-Caveat Lector-
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX FRI OCT 20, 2000 21:42:04 ET XXXXX
CNN: BUSH PAID FOR ABORTION
All-news channel CNN on Friday aired allegations that Republican
presidential hopeful George W. Bush was involved in an abortion
in the 1970's.
MORE
"We've found out in the early 1970s Bush was involved in an
abortion in Texas," HUSTLER publisher Larry Flynt reported on
CNN.
<snip>
[The abortion portion is about 90% of the way down, following a
double row of ten asterisks, i.e., look for the ********** --MS]
**********
Crossfire
Should the Federal Government Require Schools and Libraries to Use Internet
Filters?
Aired October 20, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM
AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Tonight, filtering the Internet for
pornography. Is it a violation of the First Amendment or a good
way to protect children?
ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill
Press; on the right, Robert Novak. In the crossfire...
PRESS: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Everybody agrees children should be protected from pornography on
the Internet, at home, at school, and in the library. The big
question is how, and that's stirred up a debate between Internet
providers and Congress. Should porn-blocking filters in schools
and library be mandatory or voluntary?
Voluntary says the bipartisan Commission on Child Online
Protection in its report issued today. Saying that no one
technology is good enough to be trusted, the commission
recommended instead a combination of public education, new
technology and tougher enforcement of existing anti-porn laws.
But mandatory say three Republican senators, who will ask
Congress to vote next week to require Internet filtering for all
schools and libraries receiving federal aid.
And strangely enough, filters seem to be one issue on which both
George Bush and Al Gore agree.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We can have
filters on Internet, where public money is spent. There ought to
be filters in public libraries and filters in public schools so
that if kids get on the Internet, there's not going to be
pornography, violence coming in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, some
parents are worried about those filters, that you'll have to ask
your kids how to put them on there. But if you can check up on
them, then you -- that's real power. (END VIDEO CLIP)
PRESS: So tonight, protecting kids from Internet porn: Is it a
job for bigger brother or better parents? We'll be joined shortly
by Larry Flynt in Los Angeles. Let's say hello first to Donna
Rice Hughes, member of the Commission for child -- Child Online
Protection.
Donna, you and I have debated this issue before...
DONNA RICE HUGHES, CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PRESS: I think you're still wrong, but let's find out how wrong.
So this commission has been working for two years, since this act
was passed by Congress, right?
HUGHES: Actually, no. The commission came together just this past
March, so we've only had six months.
PRESS: Whatever time you've been. OK, sorry. I thought it was two
years.
So you've been working six months, you've had these meetings,
you've come together on these recommendations. And the very night
you issue the report, the commission issues its report, you're on
national television to say that the commission didn't go far
enough. So you're saying you're right and the rest of these guys
are wrong.
HUGHES: No, absolutely not. I think, first of all, that what we
came up with as a commission as far as recommendations that we
could get to by consensus -- again, because of the short time
frame that we had and absolutely no funding from Congress, I
might add -- is a good, solid foundation. It's about public
awareness and education, empowering the parents, the schools, the
libraries. It's about technology.
We found that filters work. That is a, I think, a step in the
right direction. We've had a lot of information out there for
years by groups like the ACLU that claim that they don't work. In
fact, we found that they were very effective in protecting
children from pornography. And I think one of the things I'm most
excited about is that we called for aggressive enforcement of
current law. And unfortunately, to date, at least over the past
eight years, we have not seen any federal prosecutions of
Internet pornography, with respect to obscenity -- that is
clearly illegal material. And the commission is calling on
enforcement of these laws. And that's very important.
PRESS: Well, just -- just one little fact there. In fact, the
court has blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act.
Correct?
HUGHES: The court has enjoined COPA, which deals with harmful to
minors material...
PRESS: Right, OK.
HUGHES: Harmful to minors material is not obscenity.
PRESS: I just wanted to be sure everyone understands that.
Now, let's get back. The big dispute is over these filters,
whether they ought to be mandatory or voluntary. Your chairman
says, is quoted as saying, Mr. Telage -- quote -- "We looked at
mandatory filtering and we rejected it." He says, "We rejected it
because" -- a lot of reasons. No one technology works. It blocks
a lot more than people want to block. Why do you think there
ought to be mandatory filtering? Isn't it just one more "big
brother" government, you know, mandate?
HUGHES: Well, first of all, let me say this: The commission did
not make any recommendation for any type...
PRESS: But your chairman did. Are you saying he's wrong?
HUGHES: No, I'm not. I'm saying that the commission did not make
any recommendations for any type of mandate. Those were more
controversial issues, and we had to deal with the areas that were
less controversial. However, there was some discussion about
that. And however, Congress didn't ask us to look at mandates.
They asked us to look at recommendations with respect to
technology and methods.
However, I have always supported McCain's initial legislation,
which is now the bill that you're talking about, which
Congressman Istook is also involved with, that would require
schools and libraries that use federal money to implement their
choice of protective software based on their community standards.
PRESS: OK. We'll get back to those in just a minute.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Larry -- Larry Flynt, welcome. I want to
ask you some questions, sir, and I hope -- I think I might get
some surprising answers. Who knows?
I understand there are 9.4 million kids right now who -- with
access to the Internet, able to do it themselves. And they have
at their disposal at least 30,000 -- I think there may be more --
sites of pornography.
Do you think there should be some method of preventing all those
kids from having access to pornography?
LARRY FLYNT, PUBLISHER, "HUSTLER": Absolutely. You know, and I'm
glad you're doing this program, because very few times have I
ever heard it even mentioned on television that there's a variety
of blocking devices, over a dozen good ones that I know. Net
Nanny is my favorite one. And you can block out any material that
you feel that you don't want your child to have access to.
Libraries and schools can also have this, these blocking devices
available to them.
So you know, I think we're just trying to make an issue out of
something that doesn't really exist, because when you're talking
about pornography in itself, even the Supreme Court has said it's
not illegal. And we're speaking basically of consenting adults
having the right to read or view whatever they want to.
NOVAK: Well, Mr. Flynt, isn't it -- the point is, should these
libraries and schools, which receive tax money, should they be
required to put in a filtering device to keep the kids from
getting pornographic material? Should they be required by the
government to do it? Why not?
FLYNT: Oh, I know if I had a young child that was going to school
I would not want it to be able to access some of the material
that I know that's available on the Internet. Now, I'm not one
that likes to talk about making things mandatory because you get
on that slippery slope again. That bothers me a great deal.
NOVAK: How is that a slippery slope, sir, if you're just keeping
it out of the hands of kids and not out of the hands of Bill
Press?
FLYNT: Well, it's not, but it's when Congress starts passing a
law, you know. It tends to have a farther-reaching effect than
you would actually think. You know, you would believe that
parents knowing that these blocking devices are very simple and
are available all the time, that they can make use of them and
that the schools -- I can't imagine a school not taking the
responsibility to do the same thing.
HUGHES: I would have to jump in here, because I do agree with Mr.
Flynt on this point. Schools and libraries have a responsibility.
Parents don't go to school with their kids. They entrust their
children when they're in that parentless environment, for
instance, at the school to make sure that those kids have safe
Internet access. And we have found over and over again -- we
being myself as an Internet safety advocate -- that oftentimes
kids are coming across pornography in the school and in the
library if those tools aren't in place.
And I have always tried to encourage parents, schools and
libraries to use a combination of safety rules in concert with
software tools, rules and tools. And here's why, Bill.
One in four children -- the commission heard from the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children -- accidentally came
across pornography just this past year, and one in five received
a sexual solicitation. Now, if you are just teaching children to
not go there and implement some rules of the road, that does not
take into account accidental access. So those barriers are very,
very important.
PRESS: But here's the problem. Here's the problem. You just
believe that there's a technological fix to this, if I may
suggest. It's not the parent's job, it's not the teacher's job,
it's not the librarian's job. You think you can just push a
button and the kids are going to be protected. That is so naive I
can't believe you're there. You know there's no technological
fix.
HUGHES: There is not silver bullet, that is absolutely correct.
I've said that for years. You have to look at tools as enabling
technologies, as empowerment. They're there to assist the parent,
the school and the library.
And I think what makes the technology that's currently available
now, like Family Click, for instance -- that's a company that I
actually work with -- these tools are highly customizable and
flexible, so in the event that there is a site inadvertently,
because they're not 100 percent correct all of the time, the
teacher, the parent, the library can override that. They can
review that site. They can unblock it.
So there's a lot of sophistication out there...
PRESS: Do you think...
HUGHES: ... we've seen that we didn't see five years ago.
PRESS: Do you think a book about man that slept with his
daughters, kids ought to be allowed access to that book?
HUGHES: It depends on what type of book that you're talking
about. I think what we're...
PRESS: A man who slept with his daughters.
HUGHES: I'm not sure what you're talking about. But with respect
to harmful-to-minors material...
PRESS: I think it's pretty clear, a man who has sex with his
daughters and bears children.
HUGHES: Well, if it's a work of fiction and is something that has
been approved by the school or by the library, then I think it
would be important.
PRESS: What it happens to be...
HUGHES: What we're dealing with is access...
PRESS: It happens to be, if I may, it happens to be the Holy
Bible.
HUGHES: Right.
PRESS: And your filter would block that out. Your filter would
block out paintings by Michelangelo on the Sistine Chapel.
HUGHES: No, it wouldn't. Bill, your argument is so old.
PRESS: No, it has. It is not old.
HUGHES: This is an antiquated argument.
PRESS: It's a law today on effect on the books in Wisconsin Books
would block out the Bible, block out the statue of David. That's
what's wrong with your filters.
HUGHES: Well, if the filters are inadvertently blocking anything,
then there is an override feature with most of them. And that's
very important.
But I think another thing that's important is that the commission
agrees that what we're dealing with is protecting children from
harmful-to-minors material. And none of the material you
mentioned fits that category. That is clearly material...
PRESS: Having sex with your daughter?
HUGHES: ... that is pornographic.
NOVAK: OK, we're going to have to...
HUGHES: No, of course not. This is material that's designed...
NOVAK: We're going to have to take a break.
Don't miss your chance to take this debate online with tonight's
guests right after the show at cnn.com/crossfire.
And we will be back to take a look at about what the prospects
are for legislation to require filtering.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
President Clinton doesn't like the initiative now going through
Congress to filter out pornography on the Internet. But the signs
are that he won't veto it. We're talking about smut filters with
Larry Flynt, the publisher of "Hustler" magazine, and with Donna
Rice Hughes, a member of the Child Online Protection Act
Commission.
Mr. Flynt, I notice by the records of the Federal Election
Commission that you tried on several occasions to give money to
the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996. The money was returned to you.
They didn't want your money. But are you disappointed that the
president would sign this legislation that apparently has wide
support in Congress as part of another bill which would require
filters on the Internet?
FLYNT: Obviously I'm disappointed. I was disappointed when he
signed the communications decency law. That was unbelievable. We
knew it would be overturned at the Supreme Court, which it was,
thankfully. Clinton's done many things that has upset me, but I
don't believe he's quite as dangerous as George W.
NOVAK: But you keep a close look -- watch, Mr. Flynt, on
prosecutions by the Justice Department. Isn't it true that under
this administration the prosecutions for pornography are way
down, in fact, they're really not prosecuting under the existing
laws?
FLYNT: Actually, during the Reagan and Bush administration, they
averaged 120 prosecutions a year. And there's been virtually no
prosecutions under the Clinton administration. And I don't think
this has anything to do with children. I think it has more to do
with them accepting the fact that consenting adults have a right
to decide what their viewing or reading material might be.
You know, I really appreciate you guys bringing me on this show,
but there's a lot more important -- it's very entertaining, but
there's a lot more important things we could be discussing, such
as the election.
HUGHES: I'd like to just jump in here, if I could.
PRESS: You may quickly, yes.
HUGHES: The fact of the matter is we haven't seen any Internet
prosecutions during the past eight years of obscenity, and that
refers to material that is prosecutable under current law that
would be even illegal for adults.
I have to really challenge Mr. Flynt on this point...
FLYNT: Yes, but...
HUGHES: This doesn't have to do with children. The fact of the
matter is...
FLYNT: Let me explain to you why she's all wet on this particular
issue...
HUGHES: Now let me just say something, Mr. Flynt.
FLYNT: ... You can have a Web site up in Sweden, South Africa,
Europe, anyplace else in the world, and people can access that in
this country. So you're not going to be able to prosecute
somebody in a foreign country for obscenity, so what are you
going to do? Just prosecute the people in the United States? It
just doesn't make sense.
HUGHES: I think that's exactly what we need to do. It certainly
does make sense. Just because we have drugs coming in from
outside of the country, we still enforce our drug laws here in
this country. And that's what we need to do. And the reality is
that children have access and have had access for free materials
that their adult parents couldn't get even get in a XXX-rated
book store.
PRESS: All right, I'd like to get back to the subject of this
evening, if I may, and of this commission report and of the
legislation, which are these filters. And I want to ask you
again.
If telling a library -- and the American Library Association
opposes this legislation, which you support -- if telling a
library they must put a block or a filter on a computer, to block
access to certain materials, if that's not censorship, what is?
HUGHES: Well, you're right. The ALA does not support this, and I
do. And obviously there's...
PRESS: It is censorship, isn't it?
HUGHES: I don't believe that it is because libraries have
selection policies. They don't carry copies of Mr. Flynt's
publication, "Hustler" magazine or "Debbie Does Dallas" videos,
because they select what kinds of content are appropriate in a
library setting and what kinds are not.
Now the new filtering technologies that are very sophisticated
that the commission found to be very effective are highly
customizable and will allow the kinds of flexibility that would
be important to have in a library environment.
PRESS: Well, you say that, but I was watching CNN's "TALKBACK
LIVE" this afternoon. There was a teacher -- his is not old. This
is today. There's a teacher on there who said that their school
had put in a filtering system like this and they removed it. And
you know why? Because there were too many, again, too many good
things that kids could not get access to. They took it off and
instead they have parent volunteers. They have teachers. They
have librarians monitoring what the kids are looking at on the
Internet. Why isn't that more effective and no "big brother"? Why
isn't that the way to go?
HUGHES: It is effective, but I -- it needs to be coupled with
technology tools. And let me just say that the points that I'm
making, I'm speaking as an individual commissioner. All right, so
I just want to make that clear. But the commission did hear
testimony from schools and libraries who had effectively used
technologies with their acceptable use policies and that it did
work well, Bill, so you'll have different viewpoints on that.
*********
*********
NOVAK: Mr. Flynt, never let it be said that we censor any of our
guests here on CROSSFIRE, and you said you wanted to talk about
the election. Tell me what you wanted to say.
FLYNT: Well, during the impeachment debacle, we did an
investigation which resulted in the resignation of Bob Livingston
and others and we have continued this investigation and for eight
months we've been looking into George W. Bush's background. And
we've found out in the early 1970s he was involved in an abortion
in Texas, and I just think that it's sad that the mainstream
media, who's aware of this story, won't ask him that question
when they were able to ask him the drug question without any
proof at all, and we've got all kinds of proof on this issue.
NOVAK: Well, you're...
FLYNT: You know, the guy admitted he was a drunk for 20 years,
and if the abortion issue is true then that puts him lower on the
morality scale than Bill Clinton.
NOVAK: Mr. Flynt, you said if it's true and you have no proof of
that. I gather you are a very strong...
FLYNT: The hell we don't have proof.
NOVAK: Sir, I gather you're a very strong Gore supporter. Is that
correct?
FLYNT: I'll vote for the lesser of the two evils. I don't like
either one of them.
PRESS: All Right, Larry Flynt, a man who speaks his word, but we
remind you they are Larry Flynt's words and not ours. Larry
Flynt, thank you very, very much for joining us. Donna Rice
Hughes, good to have you here.
HUGHES: Thank you.
PRESS: You never know. Live television. Bob Novak and I will be
back with our non-pornographic closing comments. Too bad. Coming
up.
**********
**********
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: Larry Flynt and Donna Rice Hughes are jumping from your TV
to your computer. Debate with them online right after the show
tonight at cnn.com/crossfire.
Bill, you know every civilized -- every civilization before ours
has been able to control obscenity, pornography not only from
kids but from adults, and they've been able to understand, as you
apparently can't, the difference between smut and the Bible. But
all this is a lot of gobbledygook. Any country ought to be able
to protect its youth and not rely on parents that don't care.
PRESS: Bob, I think you made a very good point. Every
civilization has been able to do that without technology and
without the government telling them how to do it.
NOVAK: Oh, the government does tell them.
PRESS: No, no, no, and that is the difference here, Bob. I think
this is the slippery slope, You start putting these filters on,
it's the first step to policing Internet and the courts have
already ruled that's unconstitutional.
NOVAK: You know what I'm going to do, I'm going to try give you a
fast course in history on how governments have controlled
pornography over the -- will you take a little time...
PRESS: And I'll give you a fast course on the First Amendment
some day, Bob.
NOVAK: The First Amendment does not cover pornography.
PRESS: Long live the First Amendment. The hell it doesn't. From
the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time
for another edition of CROSSFIRE.
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
