Ashcroft at work...

[bspider]

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64702,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_8


Webmasters for adult sites are worried that both their profits and freedom to operate may suffer under recently proposed changes to a largely unenforced federal law requiring porn companies to document that performers are of legal age.

Under Title 18, Section 2257 of the U.S. Code created under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, producers of adult magazines and movies must make identification documents available to federal inspectors on demand.

But the suggested changes would bring an extensive array of new responsibilities to webmasters. While the current law applies to "primary producers" -- photographers, filmmakers and others who actually create adult material -- the new changes would affect "secondary producers," such as websites, that distribute content created by other companies. The result could have far-reaching consequences for the entire adult industry, but it would have a particularly harsh impact on online companies.

<Sings> "There may be troubles ahead..."</sings>

Boris :(

[bloom061604]

Also from that article:

"What does Ashcroft propose to do with regard to getting offshore sites to comply?" asked Humphry Knipe, producer and husband of veteran erotic photographer Suze Randall..."The internet is an international entity. This could be yet another incentive for websites to set up business elsewhere," Knipe said.
Knipe brings up a good point. Obviously, the US government can't shut down a site based outside the US, nor force a site based in another country to comply with a US regulation, but could they find a way to block access to foreign sites by US residents? Or could the US Justice Department gain access to lists of subscribers to "adult" sites and go after the subscribers?

As a law-abiding citizen, I strive to obey all laws whether or not I agree with them. If I was in danger of running afoul of the law by subscribing to a site like Wetting Her Panties, not wishing to have my life disrupted I'd probably terminate my membership. I suspect many would. So the policy would work as a scare tactic, and that alone could have a severe financial impact on adult sites.

—Bloom

[skymouse]

The 18 USC 2257 law has been on the books in the US for several years now, and adult webmasters both in and out of the US have had to comply. Non-US webmasters, though not bound by US domestic laws, still inevitably have to interact with US organisations (ISP's, billing agents, banks, content brokers, etc), and the more prudent of these organisations will avoid working with non-compliant webmasters. Indeed, some of these organisations add their own rules, often in order to ringfence their legal obligations.

The changes to the law include some far-reaching things. For example, any person who puts any sexual depiction on a website can, according to the law, now expect the law enforcement agents to make an unannounced visit to his premises. If he is not able IMMEDIATELY to produce the piece of paper that links the exact URL and filename of the picture to the exact and correct record for that model and photoshoot, fines and prison are awaiting him. The proper records, by the way, will now be full-sized ID documents (e.g. passport) that has to be US-government issued (overseas documents apparently will no longer be acceptable). The exisiting rules will also remain (e.g., according to the law as it already has stood for the last few years, the document has to list every single nickname, stage name, previous name, etc that the model has EVER been known by in his or her life.) Similarly, the existing law that the webmaster MUST put his or her full legal name and postal address on the web site (PO Boxes are strictly forbidden) will still stand. (It means that any model who has her OWN website either has to entrust the records with another party, or has to provide her full name and postal address to anyone who wants it, including stalkers and maniacs - that is the law as it already stands.)

The laws, in case anyone wasn't clear, are not just proposals. We've been living with them (and various other rules that have been introduced over the last 3 years), and the screw is being tightened further as a major plank of policy of the current US administration. The bottom line is that they believe all sexual material on the internet is Evil, and they will continue to close it down.

SM

[Grant]

It means that any model who has her OWN website either has to entrust the records with another party, or has to provide her full name and postal address to anyone who wants it, including stalkers and maniacs - that is the law as it already stands.

Why? Surely not?! A model has to give out her postal address to anyone that asks? Isn't that putting her life at risk?


The laws, in case anyone wasn't clear, are not just proposals. We've been living with them (and various other rules that have been introduced over the last 3 years), and the screw is being tightened further as a major plank of policy of the current US administration. The bottom line is that they believe all sexual material on the internet is Evil, and they will continue to close it down.

A good enough reason to hope for the removal of Bush in the forthcoming election? Would the laws on internet sexual material be more relaxed under a Kerry administration?

As you can see, I have loads of questions and no answers...

Grant. :?

[skymouse]

A model has to give out her postal address to anyone that asks? Isn't that putting her life at risk?

All web sites with depictions of sexual conduct have to display the name and address of the Custodian of Records for the photos. If a model is running their own site, and don't have someone who they can ask to officially keep the records for her (and, in turn, have their name and postal adderss displayed on the site), then the model has to be her own Custodian of Records and display her name and address on her site. The thing is, the legislation seems to think of models as victims, and webmasters (etc) as potential criminals. The idea of a model willingly and legitimately participating in an adult web enterprise just doesn't fit in with their paradigm.


Would the laws on internet sexual material be more relaxed under a Kerry administration?

Who knows. It's not as simple as that. The lobby that exerts all this anti-porn pressure won't go away (or even become less irresistable to governments) just because Bush leaves office. Moreover, there may not be much political advantage for a new government to make a high-profile reversal of these legislative trends. Worthier issues have been sacrificed in the history of politics...

SM

[bloom061604]

Would the laws on internet sexual material be more relaxed under a Kerry administration?
Under a Kerry administration with a new attorney general, there wouldn't be as much push from the administration to enforce these draconian regulations. However, even if Kerry wins the election, I think Republicans will retain their majority in the House and Senate, and cracking down on alleged smut is a Republican crusade. Sky is right, no politician, including Kerry, will want to be on record as favoring relaxing anti-porn laws.

Pornography, gay marriage, abortion, drugs and what Bush and Kerry did or did not do during the Viet Nam war are what some call "wedge" issues. They're intended to drive wedges between the candidates and voters and separate the country into opposing camps. It just drives me nuts that these phony issues dominate the campaign, and we can't get a dialog going on what really matters — the economy, health care, poverty, terrorism, the environment, jobs, education, how we resolve the Iraq mess.

—Bloom

[Sweet T]

I cringe right down to my core when I read these things. Not only because of the unrighteous laws impinging our freedoms, but also because of the narrow, ineffective focus of Americans in how to deal with it.

I disagree Bloom. There IS a political party that would go on record in favor of relaxing anti-porn (and drug and and and laws). The third largest party in the United States is the Libertarian Party. The credo is Any behavior that is honest and peaceable should be legal.

Libertarians support a great deal of liberty and freedom of choice in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and they tolerate economic and social diversity.

While I don't want to incite a political brough-ha-ha in our wonderful wet forum, I'd like to suggest that curious readers consider going to www.self-gov.org/quiz.html and take the Nolan Quiz - 10 easy questions, non-partisan and every educational. You learn your true political leanings - which often are not what you may think they are.

If you're looking for where MY little red dot is... it's right smack at the tippy top of the diamond. How appropriate!

Viva Freedom!

Sweet T

[Lloyd]

OK, I'm officially Libertarian!! These were my scores:

Your Personal issues Score is 90%.
Your Economic issues Score is 80%.

I think I'm kinda proud of that!! :)

Lloyd.

[realaustream]

Ditto

Your Personal issues Score is 100%.
Your Economic issues Score is 60%.

[bspider]

Seems I'm Left-Liberal:

Your Personal issues Score is 100%.
Your Economic issues Score is 30%.
But I'm sure I've seen much better versions of that questionnaire (read: more insightful - questions that make you think what you're trading, rather than gut-appeal).

I suppose that, in general, I'd probably agree with the assessment, but there are always specifics.

For example, I expect that for many the question about tax and spend would be reduce taxes, spend less - except on This and That which I want to keep. And everyone's likely to have slightly different sets of This and That...

Boris.

[goldenguy]

seems like im gonna be unpopular then cos im a statist

personal issues score 40%
economic issues score 20%

[Estelle]

Now here's a surprise! The quiz claims I'm a left liberal. Not that I accept the label, any more than I accept the ridiculous idea that ten questions can define anyone's political stance.

Personal 100% Economic 20%

I suppose if I had answered with ten "maybes" I would have come out a centrist. That would have been a farce. It's like those stupid psychological questionaires that claim to say what sort of person you are by asking 30 or 40 questions. They just don't allow for subjective multi-faceted responses.

The questions themselves are loaded, of course, so that the desired interpretation can be put on any particular response. And of course the question masters get to put their interpretations on those responses.

Why did I bother? It must be the lemming effect!

Back to the original subject of the thread. Thank you Sky, for making so clear the diabolical state of the current law, let alone what Ashcroft and Blunkett still have up their nasty puritanical sleeves. I knew it was bad but not that bad. But then the entire raft of legislation on sexuality creates victims of victimless action while allowing sexual exploitation to go unchecked.

Of course, even without Blunkett, we're still in hock to whatever laws get enacted in the USA. Everyone is. They control most of the server and "upstream provider" capacity. This means that US law can make impossible, in another country, something that is completely within their own law. That's frightening. Things might not get any better under Kerry but they will most certainly get much worse under four more years of the current regime.

Estelle

[bspider]

The upside, Estelle, is that it works both ways, and the 1st Amendment was still in force in the USA last time I heard. It could be much worse - imagine if the upstream stuff was based in China...

As for the worthlessness of that 'quiz': of course it's worthless and loaded. It's politics! :D

If there was a party in this country which stated, up front and enequivocally, that if elected they would repeal the Blunkett Portfolio, I'd vote for them without further question...

Boris.

[Adrian]

Having taken the test I learned that I was a "centrist" - someone in the middle of the spectrum who favours selective government intervention in certain areas but is essentially practical and open minded. Wow!

My results were

Your Personal issues Score is 30%.
Your Economic issues Score is 40%.

:o

[RDJay]

Well, I came in as a 70%/60% Centrist, which apparently puts me exactly in line with about 2/3 of those who took the test.


A model has to give out her postal address to anyone that asks? Isn't that putting her life at risk?

As a Texan (who, like Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, is a bit embarrassed to be from the same locale as Bush), I remember GWB all too well back when he was our governor. Most people around the world scarcely had a clue who he was....that is, until you mentioned the death penalty. His name was virtually synonomous with an eye-for-an-eye, even back then (thank God he hadn't yet discovered his "preemption" policy! "This rascal looks like he has the capability of carrying out a murder---better execute him for safe measure.").

In light of the way it all seems to dovetail with their foreign policy, I have to ask:

Since when do Bush, Ashcroft and their Neoconservative cronies care about lives---of models, or anyone else?

[SNIFFER17]

Unlike many of those here who seem to favor Mr. Kerry as the best choice to govern the land I call home, I have always favored a right-wing approach to that of the liberal left.
My philosophies have been developed over many years of following politics with an admittedly "moderate" interest. I am not apathetic to the issues, both foreign and domestic, but I also do not let my life become comsumed with partisan banter and conflict.
Concerning the thread to which this reply is directed, I am totally against censorship of any kind. However, I would stop short of accusing the Bush administration or Atty. Gen. Ashcroft of being the "boogie men".
The level to which this country has degraded with regard for law or justice is appalling. This "snowball rolling toward hell" attitude that pervades society has its roots deeply imbedded, to the point where ANYONE who tries to promote a moral or ethical agenda (of any kind) is viewed as the criminal.
And while many are quick to jump on a bandwagon that favors rash change, it is usually an approach founded in the ignorant belief that "anything is better than"............whatever that may be.
The problem I continue to have with the Democratic Party in the U.S is this : The view of most liberals is that something (and that can mean any concept) is wrong only if you think it is wrong. By upholding this philosopy, the left wing also grants itself the authority to impose its will on any issue THEY deem to be so. A classic example of this behavior is the issue of private ownership of guns in America. Since the liberals are against guns, many stand staunchly in the belief that they should have the right to confiscate all guns.
OH -- of course, they use the AGE-OLD excuse that it will reduce crime. And what level-headed citizen would argue against such a noble agenda, anyway ?? Well -- it has been proven to be a totally false claim, both here in The States and in other countries. In fact, in many such regions where only police and military have firearms, crime has actually escalated.
And I know that Ted Kennedy's CAR has killed more innocent Americans than my guns have -- or ever will.
What needs to be done is to adhere to the Constitution, and to enforce the laws we already have in place. This country doesn't need further restriction, but we damn well don't need a law-enforcement community or judicial system that has to back down in the performance of their duties, fearing repercussions from a multitude of frivilous lawsuits.
OK -- I'll step down now. I don't have enough blood in these fingers to type all that could be written on this subject. The greatest liberty we share is that of formulating our own opinions, and the ability to voice them. It's quite obvious here, that no one agrees totally with his/her fellow website member. Thank GOD we have at least one thing in common................
BTW - just for "shits and giggles", I also took the 10-question test. I scored 80 and 80. That makes me a Libertarian too, I guess. And while I relish the princiles of the Libertarian Party, my question is this : What is the plan to accomplish your agenda ?? But, heck -- I ask that of the Democrats and Republicans, as well. Rhetoric is just that............
A final word to RDJay : Natalie Maines is free to speak out against our military involvement, but to do it on foreign soil was a slap in the face to all Americans who support the efforts to broaden the ideal of freedom. And since when did she become the "native daughter" of Texas, anyway ?? The Dixie Chicks are an afterthought in country music today, and that can be directly attributed to her ill - timed ramblings. By gosh -- there may still be a few patriots left in this country !!!

[Ger]

I think this topic should be moved to the off-topic stuff part of this message board.

Ger.

[bspider]

It cetainly should be now....

Boris

[Adrian]

I certainly think it should be moved to the off-topic section.

Censorship is always a difficult area and knowing where the line should be drawn is not so easy as it might at first appear. Things which are legal in one country aren't necessarily so in another. Furthermore, whilst most of us here are no doubt fairly liberal when it comes to sexual ethics and morality, there are forms of behaviour which I think practically all of us would find unacceptable and even sickening. For me, whether a thing is right or not depends on whether it is consensual and whether or not the parties involved are capable of giving informed consent. So far as I'm concerned, consenting adults who are well over 18 and know what they're doing, should be able to please themselves as they wish in private or, if they wish, share their experiences with the world - either by printed or electronic means.

As for Mr Bush, writing as a subject of Her Brittanic Majesty, I think it would be no bad thing if the American electorate removed him from office. Quite apart from leading America and Britain into war which nobody wanted, he has just been incredibly rude to Michael Howard, Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, by telling him that he will not be welcome at the White House. In view of the fact that Mr Howard is a political opponent, not a personal enemy of Mr Blair (who is no doubt quite horrified by such treatment being meted out to his opposite number) such behaviour from the President is barely excusable to say the least.

:cry: :oops: :x

[skymouse]

None of those quizzes would be much good for me in pinpointing my political position. Why? Because the things they try to measure aren't my main criteria. In my opinion, freedom - both private or public - is a means to an end. These quizzes seem to assume that everyone thinks of freedoms as being imortant in their own right. To me, a freedom should be granted or revoked depending on the likely outcome.

For example, legalising guns would be a bad thing, and yet the recent relaxation in the way cannabis is dealt with in the UK was a good thing. Making hardcore pornography illegal would be a bad thing, and yet the prosecution of people who publish hate material is a good thing. Some restrictions are good, and some bad. Some freedoms are good, and some bad. This doesn't make me a "centrist" with regard freedom.

SM

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

I took the quiz and it put my little red dot somewhere in the 'liberal' section (70% and 70%).

While I'm certain that a more in-depth questionaire would also stick a 'liberal' badge on my butt I think it is really dangerous to need to have a label for everything. I believe in and try to stand up for what I think is right. 'Labels' tend to distract and detract from the individual's message.

With regard to the earlier posts in this topic - Censorship annoys me. Especially when it is due to a so-called higher authority's view of what is good or bad for us.

They've banned the computer game 'Manhunter' because it was "too violent", brought into the public eye when a psychopathic child who had played it went out and killed one of his friends. I don't play computer games and I have no interest in what the game was like, but I'm sure as hell pissed-off that it's no longer available. A knee-jerk reaction to appease a baying crowd of narrow minded idiots, no doubt.

The developments in the laws surrounding adult internet sites that have already been discussed are equally ridiculous. The only reason politicians clamber to support things like that is because of the widespread misconception that "porn = exploitation + immorality". Sure, some of the time that's probably true, but why not investigate individual cases in an attempt to rid the net of "evil" instead of creating an environment in which even legitimate and reputable websites with well-paid, consenting, of-age models and loyal, satisfied customers are going to find it hard to survive?

[WT]

Oh dear!

Trust me to end up on a boundary! :oops: It can't make up its mind whether I'm Left Liberal or Libertarian with a score of 90% personal 50% economic.

And I think it is skewed to American values, rather than European ones. I had to vote against cutting state spending by 50% as that would severely disadvantage many people. I would, on the other hand, vote to cut it by 20% in the UK, to reverse the effects of the current Labour government and reduce the burden on taxpayers. History over the last 50 years shows that the beneficial effects of the extra tax raised at lower rates from people creating more wealth significantly exceeds the extra tax from higher rates that penalise enterprise. To avoid adversely impacting people immediately, I would achieve this by limiting state spending to current levels (in real terms) while the economy grew. Not a cut in sight and, in 10 years, a superb economy keeping a much greater proportion of its wealth for reinvestment.

In the UK, that actually puts me firmly at the right hand end of the political spectrum. So, the UK and US seem to use the terms differently too. To get a right label on the test I would have had to vote for economic freedom but limiting personal freedom - the latter being diametrically opposed to the core values of the right in the UK.

[Crazyhorse]

I came out as a Leftie Liberal, which is good because that is exactly how I see myself. 80% personal 40% economic.
This means my views are diametrically opposed to Sniffer17, but I'm not sure I have the energy to bother with pointing out the holes in the argument that the right of centre use, i.e. generalisations stated as fact, and statistics quoted in a way that appears to prove their point. Such as guns.

In fact, in many such regions where only police and military have firearms, crime has actually escalated.


Where are these regions? Certainly not in Europe where farmers are allowed to have guns in many countries, and guns are possessed (illegally) by the majority of drug dealers.
And the fact that crime has actually escalated has nothing to do with gun crimes. The crime figures take in shoplifting, burglary, speeding etc.


And I know that Ted Kennedy's CAR has killed more innocent Americans than my guns have -- or ever will.

Does this mean that deaths are only regrettable when the victims are innocent? And who decides if they were guilty or not? The person with the gun in the instant before he/she shoots?
Of course the obvious riposte to the above stance is that if you are never going to shoot anyone with your gun, why have one in the first place?
Because it is a deterrent? You mean the same deterrent that we were told having weapons of mass destruction was to the Russians during the cold war? Didn't seem to work for Saddam, did it? And he was bluffing.
No, as Bloom said many posts back, the priorities should be poverty, environment, jobs, education, health etc. but these dont score cheap headline grabbing tabloid selling political points. What does is a purge against all kinds of pornography, so that is what we get.
What really gets my blood boiling (oops, naughty - see wp posts) is that the main organisation behind the purge of pornography, mild or hard core, is the bloody Church and its myriad of gravy train organisations. And yet the one organisation that seems from news stories to be most frequently implicated in the child sex abuse that they insist starts from pornography, is the bloody Church and its gravy train employees.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

I bow to your wisdom and logic, Crazyhorse.

But this is in no way a come-on, lol :p

[RDJay]

NEWS FLASH: Zell Miller challenges Chris Matthews to a DUEL

He really did! In the minutes right after his tirade at the RNC convention. The MSNBC talkie laughed it off and turned the other (blushing) cheek, saying, "Senator Miller, I like you...". See, now that's the kind of liberal attitude I can relate to! A duel might have been fun to watch, though. Zell Miller doesn't look like he could hit the broad side of a barn...but he might hit something as broad as Chris.

So, let's talk about guns for a minute, shall we?

Here in the US, gun control is a hotly debated topic because of our long-standing tradition of distrust and disdain for the government. Evidence of such was injected into our Constitution by the Founding Fathers who felt it important enough to warrant amending the Constitution in order to guarantee every American the right to keep and bear arms.

The generally accepted interpretation is that militias (especially those formally organized by the individual states) are good things to have in place, just in case the big boys in Washington start getting too powerful and we need to do a little rebelling; that each person must be allowed to keep his guns, so that he can be a part of his local militia and can stand ready to answer a call to arms, if and when it should come; and that it's up to us, the people, to make sure the federal government does not start poking it's nose into people's gun cabinets...since keeping tabs on where the guns are could become a quick and easy way for a rogue administration to someday confiscate those guns and arrest the owners.

It is mostly conservatives who make that argument. The liberals, on the other hand, would like to see all guns dumped in a pile, melted down, and turned into plowshares or roach clips or something.

For my part (being...let's see...what was it again? ...a "libertarian centrist"), I don't own any guns and don't plan to. Nor do I have any fear of the federal government (which is, as I see it, nothing more sinister than a convenient extension of ME and my fellow voters...since ours is, after all, a democracy...supposedly...where we, the people, rule...right?).

No, I don't have a need for shooting anyone (or haven't so far), but I can certainly see the argument for leaving people's guns alone. The prospect of a rogue administration doesn't seem as far-fetched as it once did...

Guns, though, are not the issue. The problem in our country (and, increasing, in the world) is not the type of weapons available; it is the self-centered, self-righteous, hateful, arrogant attitude that draws the more conservatiive of our ranks toward the use of violence to get their way.

I'm sure I don't have to name the more prominent examples....

---o---o---o

(It is interesting to note, by the way, that the interim Prime Minister of Iraq recently made the statement---referring to al-Sadr's group---that "militias will not be tolerated". I find it interesting in view of the encouragment of, and Constitutional protection of, militias here in the US)

[Justme]

As you'll see by my following comments, that although this quiz showed me to be slightly right of being a centrist, I'm alot more to the right than this quiz shows. I'm with Sniffer on this.

Crazyhorse-- You ask what regoins these are. If you look at any city in the U.S. where the possession of firearms is either strongly regulated or banned, you'll find the crime rate is skyrocketing. NYC. Washington D.C. . L.A.. Atlanta. And the list goes on. And those are VIOLENT crime figures that are (and have been) escalating.


Of course the obvious riposte to the above stance is that if you are never going to shoot anyone with your gun, why have one in the first place?
Am I to understand that the only reason to own a gun is to shoot someone? I'll agree that technically speaking, that's the only protection the second amendment gives, but BY FAR that's not the only reason to have one (or more). ALthough I don't have any guns any more, I used to have enough to arm a small militia. I had several that were for nothing more than different types of hunting. I had others still that were there for competition shooting. Still others were part of a collectin I'd started, of a semi automatic version the main firearms used in every military involvement this country's ever had, from the revolutionary war up to present. And yes, still others were there for personal defense (when I lived in Connecticut I had a permit to carry concealed weapons, and that was no easy feat to get) There are a whole pleathora of reasons other than to shoot someone to have firearms, and just because one person doesn't enjoy those types of persuits they shouldn't be trying to limit the choices for those who do.

I find it interesting the way Spider put it once Sniffer made his statement concerning moving this to the off topic list-- "It should be now."

Kate-- I agree with your reaction to the banning of video games. I also think it's a knee jerk reaction, blaming something that people want banned as an argument to ban that item. Kinda like guns. :)



(It is interesting to note, by the way, that the interim Prime Minister of Iraq recently made the statement---referring to al-Sadr's group---that "militias will not be tolerated". I find it interesting in view of the encouragment of, and Constitutional protection of, militias here in the US)
RDJay-- IF you've ever noticed, the first thing ANY government trying to control its people will do is confiscate ALL firearms. Iraq's just the latest example.

Sorry folks, for getting back up on my soap box. It's been a long time. I used to be very active as a second ammendments advocate, both speaking in front of state legislatures as well as writing an unbelieveable number of editorials. This is a very hot button subject for me.

[bspider]

All I'll say, Bill, is that on another forum people were asking what firearms they'd fired. I piped up and said that I'd not fired one. Zero. Nada, and that what's more I'm rather pleased about it: you see that in this country the ownership of firearms has always been by a small minority, and the carrying of them has been by an even smaller one.

Now I'll confess to a certain fascination with firearms, but it's never been something I'd want to 'consummate'. You see, I can't believe that me needing one is more likely than someone I love getting hurt accidentaly by one. You can preach firearm safety to me 'till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that more people are harmed in the USA by guns accidentally than by their deliberate use. So thanks, but no thanks, I'll keep my non-gun-nut culture, and you can keep the one you have.

The above is said without rancour: I have the ability to choose where I live to the extent that I could, if I so chose, emigrate. So could you. So we have the freedom to live where we do by choice.

In starting this thread originally I was railing against the fact that members of your government are attempting to reduce the freedom that we all live by. The thread got hijacked and went waaaayyy off topic, which is why I wanted it closed.

Boris.

[Justme]

I apologise to you, Boris, for being part of that derailment. I will agree with you on one point-- education and demystification is the key, and unless someone rehashes it, I'll leave it alone from there.

I also agree with you in that no one-- ashcroft, Bush, Kerry, or anyone else has the right to limit OUR right to freedom of speech, much less that of people from other countries.