gopher or webserver. Please let us know the address, and we'll add it
to
this list.
NB -- Depending on time and place, Richard Seltzer could be available
for speaking engagements.
Published by PLEASE COPY THIS DISK, B&R Samizdat Express,
PO Box 161, West Roxbury, MA 02132. samizdat@world.std.com
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 12:04:00 +0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: 91A16811671F <91A16811671F@AM.NIE.AC.SG>
Subject: Tennyson
It was commented that Tennyson's ' Ulysses' was written in
his 'darkest moments' and it expresses the poet's cry to
remain true to his poetic style rather than yield to the demands
of his critics.
I think the above statement merits some consideration, especially
when the poem was written historically at a time when Tennyson
was plagued with immesnse personal trials ...
I hope to gather arguments or comments on the above statement.
Please help me out if you have any.
Thanks
Victor Kiew
undergraduate - BA(PE)
Singapore
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 00:18:13 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: bc70064@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU
Subject: technical writing
I am beginning to plan a freshman composition course, and would like
to focus the major project on technical writing. Although I have a
biology background, I am uncertain as to where to begin collecting
information on technical writing. I would appreciate suggestions for
institutions, individuals, or companies to contact for more
information;list of possible textbooks or other relevant
material;course outlines or syllabi if anyone has taught such a
course. Please e-mail me directly. Thanks a lot for any help.
-_Sincerely,
Emma Rochester
e-mail: br00331@binghamton.cc.bingsuns.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:08:56 EST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Andrew Russ
Subject: Re: technical writing
Check out the textx by Charles Bazerman: Writing ofr the Disciplines
and
Reading for the Disciplines. I won't guarantee they're freshman
level, but Bazerman is concerned withthese kinds of issues. See also
his
book Shaping Written Knowledge.
THere's a journal called Technical Writiing and Communication. You may
find
some ideas there.
andrew russ
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 21:49:36 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Stephen Ogden
Subject: Re: technical writing
In-Reply-To: <199502220525.VAA21126@whistler.sfu.ca> from
"bc70064@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU" at Feb 22, 95 00:18:13
am
Three extremely helpful books are:
_Good Style: Writing for Science and Technology_. John Kirkman
E & FN Spon, London 1992.
_Writing Better Computer User Documentation: From
Paper to Hypertext_.
John R. Brockmann. Wiley, NY, 1990. It is just coming out in a new
edition, I believe.
_Creating Technical Manuals: A Step-by-Step Approach to Writing
User-Friendly Instructions_ Donald Cunningham and Gerald Cohen
McGraw-Hill, NY 1984.
I teach a college course on tech. writing around these three books,
&
from both the technical and linguistic standpoint they are first-rate.
Stephen Ogden
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 11:20:49 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Deanna Dunn
Subject: Re: technical writing
"If the time should ever come when what is now science becomes
familiarized to men, then the remotest discoveris of the chemist, the
botanist, the mineralogist, will be as proper objects of the poet's art
as
any upon which it can be employed. He will be ready to follow the steps
of
the man of science; he will be at his side, carrying sensation into the
midst of the objects of science itself. The poet will lend his divine
spirit to aid the transfiguration, and will welcome the being thus
produced
as a dear and genuine inmate of the household man."
-- Wordsworth
You have hit upon a subject that is extremely overlooked. Technical
writing is poorly done and hardly ever taught. When it is taught,
students
are usually commanded by lab professors who know next to nothing about
standards in English writing to use passive voice.
A quick look at any scientific journal will also show a similar lack of
comprehension. Consequently, amazing discoveries are buried in such
immense jargon and boring writing style that the uninitated are left
clueless. In fact, even highly educated scientists of differing
specialities cannot fully comprehend the nuances of a college's research
if
it is presented in written form simply because they are not familiar
with
the jargon associated with the paticular project.
What a travesty! In a profession that endeavors to advance the human
understanding of the universe in which we live, scientists remain
incapeable of communicating that understanding back to humanity. This
is
not because they are unintelligent but just that they are unequipped.
I encourage you to teach proper use of the English language in
communicating technical subjects clearly and concisely. Science can
then
be a magical experiece for all of us.
Deanna Dunn
Research Chemist
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 15:21:33 EST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: cory
Subject: Re: technical writing
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 23 Feb 95 15:15:48 EST from
On Thu, 23 Feb 95 15:15:48 EST John Greenway said:
>
> "If the time should ever come when what is now science
becomes
>familiarized to men, then the remotest discoveris of the chemist,
the
>botanist, the mineralogist, will be as proper objects of the poet's
art as
>any upon which it can be employed. He will be ready to follow the
steps of
>the man of science; he will be at his side, carrying sensation into
the
>midst of the objects of science itself. The poet will lend his
divine
>spirit to aid the transfiguration, and will welcome the being thus
produced
>as a dear and genuine inmate of the household man."
> -- Wordsworth
>
Everything is poetry.
--Cory
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 13:19:48 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Doug R Capra
Subject: John Burnside's Poetry
I'm not subscribed to your list, so please answer at my personal
email address. Has anyone read John Burnside's poetry? I'm especially
interested in a poem he published in the Jan 30, 1995 New Yorker
magazine.
The poem is called "The Sand Merchant's Wife." I would call
it an
excellent example of poetry with a strong scientific bent, and would
appreciate any comments from members of this list.
Doug Capra --IFDRC@ACAD2.ALASKA.EDU
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 11:01:29 CST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "carr0023@gold.tc.umn.edu"
Subject: Nature
This regards an academic situation that seemingly exists between the
sciences and the humanties.
It seems to me that there exists a _choice_ as to whether or not one
person recognizes the objective nature of science as being of relevance
to any question in particular. In effect, what seems to exist is an
arbitrary recognition of the influence (or reality) of science today;
instead, either science does_not affect any one individual or that this
affect is a _choice_ accepted or made by the individual.
Thus in this arbitrary nature something within the objective realm of
science, say biotechnology (and it as a subject) are _chosen_ to affect
one by _choice_, and a choice can be made to have this _not_ affect the
individual. As if the objective Universe of scientific nature itself
is over-there, or outside of its influence in the human question.
This arbitrariness, and unless I haven't been very clear- this value
judgement- is sometimes hard to reason with in the educational system,
as there seems to exist this _chosen_ recognition of scientific nature
and its having valid influence in the active environment.
Even more, this value judgement is not merely _chosen_ to be recognized
or not, but is chosen by its desireability and virtue in the human
ideal.
That means to say that it seems to be understood as "right" or
"wrong"
previous to being recognized for its (objective) truth or falsity.
I write from the Humanities side of the questioning, and so far I have
every reason to believe that this arbitrary objective nature indeed is
the reason I cannot reason with some of the professors. That is not to
say they are unreasonable, but that their "private"
universes/natures
might be omitting some of the facts from which the public mind can use
to build ideas with, and to learn with. And this limit is in effect the
limit upon the questions that can be asked. The question is limited.
I independently study the relationship between the electrical system
and architecture and have the ability to pursue this public history in
architectural education. What seems to be a set-back to being able to
work with others on these ideas is the acceptance and belief in science
and its objective nature-- and instead, an arbitrary gap exists in
which
the objective nature of science needs be recognized before judgement of
its rightness or wrongness.
An example of this scientific nature would be the harnessing of nature
suspended above the world's streets and alleys, mathematically moving
electrons through cables and wires in absolute ordering, passing in the
transmission towers of metal, into sub and switching stations, and into
the network of wooden poles, houses, businesses, and into the lights on
every street and alley, here and there. I look at a television, seeing
this less and less as another object, but more as a capital, a climax
of
human knowledge of this electrical energy, and "we" exist
inside of this
nature, as nature, existing within the scientific objective realm,
being
human, subjects. And yet, this simple object is often said bad or good
independent of any connection to this larger harnessing of nature.
If I could somehow write of this paradox through example, it would seem
the situation when driving down a highway and seeing a 500 foot antenna
rising above the plains horizon. It is the possibility that this
thing,
this object, is (or might be) providing the carrier wave and signals
for
broadcasting whatever is seen in that television box, and the
recognition
of this is simply not within our history of understanding the nature
of science (at least in architecture/humanities). That is to say that
this nature may be both mentally unknown, and sensibly invisible
because
of its being a non-subject. But at the same time, this literal image
is
not to be disagreed as to whether it is true or false, but of its being
of relevance, right or wrong to the question of the human in nature.
What nature? This seems to be my confusion. If this gap did not exist
I would not be subscribed to this list trying to figure out exacly how
to build ideas without the agreement on this nature's relevance to the
human being in the objective nature of science. Instead of being able
to go forward with my architectural thesis's, A/E, and A/UN, I
backtrack
to assumptions made regarding this nature. Now, instead of freedom in
the mind, and in having reason and rational direction- it is explaining
why _i_can_ and _should_ be able to pursue A/E/UN. Meaning that
somehow
I must write my way out of this paradox of nature.
So, instead I work on ideas of a/science, probably even more-
humanities
and science, to find the original conflict-- and it does seem to be
this
_choice_ as to whether or not accept objective truth as true-- and this
being mostly disregarded under "relativism" without truth, or
standard--
"there is no absolute truth." To me these assumptions are way
down the
line from being able to reason with, because successive arguments will
not prove beyond doubt that what is true is true, unless the individual
recognizes it for themselves. Thus, as feeling somewhat as a
missionary
with this topic, I hope others on this list could offer suggestions, or
similar experiences, or books regarding the science and humanities, as
i have the feeling i will have to write out an explanation of why i
feel
i should be free to think without private limits on my public
reasoning.
So here is me and my litsci condition, and as you may have noticed by
now, my writing is probably not the capacity for scholarship in these
ideas, but i guess my goal or aim is to communicate the validity of
this
paradox of nature, so that it may be resolved and so that more people
can communicate regarding what it is to be a human in this nature, and
in this electric time and space, to see and sense its architecture.
brian c
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 18:20:03 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Felice Aull
Subject: another related discussion group
As I've been reading the discussions of the literature and science group
I
think some participants might be interested in another discussion group
that has related interests, namely in the field of Literature and
Medicine.
The latter group is called lit-med-talk and is part of a project out of
NYU
School of Medicine. The (free) resources we offer include:
1. An on-line, annotated bibliography of literature & medicine,
augmented
and updated every two months, with contributions from a dozen
editor/annotators.
2.A directory of medical humanities programs and contact persons (the
next
edition which will be up shortly includes the lit-sci discussion
address).
3.Archives of the lit-med-talk group messages.
4.Pointer(s) to related resources.
Access with gopher client software to the above resources is at:
gopher.med.nyu.edu
Select the Literature & Medicine (Medical Humanities) choice from
the menu.
Access through a WWW client is at:
http://mchip00.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/medhum.html
This takes you directly to the Medical Humanities resources
To subscribe to lit-med-talk, send an e-mail message to:
lit-med-request@popmail.med.nyu.edu
To send a discussion message to lit-med-talk,send to:
lit-med-talk@popmail.med.nyu.edu
Hope some of you find this information useful.
Felice Aull
Felice Aull, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology
NYU School of Medicine
550 First Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10016
tel. 212-263-5401
FAX: 212-689-9060 (Physiology)
212-263-8542 (Literature & Medicine)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 01:47:29 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Edward Silver
which
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 01:52:40 +0100
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Name withheld by request
Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 15:29:21 -0700
hey folks,
You may have heard about the following proposed legislation already,
but
I thought I would pass it on to everyone for their own perusal. It has
apparently taken the net by storm in the last 48 hours, as I have now
received 4 copies of it from various sources. Read on and enjoy.
Jay
---------------------------forwarded message
follows--------------------
>
> Hello everyone...
>
> I know it been a while since I've been seen on the net, but I've
> been a little bit busy. However, a matter has come to my
> attention that is of the utmost importance to all of us online.
>
> Simply put, a couple of senators have proposed a particularly
> heinous piece of legislation titled the "Communications
> Decency Act of 1995" (Senate Bill S. 314). Basically, the
> bill would subject all forms of electronic communication --
> from public Internet postings to your most private email --
> to government censorship. The effects of the bill onto the
> online industry would be devastating -- most colleges and
> private companies (AOL, Compuserve, etc.) would probably have
> to shut down or greatly restrict access, since they would be
> held criminally liable for the postings and email of private
> users.
>
> Obviously, this bill is designed to win votes for these senators
> among those who are fearful of the internet and aren't big
> fans of freedom of speech -- ie., those who are always trying to
> censor "pornography" and dirty books and such. Given
the
> political climate in this country, this bill might just pass
> unless the computer community demonstrates its strength as a
> committed political force to be reckoned with. This, my friends,
> is why I have filled your mailbox with this very long message.
>
> A petition, to be sent to Congress, the President, and the media,
> has begun spreading through the Internet. It's easy to
participate
> and be heard -- to sign it, you simply follow the instructions
> below -- which boil down to sending a quick email message to a
> certain address. That's all it takes to let your voice be heard.
> (You know, if the Internet makes democracy this accessible to the
> average citizen, is it any wonder Congress wants to censor it?)
>
> Finally, PLEASE forward this message to all your friends online.
> The more people sign the petition, the more the government will
> get the message to back off the online community. We've been
doing
> fine without censorship until now -- let's show them we don't plan
on
> allowing them to start now. If you value your freedoms -- from
> your right to publicly post a message on a worldwide forum to your
> right to receive private email without the government censoring it
--
> you need to take action NOW. It'll take fifteen minutes at the
most,
> a small sacrifice considering the issues at hand. Remember, the
age
> of fighting for liberty with muskets and shells is most likely
over;
> the time has come where the keyboard and the phone line will prove
> mightier than the sword -- or the Senate, in this case.
>
> Yours in liberty,
>
> -don
>
> >
> > Here's what you have to do to sign the petition:
> >
> > send an e-mail message to: S314-petition@netcom.com
> > the message (NOT the subject heading) should read as follows:
> > SIGNED
> > eg. SIGNED lsewell@leland.Stanford.EDU Laura Sewell YES
> >
> > If you are interested in signing the petition, I would highly
suggest
> > investigating the details of the situation. You can find out
more on
> > the Web at http://www.wookie.net/~slowdog or in the
newsgroup
> > comp.org.eff.talk
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 14:48:48 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Felice Aull
Subject: discussion group, lit-med resources
Some who are on the LITSCI listserv might be interested in a discussion
group that has related interests, namely in the field of Literature and
Medicine. The latter group is called lit-med-talk and is part of a
project
out of NYU School of Medicine. The (free) resources we offer include:
1. An on-line, annotated bibliography of literature & medicine,
augmented
and updated every two months, with contributions from a dozen
editor/annotators.
2.A directory of medical humanities programs and contact persons (the
next
edition which will be up shortly includes the lit-sci discussion
address).
3.Archives of the lit-med-talk group messages.
4.Pointer(s) to related resources.
Access with gopher client software to the above resources is at:
gopher.med.nyu.edu
Select the Literature & Medicine (Medical Humanities) choice from
the menu.
Access through a WWW client is at:
http://mchip00.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/medhum.html
This takes you directly to the Medical Humanities resources
To subscribe to lit-med-talk, send an e-mail message to:
lit-med-request@popmail.med.nyu.edu
To send a discussion message to lit-med-talk,send to:
lit-med-talk@popmail.med.nyu.edu
We hope that some of you will find this information useful.
Felice Aull
Felice Aull, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology
NYU School of Medicine
550 First Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10016
tel. 212-263-5401
FAX: 212-689-9060 (Physiology)
212-263-8542 (Literature & Medicine)
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 22:30:49 CST
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "carr0023@gold.tc.umn.edu"
Subject: Fwd: PETITION TO STOP S.314 (LONG & IMPORTANT)
----- Forwarded message begins here -----
----------------------------Original
message----------------------------
>Subject: Petition to stop S.314, the "Communications Decency
Act"
You can add your signature to this petition simply by sending e-mail.
----- begin forwarded message
*** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE ***
This document is an electronic Petition Statement to the
U.S. Congress regarding pending legislation, the
"Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) which will
have, if passed, very serious negative ramifications for
freedom of expression on Usenet, the Internet, and all
electronic networks. The proposed legislation would remove
guarantees of privacy and free speech on all electronic
networks, including the Internet, and may even effectively
close them down as a medium to exchange ideas and
information.
For an excellent analysis of this Bill by the Center for
Democracy and Technology (CDT), refer to the Appendix
attached at the end of this document. The text to S. 314
is also included in this Appendix.
This document is somewhat long, but the length is necessary
to give you sufficient information to make an informed
decision. Time is of the essence, we are going to turn
this petition and the signatures in on 3/16/95, so if you
are going to sign this please do so ASAP or at least before
midnight Wednesday, March 15, 1995.
Even if you read this petition after the due date, please
submit your signature anyway as we expect Congress to
continue debating these issues in the foreseeable future
and the more signatures we get, the more influence the
petition will have on discussion. And even if Congress
rejects S. 314 while signatures are being gathered, do
submit your signature anyway for the same reason.
Please do upload this petition statement as soon as
possible to any BBS and on-line service in your area.
If you have access to one of the major national on-line
services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, etc., do try
to upload it there. We are trying to get at least 5000
signatures. Even more signatures are entirely possible
if we each put in a little effort to inform others, such
as friends and coworkers, about the importance of this
petition to electronic freedom of expression.
Here is a brief table of contents:
(1) Introduction (this section)
(2) The Petition Statement
(3) Instructions for signing this petition
(4) Credits
(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 (LONG but excellent)
******(2) The Petition Statement
In united voice, we sign this petition against passage of S. 314 (the
"Communications Decency Act of 1995") for these reasons:
S. 314 would prohibit not only individual speech that is "obscene,
lewd,
lascivious, filthy, or indecent", but would prohibit any provider
of
telecommunications service from carrying such traffic, under threat of
stiff penalty. Even aside from the implications for free speech, this
would cause an undue - and unjust - burden upon operators of the
various
telecommunications services. In a time when the citizenry and their
lawmakers alike are calling for and passing "no unfunded
mandates" laws
to the benefit of the states, it is unfortunate that Congress might seek
to
impose unfunded mandates upon businesses that provide the framework for
the information age.
An additional and important consideration is the technical feasibility
of
requiring the sort of monitoring this bill would necessitate. The
financial burden in and of itself - in either manpower or technology to
handle such monitoring (if even legal under the Electronic
Communications
Privacy Act) - would likely cause many smaller providers to go out of
business, and most larger providers to seriously curtail their
services.
The threat of such penalty alone would result in a chilling effect in
the
telecommunications service community, not only restricting the types of
speech expressly forbidden by the bill, but creating an environment
contrary to the Constitutional principles of free speech, press, and
assembly - principles which entities such as the Internet embody as
nothing has before.
By comparison, placing the burden for content control upon each
individual
user is surprisingly simple in the online and interactive world, and
there
is no legitimate reason to shift that burden to providers who carry
that
content. Unlike traditional broadcast media, networked media is
comparatively easy to screen on the user end - giving the reader,
viewer,
or participant unparalleled control over his or her own information
environment. All without impacting or restricting what any other user
wishes to access. This makes regulation such as that threatened by
this
S. 314 simply unnecessary.
In addition, during a period of ever-increasing commercial interest in
arenas such as the Internet, restriction and regulation of content or
the
flow of traffic across the various telecommunications services would
have
serious negative economic effects. The sort of regulation proposed by
this
bill would slow the explosive growth the Internet has seen, giving the
business community reason to doubt the medium's commercial appeal.
We ask that the Senate halt any further progress of this bill. We ask
that the Senate be an example to Congress as a whole, and to the nation
at large - to promote the general welfare as stated in the Preamble to
the Constitution by protecting the free flow of information and ideas
across all of our telecommunications services.
******(3) Instructions for signing the petition
======================================
Instructions for Signing This Petition
======================================
It must first be noted that this is a petition, not a
vote. By "signing" it you agree with *all* the requests
made in the petition. If you do not agree with everything
in this petition, then your only recourse is to not sign it.
In addition, all e-mail signatures will be submitted to
Congress, the President of the United States, and the
news media.
Including your full name is optional, but *very highly
encouraged* as that would add to the effectiveness of the
petition. Signing via an anonymous remailer is highly
discouraged, but not forbidden, as an attempt will be made
to separately tally signatures from anonymous remailers.
Because this is a Petition to the U.S. Congress, we ask
that you state, as instructed below, whether or not you
are a U.S. citizen. We do encourage non-U.S. citizens to
sign, but their signatures will be tallied separately.
Signing this petition is not hard, but to make sure your
signature is not lost or miscounted, please follow these
directions EXACTLY:
1) Prepare an e-mail message. In the main body (NOT the
Subject line) of your e-mail include the ONE-LINE statement:
SIGNED
You need not include the "<" and ">"
characters. 'SIGNED'
should be capitalized. As stated above, your full name is
optional, but highly recommended. If you do supply your
name, please don't use a pseudonym or nickname, or your
first name -- it's better to just leave it blank if it's
not your full and real name. If you are a U.S. citizen,
please include at the end of the signature line a 'YES',
and if you are not, a 'NO'. All signatures will be
tallied whether or not you are a U.S. Citizen
****************************************************
Example: My e-mail signature would be:
SIGNED dave@kachina.altadena.ca.us Dave C. Hayes YES
****************************************************
2) Please DON'T include a copy of this petition, nor any
other text, in your e-mail message. If you have comments
to make, send e-mail to me personally, and NOT to the
special petition e-mail signature address.
3) Send your e-mail message containing your signature to
the following Internet e-mail address and NOT to me:
===========================
s314-petition@netcom.com
===========================
4) Within a few days of receipt of your signature, an
automated acknowledgment will be e-mailed to you for e-mail
address verification purposes. You do not need to respond or
reply to this acknowledgement when you receive it. We may
also contact you again in the future should we need more
information, such as who your House Representative and
Senators are, which is not asked here as it is unclear
whether such information is needed.
Thank you for signing this petition!
******(4) Credits
The petition statement was written by slowdog ,
super.net.freedom.fighter.The rest of this document mostly collated
from
the netby Dave Hayes, net.freedom.fighter. Much help came from Jon
Noring,
INFJ andself.proclaimed.net.activist who made a few suggestions and will
be
tallying the signatures.Thanks to the EFF and CDT for the excellent
analysis ofthe bill.(p.s., send your signature to
s314-petition@netcom.com)
******(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314
[This analysis provided by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a
non-profit public interest organization.CDT's mission is to develop and
advocate public policiesthat advance Constitutional civil liberties and
democraticvalues in new computer and communications technologies.
For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger .]
CDT POLICY POST 2/9/95
SENATOR EXON INTRODUCES ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION A. OVERVIEW
Senators Exon (D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have introduced
legislation
to expand current FCC regulationson obscene and indecent audiotext to
cover
*all* contentcarried over all forms of electronic communications
networks.
If enacted, the "Communications Decency Act of1995" (S. 314)
would place
substantial criminal liabilityon telecommunications service providers
(includingtelephone networks, commercial online services, the Internet,
and
independent BBS's) if their network is usedin the transmission of any
indecent, lewd, threatening orharassing messages. The legislation is
identical to aproposal offered by Senator Exon last year which failed
along
with the Senate Telecommunications reform bill (S.1822, 103rd Congress,
Sections 801 - 804). The text theproposed statute, with proposed
amendment,
is appended atthe end of this document.
The bill would compel service providers to chose between severely
restricting the activities of their subscribersor completely shutting
down
their email, Internet access,and conferencing services under the threat
of
criminalliability. Moreover, service providers would be forced to
closely
monitor every private communication, electronicmail message, public
forum,
mailing list, and file archivecarried by or available on their network,
a
propositionwhich poses a substantial threat to the freedom of speech
and privacy rights of all American citizens.
S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step backwards on the
path
to a free and open NationalInformation Infrastructure. The bill raises
fundamentalquestions about the ability of government to control content
on
communications networks, as well as the locus of liability for content
carried in these new communications media.
To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital media, CDT is
working to organize a broad coalition ofpublic interest organizations
including the ACLU, PeopleFor the American Way, and Media Access
Project,
along withrepresentatives from the telecommunications, online services,
and
computer industries to oppose S. 314 and toexplore alternative policy
solutions that preserve thefree flow of information and freedom of
speech
in theonline world. CDT believes that technological alternatives which
allow individual subscribers to controlthe content they receive
represent a
more appropriateapproach to this issue.
B. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF S. 314
S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and harassment on
telephone services to all telecommunicationsproviders and expand
criminal
liability to *all* contentcarried by *all* forms of telecommunications
networks.The bill would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act
(47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to prevent
minors
from gaining access to indecent audiotextand criminalizes harassment
accomplished over interstatetelephone lines. This section, commonly
known
as theHelms Amendment (having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms),
has
been the subject of extended Constitutionallitigation in recent years.
* CARRIERS LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ALL USERS ON THEIR NETWORKS
S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including Telephone
companies, commercial online services, theInternet, and BBS's) liable
for
every message, file, orother content carried on its network --
including
the private conversations or messages exchanged between two consenting
individuals.
Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes
available
any comment, request, suggestion,proposal, image, or other
communication"
which is"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" using
a
"telecommunications device" would be subject to a fine
of$100,000 or two
years in prison (Section (2)(a)).
In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers would be
forced
to pre-screen all messages, files, orother content before transmitting
it
to the intendedrecipient. Carriers would also be forced to prevent or
severely restrict their subscribers from communicating with individuals
and
accessing content available on othernetworks.
Electronic communications networks do not contain discrete boundaries.
Instead, users of one service can easilycommunicate with and access
content
available on othernetworks. Placing the onus, and criminal liability,
on
the carrier as opposed to the originator of the content, would make the
carrier legally responsible not only forthe conduct of its own
subscribers,
but also for contentgenerated by subscribers of other services.
This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to the free flow
of
information throughout the online worldand the free speech and privacy
rights of individualusers. Forcing carriers to pre-screen content would
not
only be impossible due to the sheer volume of messages, it would also
violate current legal protections.
CARRIERS REQUIRED TO ACT AS PRIVATE CENSOR OF ALL PUBLIC FORUMS AND
ARCHIVES
S. 314 would also expand current restrictions on access to indecent
telephone audiotext services by minors under theage of 18 to cover
similar
content carried bytelecommunications services (such as America Online
and
the Internet). (Sec (a)(4)).
As amended by this provision, anyone who, "by means of telephone or
tele-
communications device, makes, transmits,or otherwise makes available
(directly or by recordingdevice) any indecent communication for
commercial
purposeswhich is available to any person under the age of 18 years of
age
or to any other person without that person's consent, regardless of
whether
the maker of suchcommunication placed the call or initiated the comm-
unication" would be subject of a fine of $100,000 or two years in
prison.
This would force carries to act as private censors of all content
available
in public forums or file archives ontheir networks. Moreover, because
there is no cleardefinition of indecency, carriers would have to
restrict
access to any content that could be possibly construed as indecent or
obscene under the broadest interpretation ofthe term. Public forums,
discussion lists, file archives,and content available for commercial
purposes would haveto be meticulously screened and censored in order to
avoidpotential liability for the carrier.
Such a scenario would severely limit the diversity of content available
on
online networks, and limit theeditorial freedom of independent forum
operators.
ADDITIONAL NOTABLE PROVISIONS * AMENDMENT TO ECPA
Section (6) of the bill would amend the Electronic Communications
Privacy
Act (18 USC 2511) to prevent theunauthorized interception and disclosure
of
"digitalcommunications" (Sec. 6). However, because the term
"digital
communication" is not defined and 18 USC 2511currently prevents
unauthorized interception anddisclosure of "electronic
communications"
(which includeselectronic mail and other forms of communications in
digital form), the effect of this provision has no clear importance.
* CABLE OPERATORS MAY REFUSE INDECENT PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAMMING
Finally, section (8) would amend sections 611 and 612 of the
Communications
Act (47 USC 611 - 612) to allow anycable operator to refuse to carry
any
public access orleased access programming which contains
"obscenity,
indecency, or nudity".
C. ALTERNATIVES TO EXON: RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE USER
CONTROL CAPABILITIES OF INTERACTIVE MEDIA
Government regulation of content in the mass media has always been
considered essential to protect children fromaccess to
sexually-explicit
material, and to preventunwitting listeners/views from being exposed to
materialthat might be considered extremely distasteful. The choice to
protect children has historically been made atthe expense of the First
Amendment ban on governmentcensorship. As Congress moves to regulate
new
interactivemedia, it is essential that it understand that interactive
media is different than mass media. The power and flexibility of
interactive media offers a uniqueopportunity to enable parents to
control
what contenttheir kids have access to, and leave the flow of
information
free for those adults who want it. Governmentcontrol regulation is
simply
not needed to achieve thedesired purpose.
Most interactive technology, such as Internet browsers and the software
used to access online services such asAmerica Online and Compuserve,
already has the capabilityto limit access to certain types of services
and
selectedinformation. Moreover, the electronic program guides being
developed for interactive cable TV networks alsoprovide users the
capability to screen out certainchannels or ever certain types of
programming. Moreover,in the online world, most content (with the
exception ofprivate communications initiated by consentingindividuals)
is
transmitted by request. In other words,users must seek out the content
they receive, whether itis by joining a discussion or accessing a file
archive.By its nature, this technology provides ample control at the
user
level. Carriers (such as commercial onlineservices, Internet service
providers) in most cases actonly as "carriers" of electronic
transmissions
initiatedby individual subscribers.
CDT believes that the First Amendment will be better served by giving
parents and other users the tools toselect which information they (and
their children) shouldhave access to. In the case of criminal content
the
originator of the content, not the carriers, should be responsible for
their crimes. And, users (especiallyparents) should be empowered to
determine what informationthey and their children have access to. If
all
carriersof electronic communications are forced restrict content in
order
to avoid criminal liability proposed by S. 314,the First Amendment would
be
threatened and the usefulnessof digital media for communications and
informationdissemination would be drastically limited.
D. NEXT STEPS
The bill has been introduced and will next move to the Senate Commerce
Committee, although no Committee actionhas been scheduled. Last year,
a
similar proposal bySenator Exon was approved by the Senate Commerce
committeeas an amendment to the Senate Telecommunications Bill (S.
1822, which died at the end of the 103rd Congress). CDT will be
working
with a wide range of other interest groupsto assure that Congress does
not
restrict the free flow ofinformation in interactive media.
TEXT OF 47 U.S.C. 223 AS AMENDED BY S. 314
**NOTE: [] = deleted ALL CAPS = additions 47 USC 223
(1992)
Sec. 223. [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District
of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications]
OBSCENE OR HARASSING UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES AND
FACILITIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR ININTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMUNICATIONS"
(a) Whoever--
(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
communication by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONSDEVICE--
(A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST,
SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION which is
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;
[(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues,
without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse,
threaten, or harass any person at the called number;]
"(B) MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR UTILIZES A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICE,
WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATIONSENSUES,WITHOUT DISCLOSING
HIS IDENTITY AND WITH INTENT TO ANNOY,ABUSE, THREATEN, OR HARASS ANY
PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHORECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION;
(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously
to ring, with intent to harass any person at thecalled number; or
[(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation
ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or]
(D) MAKES REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS OR REPEATEDLY INITIATES
COMMUNICATION WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, DURING WHICH
CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATION ENSUES, SOLELY TO HARASS ANY PERSON
AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION,
(2) knowingly permits any [telephone facility]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used
for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more
than $[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] TWO
YEARS, or both.
(b)(1) Whoever knowingly--
(A) within the United States, by means of [telephone]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly or by recording device)
any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person,
regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the
call or INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or
(B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with
title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both.
(2) Whoever knowingly--
(A) within the United States, [by means of telephone],
makes BY MEANS OF TELEPHONE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, MAKES,
TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly or by recording device) any
indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available
to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without
that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such
communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or
(B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than
$[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months]
TWO YEARS, or both.
(3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this
subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited
communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance
with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the
Commission may prescribe by regulation.
(4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever,
within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph
(1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $[50,000]
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1)
or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000]
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either--
(i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or
any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the
Commission for such purposes, or
(ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative
proceedings.
(6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate
district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice
which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or
within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not,
to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a
communication specified in subsection (b) from the
telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in
writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the
carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such
communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the
provider of such communication.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may
be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common
carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers,
directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on
account of--
(A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good
faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection; or
(B) any access permitted--
(i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation
by a provider of communications that communications provided by
that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or
(ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not
allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to
restrict access to communications described in subsection (b).
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider
of communications services to which subscribers are denied access
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action
for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such
action shall be limited to the question of whether the
communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within
the category of communications to which the carrier will provide
access only to subscribers who have previously requested such access.
*********************************************
NOTE: This version of the text shows the actual text of current law as
it would be changed. For the bill itself, which consists of unreadable
text such as:
[...]
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above
subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications device';
(B) by striking out `makes any comment, request,
suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
`makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any
comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication';
(C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
`(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a
[...]
See:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
http://www.phantom.com/~slowdog
Stop the Communications Decency Act!
------- Message 2
Return-Path:
Message-Id:
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 21:45 PST
From: lpd@aladdin.com (L. Peter Deutsch)
To: antryg@cs.nmt.edu
Cc: lpf-all-members-inbox@albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FW: PETITION to Stop S.314 (fwd)
I'm disappointed that the petition is couched primarily in terms of
economic
burden. S.314 is so blatantly at odds with (among other things) the
First
Amendment and existing principles of "common carrier"
licensing and of
freedom of the press that this would have been a great opportunity to
make
an argument based on principle too, not just an economic argument that
I'm
afraid could be nickel-and-dimed to death.
I'll sign the petition, because I don't disagree with anything in it
and
it's important. I just wish it said more than it does.
L. Peter Deutsch------- End of Forwarded Messages
Gary Chappell/gary@ba.msi.com Forwarded message ends here ------
