ROCNews ELECTRONIC BULLETIN #6 - May 6, 2001 Editors: John Woods, Randy Payton, Kenny Moore -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this edition: --FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION SUSPENDED ON PUBLIC COMPUTER SYSTEMS By Kenny Moore --JOEY RAMONE R.I.P. --WHY DO WE NEED THE MUSIC INDUSTRY? --ROCNews (about ROC) --STEAL THIS MOVIE --UNDERGROUND PUBLISHING CONFERENCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION SUSPENDED ON PUBLIC COMPUTER SYSTEMS By: Kenny Moore On December 15, 2000, Congress passed, by a disgustingly lobsided 292- 60 voting margin, legislation which would require both public schools and libraries to install "censor-ware" or be denied funding services provided under the federal “e-rate” plan. This legislation was dubbed the "Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA)" and the "Neighborhood Internet Protection Act (NCIPA)" as part of HR 4577, which was a major spending bill. The bill was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton on December 21, 2000. As was the case when this sort of legislation was first sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), we at Rock Out Censorship see this as a form of political blackmail that forces local authorities to either endorse unconstitutional governmental censorship, or lose the vital funding needed for providing computer and internet services to the public. We applaud and are very thankful for the efforts of the American Library Association and the ACLU in stepping up to file a lawsuit seeking to nullify this legislation by getting it declared unconstitutional. Features on this subject can be found at their sites at http://www.ala.org/cipa/ and at http://www.aclu.org/features/f032001a.html. Rock Out Censorship has joined a wide variety of organizations condemning this legislation through a Joint Statement organized by the Online Policy Group. The Joint Statement and further details on this subject can be found at: http://www.onlinepolicy.org/network/statement.htm. We feel it to be very important that those on freedom's side of this political fight do not conceed even a single point. So in our reporting of this subject, we will refer to this legislation as the Children's Internet Censorship Act or the Neighborhood Internet Censorship Act, choosing to not acknowledge the intentionally deceiving term "Protection" as penned by the authors of the legislation. The censors know that semantics and terminology can be very important in winning public support. In an era of soundbyte news where you only have 30 seconds or so to explain your stances, they know that they put our side in a difficult position in having to explain why we are against "protecting children" in choosing the language of their legislation. But the reality is that we do not feel that legislation such as this serves to protect anyone, only to restrict us in direct conflict to our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. It merely gives our government and a handful of software companies absolute control over the flow of information on public computer systems. It is our opinion that our children need protection from corrupt elected officials that would trample on all our Constitutional rights a lot more than they need protection from any potentially objectionable material they may receive in the on- line environment. Excerpted material from a previous article I wrote on this subject that very much still applies now-- "Commenting on previous filtering legislation, Senatorial sponsor, John McCain says that the legislation abides by constitutional free speech protections because it does not restrict what's on the Internet." "The prevention lies not in censoring what goes onto the Internet, but rather in filtering what comes out of it onto the computers our children use outside the home," McCain said. The bill would apply to schools and libraries that receive federal subsidies to help them gain Internet access. Such justification is moving seriously into the realm of Orwellian doublespeak in our opinion. The idea that silencing content and opinions at the destination point rather than the source point is not censorship would be completely laughable if not for the seriousness of the attack on our rights. Applying this logic to the print medium, they are saying it would be perfectly fine for the government to confiscate all newspapers or magazines from library shelves that have anything "potentially" offensive within, thus blocking everyone from receiving that information. By their skewed logic it would not be censorship to do so since they didn't stop the publication of the material in question, but rather the distribution. Do we really think that such learned individuals as those in office are not intelligent enough to know their logic is seriously flawed? Of course they know they are trying to undermine our rights--they are just trying to come up with some pretty packaging to sell it to us, hoping the American public will fall for their soundbyte material hook-line- and-sinker. We urge all our readers to vehemently reject such con games with our rights. It is very important for those on the fence or on the opposing side on this issue to realize that on the surface, the stated intent of this legislation is to prevent children from obtaining adult oriented material (a goal many parents or citizens may share), but beneath the surface, there is a lot more going on that renders this as a very serious threat to all our rights. Realize that due to this legislation or previous policies by individual libraries implementing filtering software, the Rock Out Censorship website is no longer available to many students that would want to reference our site for research material on the subject of censorship. Our website is no longer available to many citizens that cannot afford to own a computer that can only access the internet at their local public library. We were raised to believe that no political opinion is suppressed in this country that values freedom of thought and expression, but that is exactly what is happening with the blocking of our website. This is due to the overt political agenda that is hidden within the criteria of what gets blocked and what does not by several of the leading filtering software manufacturing companies. The companies often refuse to reveal the criteria by which sites get blocked and they will not publish a listing of blocked sites to help inform consumers as to exactly what their products do, yet our government is mandating the use of their products. We feel this secrecy behind their criteria is because they do not wish for their political agenda to be exposed. Details on a court case where Mattel Inc, previous owners of a widely used filtering software package called Cyber Patrol, successfully stopped the dissemination of a program that would allow consumers to unlock their block list to see exactly what is blocked can be found at http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032800b.html . If this legislation survives legal challenge, which we do not feel it will, then we as citizens and consumers damn well better demand that these software companies reveal how and why decisions are made regarding blocking sites. At least one prominent filtering software package we are aware of, BESS, derives revenue for its manufacturers, N2H2, through it's blocking procedure. So a visit that was intended to come to our site to obtain the information we have to offer instead serves to make money for the filtering software manufacturer through the corporate sponsorship of their filtering practices. To us, this is the equivalent of corporate advertisers paying a company to post guards at your storefront to prevent potential customers from coming inside in an attempt to squash your business. This would not be tolerated in the "real" world, so why do so many embrace such tactics in the "cyber" world? And now our government is assisting them in seeking to profit off of blocking potential visitors from reaching our site by requiring purchase of their products for all public computer systems. We find this situation completely unacceptable not only from a Constitutional First Amendment perspective but also as a restriction and interference in commerce (as we have merchandise of our own available for purchase that they are preventing our potential customers from seeing). The resultant reduction in our traffic recently played a role in our being dropped from a banner advertising network that was producing some much needed revenue for our efforts. So we are being directly and seriously harmed in more ways than one by this unconstitutional legislation, all because we choose to say things in a way that is unacceptable to elected officials like John McCain and the decision makers at the software manufacturing companies. The answer in what is supposed to be a free country is not to force conformity upon us, it is to strike down such laws that eliminate freedom of expression and restrict the ability of citizens to access materials they wish to view/read. In a recent Peacefire report located at http://www.peacefire.org/amnesty-intercepted/, it was discovered that dozens of human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, had their sites turn up under the blocked category meaning students were unable to access information reported on these sites. To anyone that deems it vitally important to rid society of internet pornography, we ask is this price of restricting freedom of speech with such amazing recklessness worth the mere possibility of obtaining your goal? Are sites like Amnesty International, working tirelessly at protecting human rights throughout the world, just to be considered unfortunate but necessary casualties in your efforts to impose your morality on everyone else? It's one thing for software to exist like this on a strictly voluntary basis where only those that wish to use it have it on their systems. We would question the decision making process of anyone that chooses to implement such obviously flawed software to make decisions for them, but acknowledge the rights of those that choose to do so. But to make installation of such software mandatory on all public computer systems goes FAR BEYOND what is acceptable to any public that values freedom. In this case, the solution of eliminating First Amendment rights is FAR WORSE than the perceived problem. Sadly we again have to count on the courts to rectify an injustice perpetrated by our elected officials. These are people that are supposed to be sworn to uphold the US Constitution, but instead use it for toilet paper in their desire to keep us all in the box of thinking they want us in. ROC will work to keep you updated on the developments as this court case proceeds. We urge you to contact your elected officials to urge them to stop passing legislation that undermines our rights. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOEY RAMONE R.I.P. ROC was deeply saddened by the passing of punk rock legend Joey Ramone. Joey was a big voice against the evil forces of censorship early-on, from the stage circa 1990 against Tipper Gore and her PMRC (http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-03/roc03-9b.htm) to granting THE ROC an exclusive interview in 1992 (http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-08/roc08-09.htm). A photo of Joey with ROC's John Woods (both wearing the infamous FUCK THE PMRC t-shirts) can be seen at http://www.roc-news.com. JOEY RAMONE: POLITICAL? After hitting Ronald Reagan for visiting a Nazi grave site ("Bonzo Goes to Bitburg") and taking part in the anti-apartheid "(We Ain't Gonna Play) Sun City" project in the '80s with the likes of Bob Dylan and Steven Van Zandt, Joey Ramone continued to insert political content to his music, as noted by THE NATION Online obit: "...focusing in particular on the constraints big business had placed on media and music, and on censorship. On the 1992 album, "Mondo Bizarro," for instance, he attacked Tipper Gore's music labeling proposals as "un-American policy" and declared, "Hey, hey, all you senator's wives/Better take a look at your own lives/Before you go preaching at me." The chorus to Joey Ramone's anti-censorship tune spoke volumes about the ideological side of a man who may not always have been politically correct, but who always seemed to get to the political point: "Ah, Tipper, come on," he wrote of the whole labeling controversy, "It's just a smokescreen for the real problems: S&L deficit, the homeless, the environment." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHY DO WE NEED THE MUSIC INDUSTRY? Dave Marsh, Lee Ballinger, Danny Alexander and the guys at ROCK & RAP CONFIDENTIAL have always been in the forefront of anti-censorship struggle in the U.S., particularly when right wing Elmer Gantrys go after music, from Two Live Crew to Emenim today. Marsh's 50 WAYS TO FIGHT CENSORSHIP is a classic call to freedom fighting, a rocking COMMON SENSE while the R&R CONFIDENTIAL newsletter consistently NAMES NAMES and takes no prisoners. They now host a website that asks the question "WHY DO WE NEED THE MUSIC INDUSTRY?". Rock Out Censorship has stood from day one for musicians and other artists seizing control over their lives and work (at the pivotal "point of production") as the ultimate guarantee against censorship, and couldn't recommend the new site (at http://www.rockrap.com/nomusicbiz/index.html) higher. Below is their statement about the new site. "Thanks so much for spamming me. I cruised through your site and was amazed by all you have."-- Tom Hoobler, Soley Duncan Band, Phoenix "This site is the shit. How did it evade my peeping eyes all this time?"--Moses Avalon, author of Confessions of a Record Producer The answer to the question "Why Do We Need the Music Industry" only begins with the possibilities for musician and fan controlled recording and distribution created by new technologies. The full story of why we need a new way of getting music where it needs to go includes everything from payola to corporate censorship to the institutionalized cheating of artists. At Rock & Rap Confidential's new website, "Why Do We Need the Music Industry?" (at http://www.rockrap.com/nomusicbiz/index.html) we have begun to put together a full picture of just how obsolete and worthless the music industry has become. The site includes commentary by the likes of Tom Morello, Prince, Pete Seeger, Ice T, Patti Smith, Chuck D, Roger McGuinn, Branford Marsalis, Pete Townsend, and Steve Albini. We also hope it can become a place where new visions of how to create and distribute music in the interest of artists and fans will emerge. Please check it out. If you have anything to say on the topic, send it to us. If you know of links we should add, let us know. If there are quotes or articles or sound bites we should post, please forward them. Thanks! Rock & Rap Confidential P.O. Box 341305 Los Angeles CA 90034 310-398-4477 rockrap@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ROCNews (About ROC) Welcome to the 7th ROC-News ELECTRONIC BULLETIN. We've been away from the e-zine scene for a while and it's time to DO IT again! ROC stands for Rock Out Censorship!, a non-profit, grass-roots resource/activist group for free expression in music and the arts. Since 1989 R.O.C. has monitored attempts to chill free speech and works with others to confront/ counter those attempts. Through the '90s we published the notorious tabloid THE ROC (back issues accessible at http://www.theroc.org). R.O.C. today operates the ROCNews Service -with dispatches from the anti-censorship front - at http://www.roc-news.com. Tell your friends to sign up for ROCNews dispatches at http://www.theroc.org/maillist/subscrib.htm or by e-mailing rocwebmaster@theroc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STEAL THIS MOVIE Thanks all who came to the STEAL THIS MOVIE benefit Northeast Ohio premiere screening for Rock Out Censorship. Thanks also to the Cinematheque in the Cleveland Institute of Art for hosting the event and to SCENE, FREE TIMES, WMMS and Canton's ROCK 1- 07 for all the great plugs for the show. Benefit proceeds helped offset expenses involved in taking the R.O.C. table on the Ohio leg of Ozzfest 2000 (printing a 12-paged ROC News for distribution, etc.) Steal This Movie is of course the story of 1960s anti-war hero ABBIE HOFFMAN who never stopped short in challenging society's boundaries of so-called "permissible" free speech. Friends of Abbie's like Yippie satirist extraordinaire Paul Krassner and Al Giordano (www.narconews.com) have expressed concern over historical errors and other problems with the film, but we, like Yippie co-founder Stew Alpert (http://hometown.aol.com/stewa/stew.html) rather LIKED it. How can we not dig seeing a handy --albeit admittedly flawed (what film ain't?)--reference for young people who ask "who is Abbie Hoffman?" ROC's Randy Payton profiles the famed radical in THE ROC #9 (at http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-09/roc0912c.htm). Steal This Movie is now available on video and DVD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNDERGROUND PUBLISHING CONFERENCE "One weekend. Hundreds of people. Thousands of projects. Infinite inspiration." UPCON2001 is a conference for zinesters, librarians, web designers, filmmakers, musicians, artists, academics, street theorists, readers, and writers. June 23-24, 2001, Bowling Green, OH. Discussions, presentations, and workshops by and for people who create and participate in the world of alternative media. For more information: 216 South Church St. Bowling Green, OH 43402 e-mail: upc2001@hotmail.com or visit http://www.Clamormagazine.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESS INFORMATION: Randy Payton (330) 339-2684 randyp@roc-news.com You can e-mail the ROC BULLETIN Collective at: roc-hq@theroc.org (John Woods) randyp@roc-news.com (Randy Payton) or roc@theroc.org (Kenny Moore) --------------------------------------------------------------------------