Here's some info going around the Holistic discussion list:
A petition against some bill which would censure the Internet (I would
personally research this further before signing)
Suggestions are being requested for a new World Wide Web server dedicated to
alternative/holistic medicine.
Some info on insurance companies which cover alternative medicine.
Wendy
<<<<<< Attached TEXT file follows >>>>>>
Subject: Fwd: PETITION TO STOP S.314 (LONG & IMPORTANT)
>
>----- Forwarded message begins here -----
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>Subject: Petition to stop S.314, the "Communications Decency Act"
>You can add your signature to this petition simply by sending e-mail.
>----- begin forwarded message
>*** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE ***
>
>This document is an electronic Petition Statement to the
>U.S. Congress regarding pending legislation, the
>"Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) which will
>have, if passed, very serious negative ramifications for
>freedom of expression on Usenet, the Internet, and all
>electronic networks. The proposed legislation would remove
>guarantees of privacy and free speech on all electronic
>networks, including the Internet, and may even effectively
>close them down as a medium to exchange ideas and
>information.
>
>For an excellent analysis of this Bill by the Center for
>Democracy and Technology (CDT), refer to the Appendix
>attached at the end of this document. The text to S. 314
>is also included in this Appendix.
>
>This document is somewhat long, but the length is necessary
>to give you sufficient information to make an informed
>decision. Time is of the essence, we are going to turn
>this petition and the signatures in on 3/16/95, so if you
>are going to sign this please do so ASAP or at least before
>midnight Wednesday, March 15, 1995.
>
>Even if you read this petition after the due date, please
>submit your signature anyway as we expect Congress to
>continue debating these issues in the foreseeable future
>and the more signatures we get, the more influence the
>petition will have on discussion. And even if Congress
>rejects S. 314 while signatures are being gathered, do
>submit your signature anyway for the same reason.
>
>Please do upload this petition statement as soon as
>possible to any BBS and on-line service in your area.
>If you have access to one of the major national on-line
>services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, etc., do try
>to upload it there. We are trying to get at least 5000
>signatures. Even more signatures are entirely possible
>if we each put in a little effort to inform others, such
>as friends and coworkers, about the importance of this
>petition to electronic freedom of expression.
>
>Here is a brief table of contents:
>(1) Introduction (this section)
>(2) The Petition Statement
>(3) Instructions for signing this petition
>(4) Credits
>(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 (LONG but excellent)
>
>******(2) The Petition Statement
>
>In united voice, we sign this petition against passage of S. 314 (the
>"Communications Decency Act of 1995") for these reasons:
>
>S. 314 would prohibit not only individual speech that is "obscene, lewd,
>lascivious, filthy, or indecent", but would prohibit any provider of
>telecommunications service from carrying such traffic, under threat of
>stiff penalty. Even aside from the implications for free speech, this
>would cause an undue - and unjust - burden upon operators of the various
>telecommunications services. In a time when the citizenry and their
>lawmakers alike are calling for and passing "no unfunded mandates" laws
>to the benefit of the states, it is unfortunate that Congress might seek to
>impose unfunded mandates upon businesses that provide the framework for
>the information age.
>
>An additional and important consideration is the technical feasibility of
>requiring the sort of monitoring this bill would necessitate. The
>financial burden in and of itself - in either manpower or technology to
>handle such monitoring (if even legal under the Electronic Communications
>Privacy Act) - would likely cause many smaller providers to go out of
>business, and most larger providers to seriously curtail their services.
>
>The threat of such penalty alone would result in a chilling effect in the
>telecommunications service community, not only restricting the types of
>speech expressly forbidden by the bill, but creating an environment
>contrary to the Constitutional principles of free speech, press, and
>assembly - principles which entities such as the Internet embody as
>nothing has before.
>
>By comparison, placing the burden for content control upon each individual
>user is surprisingly simple in the online and interactive world, and there
>is no legitimate reason to shift that burden to providers who carry that
>content. Unlike traditional broadcast media, networked media is
>comparatively easy to screen on the user end - giving the reader, viewer,
>or participant unparalleled control over his or her own information
>environment. All without impacting or restricting what any other user
>wishes to access. This makes regulation such as that threatened by this
>S. 314 simply unnecessary.
>
>In addition, during a period of ever-increasing commercial interest in
>arenas such as the Internet, restriction and regulation of content or the
>flow of traffic across the various telecommunications services would have
>serious negative economic effects. The sort of regulation proposed by this
>bill would slow the explosive growth the Internet has seen, giving the
>business community reason to doubt the medium's commercial appeal.
>
>We ask that the Senate halt any further progress of this bill. We ask
>that the Senate be an example to Congress as a whole, and to the nation
>at large - to promote the general welfare as stated in the Preamble to
>the Constitution by protecting the free flow of information and ideas
>across all of our telecommunications services.
>
>******(3) Instructions for signing the petition
> ======================================
> Instructions for Signing This Petition
> ======================================
>
>It must first be noted that this is a petition, not a
>vote. By "signing" it you agree with *all* the requests
>made in the petition. If you do not agree with everything
>in this petition, then your only recourse is to not sign it.
>
>In addition, all e-mail signatures will be submitted to
>Congress, the President of the United States, and the
>news media.
>
>Including your full name is optional, but *very highly
>encouraged* as that would add to the effectiveness of the
>petition. Signing via an anonymous remailer is highly
>discouraged, but not forbidden, as an attempt will be made
>to separately tally signatures from anonymous remailers.
>
>Because this is a Petition to the U.S. Congress, we ask
>that you state, as instructed below, whether or not you
>are a U.S. citizen. We do encourage non-U.S. citizens to
>sign, but their signatures will be tallied separately.
>
>Signing this petition is not hard, but to make sure your
>signature is not lost or miscounted, please follow these
>directions EXACTLY:
>
>1) Prepare an e-mail message. In the main body (NOT the
>Subject line) of your e-mail include the ONE-LINE statement:
>
>SIGNED <Internet e-mail address> <Full name> <US Citizen>
>
>You need not include the "<" and ">" characters. 'SIGNED'
>should be capitalized. As stated above, your full name is
>optional, but highly recommended. If you do supply your
>name, please don't use a pseudonym or nickname, or your
>first name -- it's better to just leave it blank if it's
>not your full and real name. If you are a U.S. citizen,
>please include at the end of the signature line a 'YES',
>and if you are not, a 'NO'. All signatures will be
>tallied whether or not you are a U.S. Citizen
>
>****************************************************
>Example: My e-mail signature would be:
>
>SIGNED e-mail address name YES
>****************************************************
>
>2) Please DON'T include a copy of this petition, nor any
>other text, in your e-mail message. If you have comments
>to make, send e-mail to me personally, and NOT to the
>special petition e-mail signature address.
>
>3) Send your e-mail message containing your signature to
>the following Internet e-mail address and NOT to me:
>
> ===========================
> [log in to unmask]
> ===========================
>
>4) Within a few days of receipt of your signature, an
>automated acknowledgment will be e-mailed to you for e-mail
>address verification purposes. You do not need to respond or
>reply to this acknowledgement when you receive it. We may
>also contact you again in the future should we need more
>information, such as who your House Representative and
>Senators are, which is not asked here as it is unclear
>whether such information is needed.
>
>Thank you for signing this petition!
>******(4) Credits
>The petition statement was written by slowdog <[log in to unmask]>,
>super.net.freedom.fighter.The rest of this document mostly collated from
>the netby Dave Hayes, net.freedom.fighter. Much help came from Jon Noring,
>INFJ andself.proclaimed.net.activist who made a few suggestions and will be
>tallying the signatures.Thanks to the EFF and CDT for the excellent
>analysis ofthe bill.(p.s., send your signature to [log in to unmask])
>******(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314
>[This analysis provided by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a
>non-profit public interest organization.CDT's mission is to develop and
>advocate public policiesthat advance Constitutional civil liberties and
>democraticvalues in new computer and communications technologies.
>For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger <[log in to unmask]>.]
>CDT POLICY POST 2/9/95
>SENATOR EXON INTRODUCES ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION A. OVERVIEW
>
>Senators Exon (D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have introduced legislation
>to expand current FCC regulationson obscene and indecent audiotext to cover
>*all* contentcarried over all forms of electronic communications networks.
>If enacted, the "Communications Decency Act of1995" (S. 314) would place
>substantial criminal liabilityon telecommunications service providers
>(includingtelephone networks, commercial online services, the Internet, and
>independent BBS's) if their network is usedin the transmission of any
>indecent, lewd, threatening orharassing messages. The legislation is
>identical to aproposal offered by Senator Exon last year which failed along
>with the Senate Telecommunications reform bill (S.1822, 103rd Congress,
>Sections 801 - 804). The text theproposed statute, with proposed amendment,
>is appended atthe end of this document.
>
>The bill would compel service providers to chose between severely
>restricting the activities of their subscribersor completely shutting down
>their email, Internet access,and conferencing services under the threat of
>criminalliability. Moreover, service providers would be forced to closely
>monitor every private communication, electronicmail message, public forum,
>mailing list, and file archivecarried by or available on their network, a
>propositionwhich poses a substantial threat to the freedom of speech
>and privacy rights of all American citizens.
>
>S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step backwards on the path
>to a free and open NationalInformation Infrastructure. The bill raises
>fundamentalquestions about the ability of government to control content on
>communications networks, as well as the locus of liability for content
>carried in these new communications media.
>
>To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital media, CDT is
>working to organize a broad coalition ofpublic interest organizations
>including the ACLU, PeopleFor the American Way, and Media Access Project,
>along withrepresentatives from the telecommunications, online services, and
>computer industries to oppose S. 314 and toexplore alternative policy
>solutions that preserve thefree flow of information and freedom of speech
>in theonline world. CDT believes that technological alternatives which
>allow individual subscribers to controlthe content they receive represent a
>more appropriateapproach to this issue.
>
>B. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF S. 314
>
>S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and harassment on
>telephone services to all telecommunicationsproviders and expand criminal
>liability to *all* contentcarried by *all* forms of telecommunications
>networks.The bill would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act
>(47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to prevent minors
>from gaining access to indecent audiotextand criminalizes harassment
>accomplished over interstatetelephone lines. This section, commonly known
>as theHelms Amendment (having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms), has
>been the subject of extended Constitutionallitigation in recent years.
>
>* CARRIERS LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ALL USERS ON THEIR NETWORKS
>
>S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including Telephone
>companies, commercial online services, theInternet, and BBS's) liable for
>every message, file, orother content carried on its network -- including
>the private conversations or messages exchanged between two consenting
>individuals.
>
>Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available
>any comment, request, suggestion,proposal, image, or other communication"
>which is"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" using a
>"telecommunications device" would be subject to a fine of$100,000 or two
>years in prison (Section (2)(a)).
>
>In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers would be forced
>to pre-screen all messages, files, orother content before transmitting it
>to the intendedrecipient. Carriers would also be forced to prevent or
>severely restrict their subscribers from communicating with individuals and
>accessing content available on othernetworks.
>
>Electronic communications networks do not contain discrete boundaries.
>Instead, users of one service can easilycommunicate with and access content
>available on othernetworks. Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on
>the carrier as opposed to the originator of the content, would make the
>carrier legally responsible not only forthe conduct of its own subscribers,
>but also for contentgenerated by subscribers of other services.
>
>This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to the free flow of
>information throughout the online worldand the free speech and privacy
>rights of individualusers. Forcing carriers to pre-screen content would not
>only be impossible due to the sheer volume of messages, it would also
>violate current legal protections.
>
>CARRIERS REQUIRED TO ACT AS PRIVATE CENSOR OF ALL PUBLIC FORUMS AND ARCHIVES
>
-
Subject: Warning Net Censorship
I received this over the net and thought I would pass it on...
Lili
Subj: net censorship (fwd)
Date: 95-03-01 11:33:43 EST
Subject: net censorship (fwd)
FOR US CITIZENS:
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
-------- Forwarded Message --------
A matter has come to my attention of the utmost importance to all
of us online.
Simply put, a couple of senators have proposed a particularly
heinous piece of legislation titled the "Communications
Decency Act of 1995" (Senate Bill S. 314). Basically, the
bill would subject all forms of electronic communication --
from public Internet postings to your most private email --
to government censorship. The effects of the bill onto the
online industry would be devastating -- most colleges and
private companies (AOL, Compuserve, etc.) would probably have
to shut down or greatly restrict access, since they would be
held criminally liable for the postings and email of private
users.
Obviously, this bill is designed to win votes for these senators
among those who are fearful of the internet and aren't big
fans of freedom of speech -- ie., those who are always trying to
censor "pornography" and dirty books and such. Given the
political climate in this country, this bill might just pass
unless the computer community demonstrates its strength as a
committed political force to be reckoned with. This, my friends,
is why I have filled your mailbox with this very long message.
A petition, to be sent to Congress, the President, and the media, has
begun spreading through the Internet. It's easy to participate and
be heard -- to sign it, you simply follow the instructions below --
which boil down to sending a quick email message to a certain
address. That's all it takes to let your voice be heard. (You know,
if the Internet makes democracy this accessible to the average
citizen, is it any wonder Congress wants to censor it?)
Finally, PLEASE forward this message to all your friends online.
The more people sign the petition, the more the government will
get the message to back off the online community. We've been doing
fine without censorship until now -- let's show them we don't plan on
allowing them to start now. If you value your freedoms -- from
your right to publicly post a message on a worldwide forum to your
right to receive private email without the government censoring it --
you need to take action NOW. It'll take fifteen minutes at the most,
a small sacrifice considering the issues at hand. Remember, the age
of fighting for liberty with muskets and shells is most likely over;
the time has come where the keyboard and the phone line will prove
mightier than the sword -- or the Senate, in this case.
Here's what you have to do to sign the petition:
send an e-mail message to: [log in to unmask]
the message (NOT the subject heading) should read as follows:
SIGNED <your online address> <your full name> <U.S. Citizen> (y/n)
eg. SIGNED [log in to unmask] Laura Sewell YES
If you are interested in signing the petition, I would highly suggest
investigating the details of the situation. You can find out more on
the Web at http://www.wookie.net/~slowdog or in the newsgroup
comp.org.eff.talk
----------------------- Headers -------------------------
In <[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask] (Peter J. Bower, M.D.) writes:
>
>I am in the process of building a WWW Home page dedicated to Complimentary
>and Alternative Medicine. If you are aware of any URL accesible material
>on ANY TOPICS of interest to this news group please email me. I will
>announce the URL of the finished home page when it is a little more
>complete.
>
>Much appreciation to all.
>
>Peter Bower, M.D.
>
>[log in to unmask]
---------------
>
You may be interested in the Aeiveos Corp. home page. Our Foundation is on it
as
well as several other organizations involved in alternative gerontology. The
address is on my signature. I'll send a complimentary copy of Life Extension
Magazine to anyone sending a street address.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++
John Hammell, Political Coordinator
The Life Extension Foundation
1534 Polk St. Hollywood, Florida, PZ (Zip Code N/A) "33020" America
800-333-2553, 305-929-2905, 305-929-0507 FAX
[log in to unmask] www:http//aeiveos.wa.com/index.html
"illigitimi non carborundum!"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++
>
>>
>>A while ago, there was the name and address of an insurance company
>that
>>writes policies for alternative health. Does anyone have this
>information
>>(or a telephone number)?
>>
>>Thanks...
>>
>
>I have one, but not sure if it's the same.
>
> American Western
> Life Insurance Co.
> Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Write to:
> P.O. Box 4998
> Foster City, CA 94404-0998
>
> Phone: 415-573-8041
> FAX: 415-574-8226
>
Also try Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Washington and Alaska
Also try Mutual of Omaha
In Canada try Sun Life
I'm sure there are a few more that I can't think of off the top of my
head. Does anyone know of any more? We need to put pressure on all
insurance companies to reimburse for alternatives. One way to do that is
to show them the material from American Western, and the others that are
already doing it. Another way might be to get a copy of a paper recently
written by Russell Jaffe,MD,PhD, and Edward Morris,MD, fellows
Health Studies Collegium titled: Medicine: From Disease-Care to Health
Care- The ultimate road to quality and affordable care.This 40 page
paper is well written and provides plenty of documentation to show to
insurance companies. Get your copy by calling Serramune Physicians Lab
in Reston, VA at 703-758-0610, just explain what you intend to do with
it as its a lot of copying for them.
FREE COPY Life Extension Magazine- Send Street Address
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
John Hammell, Political Coordinator
The Life Extension Foundation
1534 Polk St. Hollywood, Florida, PZ (Zip Code N/A) "33020" America
800-333-2553, 305-929-2905, 305-929-0507 FAX
[log in to unmask] www:http//aeiveos.wa.com/index.html
"illigitimi non carborundum!"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
'
