------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 23:19:17 CST
From: "AMERICAN EAGLE PUBLICATION INC." <0005847161@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject: File 4--Some thoughts on censorship (Re Am. Action "Porn" Raid)

From--Mark Ludwig, ameagle@mcimail.com

After reading about the latest porno-BBS raids, and the fact that one
reader cancelled his sub to CUD because he was sick of hearing about
it, I wanted to make a few comments. It seems like pornography is
always and forever a 1st amendment/freedom of speech issue, but I
don't think it is a very good test of the 1st amendment.

I've been writing and publishing technical literature about computer
viruses for a few years now--as well as arguing that viruses are not
something that should be suppressed because (a) people need good,
solid technical information if they want to defend themselves against
viruses, and (b) because viruses are not simply totally evil.
Obviously, some are pretty bad, but at the same time, you have
arguably beneficial ones like Cruncher and Potassium Hydroxide.
Likewise, they may provide valuable insights into other disciplines,
as discussed in my recent book, Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
Evolution.

My work has been subject to an incredible amount of censorship. But
not government-sponsored censorship. I've been censored by the
press--those who were once the vanguard of freedom of the press have
become its worst enemy in my eyes. Let me explain . . .

Around about December 7 I received a call from ___, sales
representative at the Computer Shopper. She informed me that they were
not going to allow us to advertise in their magazine anymore.
Evidently they had received complaints about our advertisement and
decided, like so many other journals, that their readers are too
immature and irresponsible to handle such things and, for the good of
society, they'd better deprive them of such information.

Did they review our materials prior to their decision? No.

Did they give us an opportunity to answer the complaints they
received? No.

In fact, Ziff Davis' high and mighty legal department proved totally
unwilling to even speak to me, preferring to hide behind a sales rep
instead. And no one at Ziff would put anything in writing.

This may sound preposterous to you, but it's happened to me time and
time again. A fair number of magazines have terminated our advertising
without ever reviewing our materials or discussing the matter with us.
These include Dr. Dobbs, Computer Language (who didn't even bother to
inform us they had dropped our ad), Computer Craft, and Nuts and Volts
(who reconsidered and reinstated us after about a year).

What sets the Computer Shopper apart is that they are the porn king of
computer magazines. In the context of a dozen pages of ads which sell
everything from Seymour Butts, Erotic Fantasies, Porkware and Deep
Throat to the gay Man Power, the decision to pull our ad came as a
real surprise. Evidently the omniscient legal department at Ziff has
come to the inspired realization that our materials are much worse
than blatant pornography--without ever looking at anything we sell!

Personally, I find it difficult to understand what a porno CD has to
do with computers, except that it goes in a CD ROM reader in your
computer. But that's kind of like selling x-rated videos in a
technical magazine about TVs. The only logic I can see to it is the
idea that perhaps the techies who read magazines like the Shopper are
sexually unfulfilled people who must fantasize to satisfy their animal
lusts. At least, I suppose that's what Ziff's pundits think, and
that's why they run the ads. It makes their customers happy.

On the other hand, technical information about computer viruses makes
a lot of sense in a computer magazine. After all, they are a
phenomenon that most computer users are going to have to deal with
sooner or later, and they are something that some of us find
interesting for purely technical reasons.

Pornography has long been a point of contention in the battle over
free speech simply because--in the Supreme Court's words--it has no
"socially redeeming value." And if one is free to appeal to only the
basest human lusts, so the argument goes, then any more noble ideas
will also be protected.

These kinds of arguments are fallacious though. The whole idea of
freedom of speech was born in the reformation, not with an eye to
protecting pornographers, but with an eye to protecting thinkers--and
specifically religious reformers--people who saw the corruption of the
state-church and who spoke out to condemn it and change it.

Good ideas can often be far more dangerous to those in power than bad
ideas. And porn is at best a bad idea. It won't threaten anyone in
power, and it acts like an opiate to society. It is a diversion. So to
suffer its existence isn't a good test of the freedom of speech. On
the other hand, what happens when somebody has a really good idea that
sets to naught the ideas which those in power use to remain in power?
(e.g. "taxation without representation is wrong") That is truly
threatening. Will the idea be suppressed by legal means?  Will it be
buried under a flood of propaganda? This is the REAL testing ground. A
society which permits porn, but suppresses real ideas isn't free at
all.

The whole issue of cryptography is case and point. In this age, the
dissemination or withholding of information has become a real tool of
power. In the past century, government secrets have multiplied without
number, while government has steadily demanded more and more
information about its citizens, and access to more information on
demand. Good cryptography is a threat to the ability to gather
information, and a stumbling block on the road to total control. So it
is being suppressed.

Now, when we see flagrant intrusions into our freedom by
government--such as in cryptography--our tendency is to point the
finger at government--"those guys." But--at least here in America--we
are the government. We voted it into power. And, no matter where, all
governments exist only with the consent of the governed. Perhaps it is
grudging consent, or fearful consent, but it is consent none the less.
The only one who really may not consent is probably in solitary
confinement or a slave-labor camp being whipped. So when we see
government intruding on freedom of speech or some such thing, we can
only rightly see it as a sickness in all of society. And it should be
no surprise to find the press--which has traditionally been thought of
as the vanguard of the freedom of speech--suppressing it. The Computer
Shopper, Dr. Dobbs, etc., etc., just have the same sickness as the
government and everyone else.

Frankly, I think we live in a generation where a majority of people
prefer security to freedom. You can see it everywhere.  Clinton is no
dummy, and I think his new theme is not just a stupid idea, but the
result of research. He knows what Americans--for the most part--have
come to expect, and he's going to at least promise it to them (even
though he cannot possibly deliver the reality of it, even if he has
spoken of a "new covenant"). I think it's a shrewd move. Every
president since Carter in 1976 has been elected on the basis of the
economy. Financial security has proven to be more important to the
average american than freedom, election after election. In short,
freedom isn't really an issue of national importance anymore, though
some of us still value it deeply. Security is the issue that gathers
the crowds and wins the votes.

There is an important idea here: freedom or security? The America of
200 years ago was founded on the idea of freedom under God. That
doesn't mean unrestrained freedom, but freedom within a given moral
code. It meant you were free to follow the profession of your choice,
go (or not go) to the church of your choice, to speak respectable
opinions, and free to live where you wanted, and keep what you earned.
It did not mean you were free to loot your neighbor or sell your
daughter as a prostitute. Now in a state ruled by this paradigm of
freedom, there are always questions about how far those freedoms go.

Today, however, there has been a paradigm shift in our society. The
question is no longer how far we can go with freedom without
endangering society. Rather, the question which government and the
people seem concerned about is how to maximize security--e.g. how to
assure an ever growing abundance of material possessions, and reduce
the risk of losing them. That's why the economy is such a big issue in
government. If freedom were our objective, we'd try to get the
government out of the economy, rather than trying to get government to
manipulate it more effectively.

Now the paradigm of security leads directly to 1984--a totally
controlled, totalitarian society. If you keep pushing the idea of
security, that's where you end up. A totally controlled society is
very secure, and no one in power ever makes a mistake. And that's
where I think America is headed.

Some kind of revolution or civil war isn't going to help things a bit
either. At best, such a cataclysm will be only the event which brings
the full totalitarianism upon us.  That's because this love affair
with security is in the people's hearts. It's not government vs. the
people. It's still government of the people by the people. And if the
people want security, then they'll install the government which best
promises them that. This is and always has been a totalitarian regime.
And if revolution won't work, it's hard to put your faith in some
milder type of reform.

I say all of this because it's the only way I can understand the
censorship I've faced. It's the only way you can twist your mind to
believe that what I do is worse than pornography. Even though there
are such things as beneficial viruses, even though viruses might give
us some valuable insights into other scientific disciplines, even
though they have military value, they are a potential threat to the
general security. And to have people walking around who know how to
create them is a threat to the general security. So as long as you are
operating under the paradigm of security, you cannot tolerate virus
writing. Thus, the press censors the press. Computer Shopper censors
American Eagle Publications, and throws their contract out the window
without ever even evaluating their materials.

If the government steps into the picture and enforces some kind of
official censorship against viruses through legislation, it will only
be because the private sector has chosen it already. It will be
because there are a lot of well-heeled businesses pushing it, and a
lot of magazines that won't address the issue honestly in editorials,
and won't let anyone else do it in advertising. That's the age old
formula for totalitarianism.

For these reasons I honestly don't think pornography is the issue
that's pushing the limits of the 1st amendment. The real hot issue
that those of us who value freedom should be giving our attention to
is security vs. freedom. That's where the paradigm shift is taking
place, and where the future will be won or lost. Right now, it would
seem that security is winning out by default.

In the long run, an unearthly security is a false hope. But I'd far
rather see it exposed for what it is by intelligent people using their
brains effectively in my generation, than having it exposed by a
government whip over several generations.

In short, porn isn't the real 1st amendment issue it's cracked up to
be. More often than not, its technical knowledge that really ruffles
the feathers today.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+                               END THIS FILE                                +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=