My first cry for help!  Can anyone untangle this and tell me what
happened here?  I thought I was posting to "List Owners Forum".
 
=====================================================================
Gail M. Barnes, Ph.D.                 Stupidity is always amazing,
Delta State University                no matter how used to it
Cleveland, Ms  38733                  you may become.
[log in to unmask]                               Jean Cocteau
=====================================================================
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:58:40 -0400
From: L-Soft list server at SJUVM (1.8b) <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
 
You  are  not  authorized  to  send   mail  to  the  HEMOFACT  list  from  your
[log in to unmask] account.  You might be  authorized to send to  the list
from another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail program which
generates slightly  different addresses, but  LISTSERV has no way  to associate
this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have
any question regarding the policy of the HEMOFACT list, please contact the list
owners: [log in to unmask]
 
------------------------ Rejected message (113 lines) -------------------------
Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from SJUVM (NJE origin SMTP@SJUVM) by SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU (LMail
          V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8700; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:58:03 -0400
Received: from redstone.interpath.net by SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with TCP; Thu, 22 Jun 95 13:57:46 EDT
Received: from veracity.pdial.interpath.net (veracity.pdial.interpath.net
 [199.72.103.222]) by redstone.interpath.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id
 NAA27156 for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:59:45 -0400
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Sender: [log in to unmask] (Unverified)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:07:55 -0400
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Gail Barnes <[log in to unmask]> (by way of
 <[log in to unmask]> (Paul Vess))
Subject: CWD--GOP Internet Posse (fwd)
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4b17>
 
I am forwarding the following, posted to my list yesterday, with the
author's permission.  I realize this forum is not intended as a discussion
of political issues, and my rather flippant comments yesterday were not
intended to offend, but I believe this topic is of general interest to
list owners as the line of responsibility are drawn.  It may particularily
important to allay the fears of administrators within our institutions.
Gail.
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 11:05:30 -0700
From: Brock N. Meeks <[log in to unmask]>
 
CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1995 //
 
 
Jacking in from the "Damn the Torpedoes" Port:
 
Washington, DC -- A posse of top House Republicans are riding into
Cyberspace wearing White Hats and riding a horse called the First
Amendment.
 
Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.), chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, is
readying a bill that would prohibit the government from placing any
regulations on content in Cyberspace.  According to a draft of the bill
obtained by Dispatch, even the guerilla war on the First Amendment now
being waged in Statehouses throughout the nation would be thwarted.  Cox's
bill, which he plans to co-sponsor with Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) would
preempt state laws that now restrict content.
 
Meanwhile, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has gone into full-scale
"Marshall Dillon" mode, assailing attempts by the Senate to curb
pornography on the Internet by means of the Exon/Coats amendment, which
passed as part of the Senate's telecommunications reform package.
Gingrich, speaking Tuesday night (July 20) on his weekly "Progress Report"
cable program, said the Exon/Coats amendment was "very badly thought-out."
 
Civil libertarian groups have already blasted the Exon/Coats amendment,
calling it unconstitutional along several points.  The Electronic Frontier
Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology have issued detailed
section summaries of the bill.  Both rip into the amendment along legal
lines, carving out its huge constitutional flaws with the force of a chain
saw.
 
Gringrich, not short on candor himself, minced no words denouncing the the
Exon/Coats provision, calling it "a violation of free speech."  He said the
move by Exon would have "no real impact" and was merely a political ploy,
which would give all 84 Senators that supported the amendment "a good press
release back home."
 
Rep. Cox said government should "stay out" of trying to regulate the
electronic arena.  Instead, he favors industry solutions and guidelines.
He said the Exon/Coats amendment, combined with the recent court case that
hammered Prodigy in a libel case, sends the message that online services
shouldn't even try to deal with objectionable material.  "What service is
going to want to risk trying to police [content] on their system?"  Cox
said, "if all they get in return is a lawsuit?"
 
Cox is even opposed to the government mandating some kind of blocking or
filtering technology.  He wants a hands-off approach for fear that
government intrusion would only "act as a drag on progress."
 
Gingrich accused the Senate of punting on a "serious issue which is how do
you maintain right of free speech for adults while also protecting children
in a medium which is available to both."  His comments are ironic:  During
the Senate debate on the telecom reform bill, Sen. James Exon (D-Neb.) said
that a proposed substitute amendment to his bill, offered by Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-Vt.), was "nothing more than a punt."  Leahy's amendment would
have called on the Justice Department to first study the problem of
objectionable material on the Internet before rushing in with any
legislation.
 
The House is due to began debate on its own version of telecommunications
reform within the next few weeks.  The House bill has a version of the
Leahy amendment already in place.  There is currently no one offering an
Exon/Coats clone amendment.  But someone is almost certain to bring it up,
House congressional staffers say.
 
What happens if the Cox-Gingrich posse runs into the Exon/Coats crowd?  "As
Chairman of the Republication Policy Committee, I would vigorously fight
that," Cox said, setting the stage for the Cyberspace equivalent of the
shoot-out at the OK Corral.
 
Meeks out...
 
 
 
 
--
<A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/">          Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">        [log in to unmask]
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/">         Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/1.html">   Online Services Mgr.      </A>