:: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : : $$$$$$P"""$$$$&s. .s&$$$P""$$"&s. $$$$$$P""$$$&s. .s&$$$P""$" "$$ : : :: : : :: $$$$$$ :: $$$$$" $$$$$$ : $s.$$$ $$$$$$ : $$$$" $$$$$$ : $x.x$$: :: :: ::: ::$$$" :: $$$$$s$ $$$$$$ : $$$$$$ $$$$$$ : $$$$$s $$$$$$ : $$$$$$ : :: : : ::: :$$$x. :: $$$$$$$ " $$$$ : $$$$$$ $$$$$$ : $$$$$$ "$$$$$ : $$$$$$: :: : : ::: :$$$$$$ :: $$#$$$$ .s$$$$ : $$$$$$ $" "$$ : $$$$$$ s$$$$$ : $$$$$$: : ::: : :: :$$$$$$ :: $$$$$$$ $$$$$$ : $$$$$$ $x.x$$ : $$$$$$ $$$$$$ : $$$$$$ :: : : : :: $$$$$$ :: $$$$$$$ $$$$$$ : $$$$$$ $$$$$$ : $$$$$$ $$$$$$ : $$$$$$::: : : :: :: : "$$$$bssd$$" "P':`Y$$$$bsd" $$P' $$$$$$ : "$$$$ `Y$$" bsd$$$$$$ :: :: : :: :s$$$$$ :........::::............::......:::...... $gggg $$$$P': :: :: :: : : $$$$$$ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::tMM:.`Y$$$""""""".:: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: : pong issue #004 :: ::: :: april 28, 1996 : :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: : pong is a doomed to obscurity production : :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: "here. let me patch you through to my ass." -- shadow tao (to caller) :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: the introduction bit :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : by murmur :: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: Hi again, everyone! It's your fuzzy friend,... uhm. Anyway, this is pong #4. pong has completely dropped the music part because in the very near future you will see an as-of-yet-untitled music 'zine come from dto productions. For now, you still get pong, which will remain dedicated to be the more journalistic side of dto. Editorials and rants will remain commonplace, as will clippings from various news sources. pong #4 really only features one piece: the rather lengthy paper I turned in for my political science class on the Communications Decency Act. Hopefully you'll read it and create your own opinions on the matter. If you wish to offer comments, flatly disagree with me, reflect, whatever the hell you want to do, write to me at phuckelb@sun.iwu.edu and I'll include it in pong #5 or pong #6. pong #5 should come out relatively soon. The nature of this issue is that I had a long, long piece I wanted to release, pong has completely stagnated lately, so, well, here. Also in this issue, of course, are selections from the Mt. Morris Times. Anything you should happen to find similar to what's from the Times, please send my way! So many odd things pop up in journalism, like entire bizarre newspapers. At the bottom you can find a correspondence address and my email address, assuming you missed it two paragraphs ago. Mail me press clippings or death threats, I guess. The P.O. Box has received a total of four pieces of mail thus far: three to the previous user / "occupant" and one a 'zine from Nick Normal in St. Louis, because I gave him that address to finally give me an excuse to go check the P.O. Box. Mr. Normal doesn't seem to like religion very much and apparently believes the Mennonites and Mormons are about to start holy wars. Hrm. Anyway, indulge, or something. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: the table of contents part ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : by murmur :: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: the introduction bit :: :: ::: ::: :: :: : :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: ::: :: :::: : by murmur :: ::: :: :: : :: : ::: : :: ::: the table of contents part ::: ::: :: :: : :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: ::: :: :::: : by murmur :: ::: :: :: : :: : ::: : :: ::: highlights from mount morris : ::: :: :: : :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: ::: :: :::: : by murmur :: ::: :: :: : :: : ::: : :: ::: free speech (or the lack thereof?) :: :: : :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: ::: :: :::: : by murmur :: ::: :: :: : :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: highlights from mount morris : ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : by murmur :: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: Selected tidbits from the Thursday, March 21, 1996 Mt. Morris Times follow. Why? So you can truly appreciate what happens in an average midwestern town that lost its SCHOOL DISTRICT to mismanagement. It's wacky stuff! :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: (from Page 1) TREASURER GIVES BUDGET FIGURES Village must decide on budget priorities By Ginger Baker Reporter Village Treasurer Bruce True presented new figures to the Mt. Morris Village Board regarding the projected 1997 budget. True told the board that as of the end of February, the picture had changed from the last board meeting he had attended. He said four areas in the general fund turned out to be unusually large, including insurance deductible ($1,400); street repairs ($3,000); snow removal ($5,400); and building and ground repairs ($4,500). The total was $14,400 which reduced the balance on hand for the 1996-97 budget from $70,000 to $55,000. "These were $14,400 in additional expenses that I was not anticipating," True said. "We have two months left and we could be up or down from there. We probably will spend as much as we take in during the next two months." True had developed a project list when he first presented the figures at an earlier meeting. He told the board he had to adjust the figures for those projects because of the reduced balance on hand. "I changed the project list to add up to $70,000 rather than $85,000," he said. "I didn't get any input this week from trustees. I do need input before I do the budget." True said the budget does not have to be passed before May 1, but he recommended the board make a decision on it as soon as possible. "My intent is to give you a place to start," he said. Trustee Leo Marshall said he did not agree with taking $10,000 out of the area allotted for sidewalk replacement -- residential, IDOT ramps; and Main Street revamping. He said he thought the $14,400 needed to be taken out of each project more equally. True reiterated that he was only offering suggestions to the board. He said ultimately the board would have to decide which things were most important. Village President Steve Brinker recommended that board members look at their departments and see where they could cut $100 here or there. Trustee Steve Morgan suggested that Marshall present the board with some facts and figures on the proposed sidewalk, IDOT, and Main Street projects to see whether the village could save money by doing some of the work themselves. "We need facts and figures to justify whether you need $10,000 for street and sidewalks," he said. "Maybe we can do the work ourselves as a village." Trustee Jon Murray, who also serves as chairman of the finance committee, said he would try to get a consensus from department heads on their projects and get the information to True. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: (from Page 3, Police Beat) On March 14, the Mt. Morris Police Department investigated a car versus cyclist accident which occurred on Hitt St., 15 feet west of Carr Court, involving a vehicle driven by Charles C. Beard, 6220 W. Midtown Road, and a bicycle ridden by Brandon A. Blake of 407 E. Hitt St., Mt. Morris. No citations were issued. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: (from Page 3, Public Voice (letter to the editor)) Dear Editor and Freshman Sports Fans: It's September, the first football game of the 1996 season is about to start. The team is coming onto the field and the crowd is cheering and the cheerleaders; oh, but wait!... Where are the Freshmen cheerleaders? Are they late for the game? Did they miss the bus? No, nothing that easy to explain. We don't have a Freshman cheerleading squad this year. Why, you ask? Well, it seems that this year in all of Mt. Morris and Oregon, we just didn't have any girls that could qualify to make the grade, to be the best that they could be. Oh yes, we did have a number of young hopefuls try out, only to be told that since their scores were not good enough we just won't have a Freshman squad. Hit 'em hard Hit 'em low Go team Spirit, Go, Go, Gone That's one way to support our youth. Let's get our priorities straight. Why do we have football, basketball, etc. and other activities for our youth? It is to build character, learn how to work on a team and a chance to enjoy that team spirit. So they can look back on their high school years and say, "It was the best time of my life." Come on parents, let's get involved. Support our kids. Who are the next future cheerleaders going to be if we don't take the time to train them? Upset in Oregon, Darrel Paigen Oregon :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: (from Page 6, the Events and Entertainment page) DOG OBEDIENCE CLASSES BEGIN IN APRIL AT OGLE FAIRGROUNDS Spring dog obedience classes sponsored, by the Indian Ridge Kennel Club, will begin Thursday, April 4. The classes will be held at the Ogle County Fairgrounds, 140 N. Limekiln Rd., just off Rt. 64, west of Oregon. Registration for all classes will begin at 6 p.m. Please do not bring your dogs to the registration. We are offering a Beginner class for dogs that have not had previous training and we are adding three new classes this year. The first is an intermediate class, this class is for dogs that have been through a beginner class, but need more training. The second class will be the Novice, this class will be for dogs that are ready for more advanced training. The third new class will be for 4-H boys and girls, who plan to show their dog at the 4-H fair, and the youth of Ogle County, who would like to show their dogs at the Ogle County Junior fair. Nancy Lloyd of Mt. Morris, Rita Dauphin of Polo, and Debbie Tessler of Oregon will be helping with the classes. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: (from Page 7, From the Fields) WEED COMMISSIONER WILL BE APPOINTED The yearly appointment of the Ogle County Weed Commissioner will be made at the April 16, 1996 Ogle County Board Meeting. Anyone interested in applying for this position may obtain an application form from the Ogle County Clerk's Office in Oregon. The deadline for filing applications in that office is Thursday, April 4, 1996 at 4:40 p.m. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: (from Page 8, Sports) SEVENTH GRADE'S WHITE TEAM DEFEATS PECATONICA BY 30-28 Black Hawk Junior High's seventh grade White Team was the only team to come out on top for the school during the Route 72 Girls' Basketball Tournament at Pecatonica held March 16. The seventh grade White Team outscored Pecatonica 30-28 in a close tournament game Saturday. Lynn Burke led the seventh grade team with 16 points and 14 rebounds. Erin Macklin added six points and 11 rebounds and Casey Campbell had six points, two rebounds and two steals for the game. The other three teams suffered disappointing losses. Stillman Valley topped the seventh grade Red Team 32-18; Winnebago beat the eighth grade White Team 34-15; and top seeded Byron defeated the eighth grade Red Team 62-15. Coach Gretchen Ihde's seventh grade White Team was set to play Byron at 4 p.m. on March 19. They will play again Saturday, March 23. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: Note: Any apparent typos or punctuation mistakes are the fault of the Mt. Morris times, not Murmur. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: free speech (or the lack thereof?) :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : by murmur :: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: The following massive piece constitutes a paper I submitted for one of my political science classes this semester. Please note while reading that it is meant to be a paper and was not originally intended for text file format, and therefore certain stylistic points will be off-kilter. Basically, this is a simple statement of the pros and cons surrounding the Communications Decency Act. Quoted are Senator Charles Grassley and Judge Robert Bork pro and the Center for Democracy and Technology con. As always, commentary can be directed to phuckelb@sun.iwu.edu. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: The Internet and related online services [for simplicity, merely "Internet" from here, even though the term should not be used so inclusively] have enabled practically instantaneous access to information for mere individuals. But not only are vast intellectual resources at our cyber-fingertips, so are (debatably) not-so intellectual items -- the indecent, the obscene, the pornographic. It is especially the pornographic that many groups have faults with, but these faults often encompass the "obscene" and the "indecent" as well. These gray pockets unfortunately cloud the spectre of technological wonderment that is the Internet. Or, so some might have one believe. In 1994 and again in 1995 Senator James Exon (D-NE) presented the Communications Decency Act. Brushed aside in 1994, in 1995 the CDA took root as a major piece of legislation in what could arguably be referred to as the first big year of the Internet. Senator Exon, like many colleagues on Capitol Hill, feels that certain questionable things do not belong on the Internet and from these views came the text of the CDA. The CDA makes the transmissions via the Internet of "obscene" material and "indecent" material (to minors) illegal and punishable by up to two years in jail with a $10,000 fine. The main targets of Exon would be distributors of pornography, arguably the most obscene material available. Immediately Internet users and action groups objected to the wording of the Communications Decency Act. Leading foes of the CDA include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and many other groups including large Internet service providers (ISPs). Earlier this year the massive Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed in to law, including a revamped form of the Exon Communications Decency Act. A suit was filed in federal court in Philadelphia and the trial is still in process. The question is if the Communications Decency Act violates free speech rights as granted under the First Amendment. Although this may be a legal question, the underlying root of the debate is as much one of legality as it is one of presumed morality and liberty. Is the CDA necessary legislation or does it violate free speech? What are "obscene" and "indecent" materials? Do the safety and protection of America's children outweigh their rights to free speech and others' rights to free speech? The argument from conservative groups and Exon himself is straightforward, with various takes. The Internet is massive, and it is liable to get wildly out of hand if it is not regulated. Pornography should simply not be accessible to minors, and hardcore pornography should not be accessible at all. Tested regulations applying to radio and television that prohibit the use of the "seven words" should apply to all forms of transmitted material, including the Internet. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) introduced a similar bill to the CDA entitled the Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995. Cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS), Grassley's bill made it through the Senate but was essentially absorbed into the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The following is from Senator Grassley's speech to Congress on July 26, 1995: "Mr. President, this morning I want to speak on a topic that has received a lot of attention around here lately. My topic is cyberporn, and that is, computerized pornography. I have introduced S. 892, entitled the Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995. This legislation is narrowly drawn. It is meant to help protect children from sexual predators and exposure to graphic pornography. Mr. President, Georgetown University Law School has released a remarkable study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. This study raises important questions about the availability and the nature of cyberporn.... In the meantime, I want to refer to the Carnegie Mellon study, and I want to emphasize that this is Carnegie Mellon University.... The university surveyed 900,000 computer images. Of these 900,000 images, 83.5 percent of all computerized photographs available on the Internet are pornographic. Mr. President, I want to repeat that: 83.5 percent of the 900,000 images reviewed--these are all on the Internet--are pornographic, according to the Carnegie Mellon study. Now, of course, that does not mean that all of these images are illegal under the Constitution. But with so many graphic images available on computer networks, I believe Congress must act and do so in a constitutional manner to help parents who are under assault in this day and age. There is a flood of vile pornography, and we must act to stem this growing tide, because, in the words of Judge Robert Bork, it incites perverted minds.... My bill, again, is S. 892, and provides just this sort of constitutional, narrowly focused assistance in protecting children, while also protecting the rights of consenting adults to transmit and receive protected pornographic material--protected, that is, under the first amendment.... In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to give this study by Carnegie Mellon University serious consideration, and I urge my colleagues to support S. 892." [Congressional Record, S9017] The words of Judge Robert Bork that the senator refers to were from a piece entitled "The Electronic Sink of Depravity". Among other things Bork refers to a user named "Blackwind" that has written pornographic material and put it on the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.stories. Bork's piece is full of debatable points, however; he closes in reference to House Speaker Newt Gingrich [R-GA] and his praise of the "Jeffersonian" nature of free speech on the Internet: "Someone, perhaps even the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is going to have to consider soon the implications, for ill as well as good, of our venture out onto the information superhighway, or else there are going to be some very messy electronic traffic accidents." [Congressional Record, S9019.] Grassley and Bork are largely correct in their assertions, on the surface at least. Unfortunately, there exists more than a surface to their arguments. The Carnegie Mellon study that Grassley refers to has come to be known as the "Rimm shot". Conducted by Carnegie Mellon graduate student Marty Rimm, the study did indeed survey 900,000 computer images; 900,000 computer images chosen arbitrarily by searching for the word "sex". The results of the Rimm study have been in hot contention for over a year. Arguments range from Rimm's slanted approach to the question to what qualified as "pornography". Bork, meanwhile, refers to himself as "a dedicated and enthusiastic user of the Internet" but then makes such statements as "[I suspect] that a dismayingly large number of users of this system are not at all the kind of sturdy champions of freedom and democracy and intellect that Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Gore would like them to be. More probably, to judge from the tone and the language in many of the groups, they are pasty-faced and dysfunctional men with halitosis who inhabit damp basements." One considers that Judge Bork quite nearly wound up on the Supreme Court of the United States, and one may cringe a bit. [Congressional Record, S9018] The arguments against the bills of Exon and Grassley and the principles behind them, therefore, touch on many matters, from the pragmatism of the bills themselves to the question of whether any sort of "control" of the Internet is justified at all. The core argument, however, is a question of free speech as protected under the First Amendment. To pass laws to deal with a major problem (in this case pornography) that encompass other avenues of free speech is a travesty. Besides, effective legislation is already on the books that deals with the question of pornography and Internet pornography rings have already been busted under previously existing legislation, making the purpose of the CDA at least mildly nonexistent. What is "indecent" material? Who determines such matters? Is an invasion of privacy inherent to the CDA? And what if the pornography or "indecent" material is based overseas? One of the leading groups opposing the CDA and principles behind it is the Center for Democracy Technology, a public interest lobby that strives for protection of privacy and free speech. In their series of policy posts they attempt to keep the public informed of congressional action and its consequences. In Policy Post #6 the CDT expouses its views on the CDA: "The Exon/Gorton bill was introduced to promote the important purpose of protecting minors from access to controversial and inappropriate sexually explicit material in interactive media including the Internet, other commercial online services, electronic bulletin board services (BBS's). However, because the proposed statute is grafted onto a twenty five year-old provision of the Communications Act which was designed for a centralized monopoly telephone environment, instead of diverse, decentralized interactive media, it both fails to accomplish its goal and is unconstitutional on its face. In spite of the changes made by Senator Exon, the bill still suffers the following critical defects from the standpoint of users and content providers: "1. SECOND CLASS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR USERS AND CONTENT PROVIDERS ON THE NET AND ALL INTERACTIVE MEDIA: ...The Exon bill treats the Internet, interactive television, and video dialtone systems as if they were one big radio station whose broadcasts are constantly assaulting unwilling listeners. Those who use these new technologies know that this is not the case. However, viewing interactive media as an extension of broadcasting diminishes the First Amendment rights of all who use these systems and create content for them.... "2. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION JURISDICTION OVER ONLINE SPEECH: The defenses to prosecution established in the new version of the bill gives the [FCC] jurisdiction to establish rules governing distribution of content online. This will have a dramatic chilling effect on online activity and squelch the development of interactive media. Regulation of indecency in this new medium is a bad precedent for all kinds of speech in the interactive world. "3. CRIMINALIZATION OF BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MESSAGES THAT ARE NOT OBSCENE: The Act criminalizes not only obscene, but also "lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" communications, all of which are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned. "4. IMPERMISSIBLY INTRUSIVE MEANS OF ACHIEVING LEGITIMATE GOAL: First Amendment jurisprudence requires that restrictions on speech adopt the "least restrictive means" available for achieving a compelling purpose.... The Act fails to account for the fact that government restriction on content is unnecessary in interactive media, where parents can control the content that their children access. "5. FAULTY ANALOGY TO BROADCAST MEDIA: Proponents of the Act have justified the constitutionality by improper reliance on content restrictions found acceptable in broadcast media. These arguments fail to recognize that while broadcast media may "assault" unwilling listeners, who may be in need of government protection, interactive media enables users to control the information that they receive. "6. INVASION OF PRIVACY: By criminalizing the content of private, non-obscene messages, the Act would force an invasion of the realm of private electronic communications and end the individual's ability to control the content of information he or she chooses to access in private." Although here the CDT is referring more directly to the bill itself than to the notions behind the bill, what remains important in the eyes of the CDT is very clear: privacy and free speech, which the CDA threatens to take away (at least in the CDT's eyes.) The points made in this statement are certainly very valid, and many legislators tried to come to grips with these points. But the version of the CDA on the table when Policy Post #6 was written is largely the same as the version passed in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. What is for sure is that the underlying motives of men and women such as Senators Exon and Grassley are well meant. The problem becomes one of governmental regulation of telecommunicated content. Many groups point out that major online service providers have erected devices to block objectionable material from all users and have also created software tools to aid parents in blocking material they find objectionable from their children. What legislators and others fail to realize is that you do not stumble upon pornography. If you find pornography on the Internet, you were looking for it. Provided the pornography itself is not of an outlandish nature (where, as previously stated, other laws apply) there is no reason the government should create legal roadblocks to the acquisition of such material. The government may have many roles in society, but the role of morality enforcer is not one. Exon and Grassley may have attempted something noble, but their actions demonstrate ignorance of how the Internet functions. That besides, the CDA as passed is flatly unconstitutional. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, because the word "shit" is now in this paper, the second I send it over the Internet to anyone, I can be handed a $10,000 fine and be sentenced to two years in jail. Is that reasonable? Is legislation needed at all? That's another facet of the debate, but I would argue no. Not now, at least. The Internet is still a very new phenomenon and to pass legislation covering it in any way, shape, or form would be evidence of an uninformed legislature regulating something they do not understand. Senator Dole should not be telling the core group of Internet users, many of them unable to vote for him in November because they are not of age, what they should or should not have access to on the Internet. The government is not the baby-sitter. The Communications Decency Act is poor legislation, straight down the line. The Center for Democracy and Technology is largely correct in their views. Regulation of the Internet is not the correct solution. The correct solution may actually be Dan Quayle's family values! But the government can not take an active role in mandating family values, because then they're not family values. They're government values. Final statements are expected in the trial in Philadelphia on May 10. The fate of the Internet may well be in the hands of a single federal judge in Pennsylvania. This comes as massive irony to me since many of the wonderful things I have personally experienced through the Internet are directly related to people and structures found in the metropolitan Philadelphia area. I hope the Communications Decency Act is correctly found to be in violation of the First Amendment. Either way, I shall not allow poor legislation to dictate my "cyberlife". My own bulletin board will stay up with the so-called "indecent" materials it holds because people have a right to them. Hopefully the judiciary will not fail us where the legislature and executive have. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: Primary WWW sites: American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.org. Center for Democracy and Technology: http://www.cdt.org. Library of Congress, Congressional Record: http://thomas.loc.gov. :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: the part where we tell you other stuff : :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : (if you really wanted to know) :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: :: write us or send us stuff or whatever: :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: :: pong * p.o. box 443 * normal, il 61761 :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: :: feedback? contributions? questions?? :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: write: phuckelb@sun.iwu.edu : : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: : pong issue #004 :: ::: :: april 28, 1996 : :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: : pong is a doomed to obscurity production : :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: your bone's got a little machine : :: :: ::: :: : : :: :: : ::: : :: ::: ::: :: :::: : :: :: :: ::: ::: :: :: :: : :: :: ::: :: : : ::