_______________CDA -- THE SEQUEL BY JANELLE BROWN (09/23/98)
	I read the other day in Salon that Barry Steinhardt, executive director of the EFF, is concerned that seemingly no one is taking up arms against the soon-to-be-infamous CDA II, or Son of CDA, the new version of the Communications Decency Act that is about to pass the house and will likely pass the Senate, then be signed into law by our Chief Moral Officer (I'd like to get my hands on the pen that signs that bill). You want to know why no one cares? Because it is a non-issue. This law specifically outlaws only distribution to minors, and it specifically only outlaws smut, and it specifically only targets commercial distribution. I would, of course, like to see the "commercial" definition tightened up, and that in itself might be grounds for another court ruling that this one is unconstitutional, too. But let's be real: This is something most Americans want. I know few people who want other people to be able to give actual pornography to kids. This bill is a mostly targeted attempt at preventing this, and only this. It is something most Americans can support, with little reservation. But the other reason no one cares is because of the lies perpetrated by the EFF and other opponents. For instance, it is a lie to say that the Starr Report would fall under CDA, in any form. First, the Starr Report is a congressional document, which means it is privileged in the eyes of the law, and not subject to defamation and obscenity laws. Second, even if it weren't, any court in the land would rule that it is protected speech simply because of the overriding national interest. Third, even if there were not an overriding national interest, the content fails to meet the standards set in the bill itself: It has a serious political interest, which means it is exempt, under section 3.e.7.E. There are other lies. They say that news organizations can be subject to this law by reporting about smut. There is nothing in this law that would void the special status the reporting of news already has in this country, and few news accounts would ever amount to a depiction of patently offensive sexual acts, unless there were an overriding interest (such as in the Starr Report case). Further, reporting "smut" in your business is not necessarily the same as being engaged in the business of selling or transferring "smut." Also, the EFF claims that CDA II keeps almost all the unconstitutional portions of the original. This is simply untrue. It keeps none of them, though possibly introducing a new one, with the vagueness of "commercial" (but I think it is sufficient to pass constitutional muster). Then they go on to say stupid things about it being parental responsibility, not the government's. Most of these same people don't complain about laws against giving drugs to minors. We have laws to protect minors: In the end of the day, it is absolutely the responsibility of the parents. But that does not mean we cannot or should not have laws to help. Am I for CDA II? Probably. But even if I were not, I would be upset at the lies told by EFF and Co. I was against CDA I, and I attacked the EFF and ACLU back then, too. The end does not justify the means. -- Chris Nandor I think Todd hit it on the head when he wondered, "Where is the outrage" on CDA II? There is no Net community anymore. And with the increased corporate control over the Web, I see little hope of the promise of the Net -- a medium available to everyone so they could connect and learn -- to be reached. The Web is turning into an extension of television. And all of us early adopters let it happen. We didn't fight the commercialism hard enough. We didn't keep the marketers, the advertisers and the businesspeople out. We let the e-commerce crowd come in and convince everyone that you needed a privatized, commercial medium conducting business transactions if it was to survive. But you know what? The Net did pretty well as a public resource for 25 years. From 1969 to 1994, it grew steadily and did its job. It really was magical, as people reached out to others they might never have known existed. There was no real good reason to commercialize it, except that the libertarian voices on the Web wanted the government ejected for ideology's sake. The Net was fine as it was. "The people's medium" is no longer that. A lot of folks will argue with me, but do you feel the same emotional connection with the medium that you used to? I don't. I find it difficult to get upset over legislation designed to make the Web more like television when it seems that's the direction it's going to go anyway. What is there left to save? -- Chris Allbritton
_______________THE KING OF DEATH BY ANDREW O'HEHIR AND "GHOST TOWN" REVIEWED BY ALAN BARRA (09/24/98)
	Wow, two off-handed slams of Thomas Pynchon in one day. First, Alan Barra lumps him in with metafiction practitioners like Barth and Coover, a grouping that few readers and critics would agree with. Then Andrew O'Hehir uses "Gravity's Rainbow" as the all-purpose "difficult" book to compare with Stephen King's page-turners. Personally, I found "Gravity's Rainbow" to be a page-turner, despite some incoherent passages. The point, though, is that trashing "literature" in order to glorify popular books is pretty tiresome at this point. By O'Hehir's figuring, I guess that John Grisham and Danielle Steele are the second and third most important writers of our time. That's not how it works. It's just the flip side of an idea implied by Frank Rich, who should know better, in a recent New York Times article in which he expressed disappointment that J.D. Salinger preferred Andy Griffith to "Masterpiece Theatre." I thought that by now we would all agree that "high" and "low" culture don't matter so much as "good" and "bad" work. To be fair, you published a good Pynchon article by David Bowman last week. It would be a shame, though, if a reader were turned off to a potential life-altering experience like "Gravity's Rainbow" by the relentless tagging of it as unreadable. -- Fred Maslin
_______________IS CYBERPUNK STILL BREATHING? BY ANDREW LEONARD (09/14/98)
	OK, Andrew, OK. We give up, we surrender, we succumb to your sublime authority. Cyberpunk is dead! You have slain it so magnificently, I am still trembling in my headware. In one fell swoop, you have knocked down two new sci-fi novels, "Silicon Sunset" and "Mir." And now cyberpunk is most definitely dead. Hooray! Just one minor detail for the historians: The mist of the deadly venom seems to have drifted past its target. 'Cause, uh, oops, whoopsie, like, "Silicon Sunset" isn't a cyberpunk novel, Andrew. As the author of "Silicon Sunset," I think I might sorta know the genre in which my novel resides. But hey, readers, conduct your own investigation. In his review, Andrew Leonard states that both "Mir" and "Silicon Sunset" "self-consciously describe themselves as cyberpunk." I can't speak for Besher, but I challenge anyone to find one reference to cyberpunk in my novel, on its cover, in its press releases or on the Web site. When I questioned Andrew via telephone, he replied that he heard me describe "Silicon Sunset" as cyberpunk at a chance meeting earlier this year. That is categorically false. What I told him is that my novel explores the limits of cyberspace. Cyberspace not cyberpunk. Big difference. At that same meeting, he happened to mention how much he disliked "Mir." Obviously, he was looking for another novel to lump into the condemnation-feast he was cooking. Too bad I fell for the bait by giving him a free review copy. Some may say that the cyberspace vs. cyberpunk distinction is trivial, and I for one have nothing against cyberpunk. But given the fact that Andrew lambastes lazy writing so viciously in his review, I maintain he should not engage in it himself. -- Scott T. Grusky ANDREW LEONARD RESPONDS: When I met Scott Grusky, I understood him to say that his book was "exploring the limits of cyberpunk." I accept his statement that he actually said "cyberspace" and I apologize for the mistake. My own reading of the back-cover description of the book as well as its contents seemed to place the book well within the established meaning of what constitutes "cyberpunk" -- but I was wrong to say that the book "self-consciously describes itself" as cyberpunk. I mixed my misunderstanding of what he said with my interpretation of the book's self-description in a sloppy manner, and I truly regret the error. SALON | Sept. 29, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| THEY BOMB PHARMACIES, DON'T THEY? BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.