Your August 20 issue slays me. Everything is a problem. Skybridges are problem, Paul Allen is getting away with all our money, getting the Olympics to Seattle means the City Council is selling us down the river, Val Stevens is a ultra-extreme right-wing militant, Barbara Bush is just a housewife. Give me a break, will ya. If I didn't know better your writers were the creators of the movie Conspiracy Theory. I suggest you do some self-analysis and take a hard look at your paper. It borders on the ridiculous. Quite frankly, I like living in this area and I think the community as a whole is doing a pretty good job. Not everything is a problem.
Rob Grune
via e-mail
White in the right
Mike Romano's recent article "Congressman's 'Privates,'" (8/6) may have left your readers with the misimpression that the American Civil Liberties Union supports the latest Internet censorship bill in Congress. The bill—S. 1482, which was introduced by Indiana Republican Sen. Dan Coats—is modeled on the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which the Supreme Court unanimously found unconstitutional last year in Reno v. ACLU. While the ACLU has participated in discussions about Internet censorship bills with members of Congress, we have certainly never endorsed the current "Son of CDA," or a so-called "harmful to minors" standard that Romano endorses.
Contrary to what Romano says, Congressman Rick White is well-advised to oppose this misguided effort to suppress speech in cyberspace. Coats' bill would punish commercial online distributors of material deemed "harmful to minors" with up to six months in jail and a $50,000 fine. While there is a governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials, that interest does not justify the broad suppression of adult speech found in the measure Rep. White voted against.
The broad definition of "distributor" under S. 1482 could include Seattle's virtual bookstore Amazon.com or a promotional site for a Hollywood movie, as well as individual sites with advertisements for products such as Netscape. Any business merely displaying material without first requiring a credit card or other proof of purchase could be found liable under the bill, even if no actual sale is involved.
Contrary to Romano's assertion, "Son of CDA" does not "avoid[ ] the constitutional pitfalls of the 1996" legislation. The court in Reno v. ACLU found that the credit card or other age verification requirement imposed a severe financial and logistical burden on speakers who have a constitutional right to disseminate such material, including commercial distributors. While a distributor such as Time Inc. may be able to absorb the financial burden of such a requirement, an independent online "e-zine" such as Salon may be forced to shut down.
Speech that is potentially "harmful to minors" is unquestionably protected by the Constitution when communicated among adults. The Coats bill fails to make any distinction between material that may be harmful to a 6-year-old but valuable for a 16-year-old, such as safer-sex information.
Rick White is doing the right thing by standing up against the legislation and those who would censor cyberspace.
Gerard John Sheehan
Legislative Director
ACLU of washington
Mike Romano replies: It frustrates me when a great institution like the ACLU demeans its laudable mission by stooping to hysterics in arguing constitutional matters. Allegations that Sen. Coats' "harmful to minors" cybersmut restrictions (S. 1482) would apply to Amazon.com, Netscape, Time Inc., or the Web zine Salon are baseless and lower the ACLU to disingenuous political pandering.
Sen. Coats' law is straightforward, making sure to define "harmful to minors" content as that which "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." This is not a new concept, nor has it been interpreted narrowly by the courts. In this regard, Amazon, Netscape, and Time have nothing to worry about.
Wake-up alarm
"Down and out in Seattle" by Nina Shapiro (8/6) pissed me off. Or rather, Seattle employers pissed me off, the mass of them with their heads up fiscally strict asses. Why the hell can't employers provide subsidies for the bus? Why couldn't they at least take a little of it out of the paychecks to come?
Jack Skiles and Ernst Morrel are a wake-up call to those of us dozing in the smug theory that all vagrants are "crazies or drug-addicted bums," or worse, professional panhandlers. On the vague outskirts of my subconscious, I was aware that these "honest, hard-working citizens struggling to survive on this city's homeless margins" do exist—the divorced mother of four, a blind elderly man with diabetes, couples who move here hoping to do well and end up on welfare because the cost of living in this town has skyrocketed and shows no signs of ceasing.
Life here is a catch-22. Jobs may be plentiful, but they don't promise much else beyond a few hundred bucks to barely survive. Salaries must be augmented by transportation subsidies, housing assistance, and in-company showers. Or else what's the point? More homeless? That's not acceptable.
I hope Skiles and Morrel surpass the statistics and make it.
Thank you for highlighting a problem that goes beyond surface appearance.
Carol Banks Weber
Seattle
A fetal position
