The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is away tonight. On the NewsHour this evening, Margaret Warner interviews Steve Forbes in New Hampshire, then a three-part look at the role of the computer as it celebrates 50 years of existence. We have a debate about free speech and the Internet, a Charlayne Hunter-Gault interview on the computer-Kasparov chess match, and some reflections from essayist Paul Hoffman, and finally, a new kind of discipline in Seattle's public schools. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. FARNSWORTH: The eight remaining Republican Presidential candidates square off in a nationally televised debate tonight in New Hampshire. They spent much of the day preparing for it, and a new round of television ads hit the New Hampshire airwaves for commentator Pat Buchanan and Sen. Bob Dole. Dole's ad called Buchanan too extreme. Buchanan's ad accused Dole of distortions. Publisher Steve Forbes, who has been running negative ads, told Margaret Warner he's taking a different approach now.

STEVE FORBES, Republican Presidential Candidate: Comparing what candidates said before and after elections was legitimate, but clearly, I spent too much time on my opponents, not enough time on getting my message across, so when mistakes are made the key is to learn from those mistakes. I have, so we're moving forward on my themes, my subjects to appeal to the voters.

MS. FARNSWORTH: We'll have more of Margaret's interview with Steve Forbes right after the News Summary. A co-chairman of Pat Buchanan's campaign voluntarily stepped aside today. Larry Pratt took a temporary leave of absence to reply to published reports he attended meetings organized by white supremacists and militia movements. Pratt is director of Gun Owners of America. He said he does not hold racist views and loathes groups that do. Buchanan also disavowed such organizations.

PATRICK BUCHANAN, Republican Presidential Candidate: If this is a group preaching white supremacy in America, my country, I want nothing to do with it or its supporters. I want none of them in my campaign. I don't believe any of 'em are in my campaign. I don't believe Larry Pratt is a member of that group. And I say this: This campaign is about inclusiveness.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Several polls now show Buchanan, Dole, and former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander in a statistical dead heat in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday. In New Jersey today, President Clinton proposed creating a $2 billion fund for education technology. He said he would like to put a computer in every classroom in the United States. He spoke at a small inner-city public school in New Jersey, where students improved their grades dramatically after they received computers. The proposed technology fund would be financed by private contributions and federal matching grants. Mr. Clinton praised parents and teachers who enlisted a private company to supply the computers.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Today, I am proposing and will including in my budget to the Congress a $2 billion technology literacy challenge that will put the future at the fingertips of every child in every classroom in the United States. The proposal is part of the balanced budget plan, as I said, I sent to Congress, and we will use these, these funds basically as challenge grants to try to make sure that no school district, no matter how poor, no matter how urban or rural, will be denied the opportunity to do what your children have been able to do because of your vision and your work.

MS. FARNSWORTH: We'll have more on the role of computers later on in the program. In St. Paul, Minnesota, today a spokesman for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad said sabotage is suspected in last night's train crash. The FBI was called in to investigate why the air brakes failed on a runaway freight train. It derailed and plowedinto a railroad office building. Nine men were injured in the crash. In foreign news today, London police said they deactivated a bomb in the city's theater district and were searching for other devices. Police said they had received several telephone warnings. The threats come less than a week after a bomb in East London killed two people and injured one hundred. The Irish Republican Army took credit for the blast. That explosion ended a seventeen-month-old IRA cease-fire in its campaign to terminate British rule in Northern Ireland. Back in Washington, a spokeswoman for Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA, called for negotiations among all sides of the conflict. She blamed the British government for the breakdown in the peace process.

MAIREAD KEANE, Sinn Fein: It was on that basis of clearly stated commitment and agreements that the IRA announced the complete cessation of military operations on August 31st, 18 months ago almost. The commitments given then have not been honored. In 18 months, there has not been one word of negotiations. The injustice, the inequalities which led to the conflict have not been addressed. On the contrary, the British government blocked the commencement of round table negotiations by erecting unilaterally new and previously unmentioned preconditions.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In Belfast, Northern Ireland today, the IRA, itself, issued a statement which repeated Sinn Fein's demands and refused to rule out further attacks, and in Dublin, Irish Prime Minister John Bruton said violence would not advance the political goals of the IRA. He said Friday's bombing had cast doubt on the future of the peace talks. In Russia, President Boris Yeltsin announced today he will seek reelection. We have more in this report from Julian Manyon of Independent Television News.

JULIAN MANYON, ITN: It was a day of ceremonies and official visits in Boris Yeltsin's hometown, Yekaterinburg, and it clearly tested is stamina. When he came to the podium for his all important speech, the President paused for breath. Yeltsin apologized to his invited audience for having lost his voice talking to people in the street. But in a lengthy speech, he seemed to find his strength. He said that Russia must not slip back into the past. Other candidates might not be able to resist the opposition. It would be irresponsible if he stepped down in a time of troubles. Boris Yeltsin has decided to stand, in spite of his poor showing in the opinion polls, the doubts about his health, and some whispers from insiders and entourage that he should step aside in favor of his prime minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin. In spite of all that, Yeltsin tens to believe that he can fight and win. Today's packed schedule was just a foretaste of the challenge that Yeltsin has now set himself in what will be a punishing battle against his old opponents in the Communist Party.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Communist leader Gennady Zuganov was selected today to represent a group of Communist Parties in the presidential elections. In Colombia, President Ernesto Samper has been charged with accepting drug money to finance his 1994 campaign. The Colombian public prosecutor presented the indictment last night. It will now be investigated by a committee of Colombia's congress which is dominated by the president's liberal party. If the indictment is approved by the committee, the Colombian House and Senate will vote whether to impeach the president. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to an interview with Steve Forbes, free speech and the Internet, the man versus machine chess match, essayist Paul Hoffman on the ubiquitous computer, and a new kind of discipline in Seattle's public schools. UPDATE - CAMPAIGN '96

MS. FARNSWORTH: First tonight, the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. Eight candidates will debate tonight in New Hampshire. Margaret Warner has an update and an interview with one of the primary contenders, Steve Forbes.

MS. WARNER: The New Hampshire political landscape was a bit quieter than usual this afternoon as most of the Republican Presidential candidates holed up in their hotels. They were preparing for tonight's debate in Manchester, which will be broadcast on statewide television and CNN. It's the only scheduled debate among the eight remaining candidates before next Tuesday's primary. But Steve Forbes, who is fighting to remain in the top tier of candidates after a distant fourth place in the Iowa caucuses, took a break from his debate preparations today. Forbes has dramatically shifted strategy in these final days before the primary. After spending millions of dollars on mostly negative campaign commercials in Iowa and New Hampshire, Forbes this week withdrew all his attack ads from New Hampshire TV. Now he's airing positive spots, some old, some new.

ANNOUNCER: [Forbes Ad] NBC News called it a success story that improved health care. At "Forbes Magazine," Steve Forbes started a new idea, a form of medical savings accounts. People choose their own doctors, costs are lower, and individuals keep the money they save.

STEVE FORBES: [Ad] I'm Steve Forbes. Medical savings accounts can improve care, cut waste, and protect Medicare without reducing your benefits. You control your health care, not the politicians.

ANNOUNCER: [Forbes Ad] Steve Forbes, conservative for President.

MS. WARNER: Despite the loss in Iowa, Forbes still attracts heavy media attention wherever he goes. He even allowed some journalists and camera crews to ride on his private campaign bus with him and his daughter, Moyra.

REPORTER: [on bus] I mean, how do you feel?

STEVE FORBES: [on bus] So far, so good. We'll see how it goes Tuesday. NEWSMAKER

MARGARET WARNER: Now we speak with Steve Forbes. Welcome, Mr. Forbes.

STEVE FORBES, Republican Presidential Candidate: Nice to be with you.

MS. WARNER: Tell us, what has happened to you, and what has happened to your candidacy? Two weeks ago, you were poised to overtake Bob Dole here in New Hampshire.

MR. FORBES: Well, I think that we are out there to get our message across, and Iowa is a caucus state, very heavily organized. We always wanted to finish in the top four. We knew those polls weren't accurate because they're almost like primary polls, not caucus polls, so we're moving ahead, and I think we're going to make a very good showing in New Hampshire. So our strategy hasn't changed. We still have our message of growth, inclusiveness, opportunity, and that's what we're going to continue with.

MS. WARNER: Now, your strategy as changed, as you discussed yesterday, in one respect, which has to do with your advertising. Why have you taken all your negative ads off the air?

STEVE FORBES: Well, we never--we thought that comparing what the candidates said before and after elections was legitimate, but clearly, I spent too much time on my opponents, not enough time on getting my message across, so when mistakes are made the key is to learn from those mistakes. I have, so we're moving forward on my themes, my subjects to appeal to the voters.

MS. WARNER: Why do you think the negative ads did backfire exactly? I mean, what impact do you think they had on voters?

STEVE FORBES: I'm not sure what impact they had on voters. I think in Iowa, there were other factors at work, and also too, when you discuss other opponents, people want to learn more about you. I'm a newcomer in the race, and that's what I should have done, and that's what I'm going to do now.

MS. WARNER: One key adviser to Lamar Alexander said to me yesterday, you know, after all those negative ads, it's going to be kind of hard for Steven Forbes--Steve Forbes to go all warm and fuzzy.

STEVE FORBES: Well, I've always from the very beginning have had an issue-oriented campaign, all designed to give the American people a chance to get ahead again. I've never tried to portray myself as a personality candidate. I've never tried to portray myself as something fuzzy and warm. I've portrayed myself as a leader with a message of growth to the voters. That's what I've done before. That's what I'm going to continue to do.

MS. WARNER: Okay. So what is it now you want to project to the New Hampshire voters in these last five days?

STEVE FORBES: Just what I've been doing since the beginning of the campaign, that I have a vision and a program to get America moving, to return control back to the American people, and whether it's through taxes, parental choice in education, medical savings accounts, young new Social Security system for young people, those issues, getting America moving, that's what I--that's the whole purpose of my campaign.

MS. WARNER: Is the flat tax still working for you as an issue?

STEVE FORBES: I think the flat tax as a tax cut does work. The American people know that the current tax code is really a feted swamp of special interest provisions. They want it to go. They know it's corrosive. They know it's corrupting.

MS. WARNER: Some of the other candidates' polls, however, are showing that as a proposal, the flat tax has lost appeal to the voters here in New Hampshire.

STEVE FORBES: When voters understand that it is a flat tax with a tax cut, when they understand that they come out again, when they understand that their monthly mortgage payments will be less because interest rates will go down, they become very supportive. With no tax on their personal savings, they realize too it would be easier to put together a nest egg for retirement, for education, for that house. So when they know about it, they support it. And that's one of the keys of my campaign, is to get that across against the distortions of my opponents.

MS. WARNER: And at the same time, though, some of your new ads are emphasizing specific other proposals.

STEVE FORBES: That's right. Medical savings accounts, which will give Medicare beneficiaries more control, better coverage at less cost, also parental choice in education, we must take education out of the hands of the unions and bureaucrats, return it to the parents. It's not fair to give our kids less than a superb education so that they have a chance to lead a productive life.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you about religious conservatives, because the Christian right in Iowa, which finds you too liberal on social issues in their view, really went after you and most of the analysis of the voting patterns showed they hurt you there pretty badly. Do you expect them to be a major factor here?

STEVE FORBES: Well, when the leadership of any organization distorts my position, I'm going to hit back. I'm not going to stand still for it. In the case of the Christian Coalition in Iowa, the leadership there, and I emphasize the leadership, distorted my position onabortion. I want to end abortion. My way of achieving it is perhaps different than that of the leadership, but our goals are the same, and just because our approaches are different, there's no reason to distort my position.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you about one issue that does seem to be perhaps one of the biggest divisions in this race, and that's the one that separates Pat Buchanan from all the rest of the field. He does seem to be making major headway with his message of economic populism, anti-free trade, anti-corporations taking jobs overseas. Is there a message to your party in the success that he is having?

STEVE FORBES: I think the key is having a message of growth, job creation, returning control to the American people. That's the way you create jobs. We've tried isolationism before. We've tried tariffs before. We've tried high taxes before, and the American economy has suffered. Jobs by the millions were destroyed. So we know that doesn't work. The approach of openness, growth, lower taxes, less regulation, more control to the people. That's the way to move America ahead. That's the way to create jobs.

MS. WARNER: Can you sell that to voters, though, who are responding to Buchanan, who feel they are left behind in this new global economy?

STEVE FORBES: Well, the key is we're all going to be left behind to one degree or another if we continue to stagnate as we are now. America has the potential to do much, much better than she is doing today. And that's the key of my campaign. I've got proposals to remove these shackles so we can move forward, and then we will have jobs and we'll have better paying jobs as well.

MS. WARNER: And so why do you think Buchanan is gaining with this message of his?

STEVE FORBES: Because the other candidates do not have a pro- growth job creation philosophy and approach, and mine, I do, and that's why I'm re-emphasizing it here in New Hampshire.

MS. WARNER: I've noticed in the last few days that Bob Dole is again stressing his leadership and his experience and that even Lamar Alexander is again stressing, is now stressing his experience. Has the outsider theme lost any of its resonance?

STEVE FORBES: Not at all. I think the American people know that if the politicians had the answers, they probably would have enacted them by how. And it's going to take somebody who has real executive experience, who has real leadership capability, who has to deal with the real world and not promises and processes. It's true, I don't have a 25-year resume of elective politics and political appointments, but I do know how government works, and more important, I know how government fails.

MS. WARNER: Do you seem, though, locked in this struggle for third place with Lamar Alexander. If I were a New Hampshire voter trying to decide between the two of you, why should I choose you?

STEVE FORBES: I have specific proposals for getting America moving ahead. The voters do want specifics. They don't want vague generalities.

MS. WARNER: I'm not going to get you to be able to talk about Lamar Alexander?

STEVE FORBES: What do you want me to say? Where are his specific proposals on taxes? Where are his specific proposals on education? Where are his specific proposals on Medicare, Social Security, and other issues? I've put those on the table; he hasn't.

MS. WARNER: He says the thing that distinguishes the two of you in his view is he's just better prepared to be President, given the fact that he has held elective office, he has been chief executive as a governor.

STEVE FORBES: Well, I've been a chief executive too, and I have to get my money from voluntary customers. If they don't like my product, I'm in trouble. When you're in politics, holding elective office, you have the force of law. Even if the voters don't like your taxes, they go to jail if they don't pay them. That's the difference.

MS. WARNER: What are your expectations now? Or what do you need to do in the primary next Tuesday?

STEVE FORBES: I'm not going to play that game. I'm going to concentrate on getting my message of growth and opportunity and hope out to the voters, and then they'll make the decision on Tuesday.

MS. WARNER: In the past, you have said that your goal was to come in at least third here. Is that still your goal?

STEVE FORBES: That would be a very nice goal. It would be very nice for me to finish second in Delaware and first in Arizona, but I take it one step at a time. I'm not thinking about position placements. I'm thinking about getting my positions on the issues out for the voters. Then the placement in the polls will take care of itself.

MS. WARNER: Well, thank you, Mr. Forbes.

STEVE FORBES: Thank you.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Still to come, free speech and the Internet, the man versus machine chess match, essayist Paul Hoffman, and toughening up public education. FOCUS - THE COMPUTER ERA FOCUS - POLICING THE NET

MS. FARNSWORTH: Next tonight, a three-part look at the hopes and dilemmas of the computer age. We begin with a focus on the controversial issue of free speech and pornography in cyberspace.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Yesterday, Vice President Al Gore celebrated the launch of the computer era by firing up the first electronic computer developed 50 years ago. That project was the spark that ignited today's Internet explosion. But the proliferation of computer services has also led to an explosion of concern over government regulation and free speech in cyberspace. The Telecommunications Bill which President Clinton signed into law last week contains a provision, the Communications Decency Act, which imposes criminal sanctions on anyone who makes indecent material available to children on public computer networks. Penalties range from fines of up to $250,000 to jail sentences as long as two years. Supporters of that provision say it will keep pornographers and pedophiles from preying on children who use personal computers. But some Internet users and free speech advocates say the provision goes too far, pointing out that software is already available for parents who want to block material they find offensive. Last week, users of the Worldwide Web, the popular Internet service, protested all over the country by switching to a black background on their Web pages. Also last week, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia, seeking to strike the entire section of the Telecommunications Bill banning dissemination of indecent materials to minors. ACLU Legal Director Stefan Presser explained the organization's objections.

STEFAN PRESSER, ACLU: We as adults in the United States want not, when we want to talk about serious political, or religious, or scientific issues, have to talk in a way that does not offend someone who's under 18. It's that simple.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And on another front in Congress last week Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold filed a bill which, if passed, would repeal the indecency provision. Yesterday, the Clinton administration submitted its arguments against the ACLU suit, saying that the ban on indecent material was constitutional and should be upheld. Late this afternoona federal judge in Philadelphia issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the indecency provision of the Telecom Bill. For more on all this, we turn to Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a non-profit public policy and research group dealing with interactive media, and Cathy Cleaver, a lawyer with the Family Research Council, a public policy organization that focuses on family issues. Welcome to both of you. Mr. Berman, what does this decision in the court mean? Where is the law right now?

JERRY BERMAN, Center for Democracy and Technology: What the court is saying is this law can't be enforced right now because the ACLU and others who brought this lawsuit have made a prima face case before the judge that it raises significant, that the statute raises significant problems under the First Amendment, and that it has a potential chilling effect on the free speech rights of adults on the Internet.

CATHY CLEAVER, Family Research Council: Well, I think that's going a little too far. What the judge said is that he wants to refrain--have the Department of Justice refrain from prosecuting until he hears oral argument from both sides. There's a lot of material that was filed in this case, inches of exhibits and very long pleadings, and so the judge wants to delve into this and really examine the, the briefs in this case. And so he's going to need some time to do that.

MR. BERMAN: Well, he didn't have to restrain the Act. He could have allowed it to go forward. What he's saying is that it raises significant constitutional issues, and I'm not going to let it be enforced right now. So, in all honesty, I think Cathy raises important points, but the, but the judge, this is the beginning of a long, arduous effort before the courts which we think is going to decide really how the First Amendment applies in cyberspace.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Let's go into the issues now. Why do you think this is necessary? What is there in cyberspace on the Internet or on the various computer services that needs to be controlled, regulated?

MS. CLEAVER: Well, there's nothing now before this act that would prevent an adult from spending the equivalent of "Playboy" or "Penthouse" to a child, either through E-Mail or posting it on a teen chat room, sexually graphic material. I mean, we're not talking about, unlike what the ACLU says, political or scientific material. This is patently offensive sexual material.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And this is material that you couldn't sell to somebody that age in a, in a magazine store?

MS. CLEAVER: Absolutely. In fact, couldn't make available to a child in any other media. The question becomes: Do we exempt adults in cyberspace from the responsibilities they bear to keep pornography from kids in every other media? There's no compelling reason why we should have free reign to do this to kids in cyberspace.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But it's more than "Playboy." It's even more graphic than "Playboy," right? Some of the material--

MS. CLEAVER: It's awful, and much more graphic.

MS. FARNSWORTH: --I actually clicked on and looked once. It was pretty graphic stuff.

MS. CLEAVER: That's right. And nobody disputes--even Jerry will admit that it takes a few clicks of a mouse for a child now to get to the most graphic, the most violent, abusive mostly toward women, I might add, pictures of pornography, and it just makes sense, and it is also constitutional, we believe, that adults cannot send this material or make it available to children.

MR. BERMAN: Let me be clear. Obscenity, child pornography, they're illegal under the law. What this statute does is ban the communications of "indent materials."

MS. FARNSWORTH: Define that, please.

MR. BERMAN: Define that. Well, it's--

MS. FARNSWORTH: What the law says.

MR. BERMAN: --it's any description of, of sexual organs, any description of sexual activity.

MS. CLEAVER: Not any description, patently offensive descriptions.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The word is patently offensive--

MS. CLEAVER: Right.

MR. BERMAN: Patently offensive.

MS. FARNSWORTH: --depictions or descriptions of sexual or excretory activities or organs.

MR. BERMAN: But that has been held to cover the seven dirty words.

MS. CLEAVER: Only repeated.

MR. BERMAN: Please, don't interrupt me. It's held to cover the seven dirty words.

MS. CLEAVER: Got you catch you, Jerry.

MR. BERMAN: It's been held to cover such as "Catcher in the Rye," or "Fanny" or--

MS. CLEAVER: Not true.

MR. BERMAN: --Ulysses--

MS. CLEAVER: Not true.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Well, let's stop right there a minute. Catcher in the Rye, a book, could Catcher in the Rye be put up onto the Internet and I could download--a child could download it somewhere? You say this would make that impossible?

MR. BERMAN: This statute would make it impossible for adults to communicate it to adults on the Internet unless they had passwords pinned, credit cards, we don't require credit cards at book stores, we don't require credit cards--

MS. FARNSWORTH: You mean, unless they had something that would make it impossible for a child--

MR. BERMAN: Impossible for a child to gain access, so the result is to reduce communications on the Net to that which is only fit for children.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Ms. Cleaver, do you agree with that?

MS. CLEAVER: Absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think the bill says?

MS. CLEAVER: The bill addresses pornography and only pornography. The word "indecent" is--has been a word that's been around in our laws for about 50 years. And it simply means that kind of pornography that it's legal for adults to trade in but it's not legal for adults to give to children. So we're talking about pornography. We're not talking about great literature or Shakespeare, Ulysses, Joyce.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about Mr. Berman's point that it would be- -how would somebody who is putting something on the Internet meant for adults be sure that it wouldn't get to children?

MS. CLEAVER: Well, good question. In fact, the law doesn't require them to be absolutely sure. The law requires simply that you take a good faith step to make sure that kids do not receive the pornography that you're distributing or that you're creating, good faith. And if you're acting in good faith and a child happens to be particularly industrious and gets through, you're not going to be held liable under the law. It's simply asking for people to be responsible and take good faith steps.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I'll come back to you. Let me get one more thing straight. How would this be enforced?

MS. CLEAVER: It would be enforced just like--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Under the law.

MS. CLEAVER: --every other pornography law is enforced. There's not going to be mass prosecutions everywhere. It's simply going to set the ground rules for the protection of children and women, I might add. And the most egregious offenders probably will be those that are prosecuted by the Department of Justice. But there's no new appropriation for cyber police or none of that. That's all scare tactics. This is simply setting the ground rules and saying what adults cannot do, and that's exploit children.

MR. BERMAN: We tried to limit--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Berman--

MR. BERMAN: --this statue to obscenity and child pornography. The Christian Coalition pushed for--to reach indecent materials. That can be broadly construed. Cathy is not defining what a prosecutor is going to do around this country. She is not--she does not enforce the law.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You're saying that some prosecutors, that there is legal precedence for some prosecutor--

MR. BERMAN: There are communities in this country--

MS. FARNSWORTH: --using indecency in ways that would go beyond pornography.

MR. BERMAN: There are communities in this country which think that Catcher in the Rye is indecent, or that Ulysses should not be available, and Cathy cannot guarantee that they will not be prosecuted. The only way that you're going to find out whether you're going to jail under this statute or protected by the First Amendment is after a jury trial, and it's a jury that decides whether those defenses apply. That's why this judge, I think, has ruled, held up a restraining order here, because it is very difficult. The chilling effect on, on the millions of people who are using computers and putting information out is considerable. They don't know what the state of the law is. They don't know whether they can talk about safe sex or talk about gay--or talk about--

MS. CLEAVER: Well, that is primarily because--

MR. BERMAN: --abortion.

MS. CLEAVER: --groups like yours are spreading this misinformation. They should not talk in a pornographic way or show pornography to kids. If they don't do that, they're relatively safe. Now, the interpretation of this law has to pass the straight- face test, and whether there's going to be some community that wants to ban Catcher in the Rye is irrelevant. The law won't uphold that kind of interpretation.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about the filtering system? There were some suggestions that various on-line services, and I gather that some have it right now, produce software which would allow for filtering.

MS. CLEAVER: Right.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Parents could put it on their machines and then kids couldn't get it. It'd be a little like the V-chip.

MS. CLEAVER: Right.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think about that?

MS. CLEAVER: Well, those are certainly helpful, and we encourage that, and parents using any means within their control to try to protect their kids. But the fact is that doesn't mean we absolve adults and say you can make every effort you want to to exploit these children, and we're just going to leave parents to themselves. Frankly, parents have asked us and other groups. We need more than this software; we need government legal disincentive for exploitation of our children through pornography.

MR. BERMAN: We need Congress and our government to find the most appropriate and effective means to help our children.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think they would be?

MR. BERMAN: Recently, when Congress dealt with TV violence, they didn't pass a new violence statute censoring it. They said put in a V-chip, give parents the option to choose what they think is too violent for their children. What is interesting is that the V-chip doesn't even exist. On the Internet, Surf Watch, Net Nanny, there are a number of technologies which are available. You can get it from Compu-Serve or from America on Line.

MS. FARNSWORTH: That's one of them.

MR. BERMAN: Cyber Patrol. It's given free to any Compu-Serve subscriber. You put it up on your computer, and it blocks all adult sites. In fact, it blocks gambling. It blocks violent material. It blocks how to make a bomb. It has all kinds of--and if you are-- it's one click of a button--and if the parent isn't very smart, it's, it errs on the side for the child, because it, it starts out with everything blocked, and if you want to unblock it, a parent has to become a little smart. So I think that's a very important control here, and why we think the statute in this case is unconstitutional, because these technologies are available.

MS. CLEAVER: Well, as I said, I mean, the technology is fine, and it's a good help for parents, but there are also on-line manuals on how to get around blocking devices. We need a legal disincentive to bring cyberspace in line with every other law that we have that addresses every other kind of media.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The problem is that the computer is, is print, video--

MS. CLEAVER: Right. Right.

MS. FARNSWORTH: --a telephone--it's gone beyond one sort of media, right?

MS. CLEAVER: Right. And this law is tailored to address that very issue. This is not a reproduction of the broadcast medium, and people ought to stop talking about that.

MS. FARNSWORTH: One second.

MR. BERMAN: The indecency standard comes from television, where you have a captured audience, and there are no alternative--

MS. CLEAVER: Dial-a-porn, Jerry.

MR. BERMAN: --no alternative means to, to control content for your children. This is different.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Thank you both very much.

MS. CLEAVER: You're welcome. FOCUS - CHECKMATE

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, a chess match that offers evidence of how far computers have come in 50 years. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Yesterday was day four in a landmark six- game match at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia.

MAN: Queen takes E-2 is a, virtually a forced response.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In one corner, Garry Kasparov, reigning world champion. In the other, Deep Blue, an IBM computer and reputedly the world's strongest chess machine. At day's end, the match was dead even. This six-game match is the first of its kind pitting man against machine in standard regulation conditions, i.e., a series of games in which each player has two hours to make his or its first 40 moves.

SPOKESMAN: If this position is forced, I'm going to favor Garry.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Kasparov was favored going into the match because the time of a regulation game allows a human to use his imagination and creativity, qualities Kasparov has shown in abundance over the years. The 32-year-old Russian citizen became the youngest world chess champion in history in 1985 at age 22. Kasparov has lost an occasional ten or fifty-minute speed game to a computer but never the longer regulation game, i.e. until game one on Saturday, which Big Blue won after 37 moves. Kasparov recovered and won game two. Games three and four have both ended in a draw. The final two games will be played tomorrow and Saturday.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: For more on the match and its meaning, we're joined now from Philadelphia by C.J. Tan, the IBM scientist who oversaw the development of the Deep Blue computer, and by Yasser Seirawan, a chess grandmaster and publisher of "Inside Chess." And, Mr. Seirawan, what is going on in the chess match today?

YASSER SEIRAWAN, Grandmaster: [Philadelphia] Well, we have, of course, a tied match, two to two, two games left, $400,000 up for the first prize, $100,000 hopefully to the loser. And we have a very tense situation, and we hope that Garry will pull it off.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Just briefly describe for me how the match is being played.

MR. SEIRAWAN: Well, of course, it's a classical chess match, where the games last about six hours. The game that Garry won lasted over 73 moves, whereas the game he lost lasted 37 moves. And it's been just a very tense, dramatic--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is he sitting there, looking at his opponent, or--I mean, where is Deep Blue?

MR. SEIRAWAN: Well, that's a good question. He said, Garry said that "My opponent is invisible but not invincible," and of course, the Deep Blue is back in Yorktown in IBM labs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Tan, briefly tell me in the simplest terms, what is Deep Blue and how it's working. C. J. TAN, IBM: [Philadelphia] Deep Blue is basically a supercomputer that we have at Yorktown Heights IBM research laboratory, and on this supercomputer, we have installed some silicon chips that will help the computer perform chess problems very efficiently and that will help us calculate millions of billions of chess positions per second. With that, we were able to achieve the results we have obtained today.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how exactly is it working? I mean, is the computer thinking as well as Mr. Kasparov is thinking, I mean in the same way?

MR. TAN: No, a computer doesn't think the way Kasparov is thinking. Kasparov is using human ingenuity, creativity, and his knowledge and experience to perform his tasks. You can, in a way, you can say he's using the best computer that there is in his head, but that computer is different from the one we have installed at Yorktown, which is basically a machine that does calculations, and based on its power and speed, we are able to look ahead as many moves as possible to extend so that we can make a very intelligent decision.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We who, meaning, are there coaches to Deep Blue?

MR. TAN: Well, there are scientists behind the machine, and it's really a group of scientists using the machine as a tool to play chess against Garry with the best computer in his head.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Seirawan, do you see advantages that either one of these, the computer has over Mr. Kasparov, and vice versa?

MR. SEIRAWAN: Yes, indeed. Garry, of course, just as C.J. mentioned, is using his experience, his intuition, and his judgment, also he's playing a different kind of game against the computer than he plays against for example a human being like myself. The computer has a deep search. It has tremendous calculative abilities, so in positions where there is a string or a series of forced moves, the computer has a very large advantage over the human being, however, the human being has a great deal of advantages over the computer, and I must say that prior to the match, I felt that Garry was a very big favorite. I thought he was going to win the match handily, and just a quick story to that, of course, the ACM, who is the sponsor of the match, put up $1/2 million for the match purse, and Garry said, okay, I'll play but I want a winner-take-all, so of course, before the match, he was absolutely confident of victory, and now he's really shocked that he lost the first game. I think that was a tremendous victory for IBM and its team, shocking to everybody.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How is that, Mr. Tan, because Kasparov trounced Deep Blue's predecessor, Deep Thought, in 1989? What's happened since then?

MR. TAN: Well, the computer technology has advanced so much in the last few years the computer we are using today is a thousand times more powerful than the machine we used in 1989 when we played Garry Kasparov with a Deep Thought program. And basically, we are using technology we call parallel processing, and where we have 32 computer processors working together in one system to solve this complex problem, and this--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And you just put any number of combinations and things--that's what I'm still trying to understand--how the computer chooses what move to make next.

MR. TAN: Well, the computer basically--in terms of chess, it, it really, what Yasser Seirawan just mentioned, the look at all possible moves as far as you can. For instance, I would say I want to make this move, and then I would guess what my opponent will be moving to counter my move, and based on his counter-move, I make another prediction how we should go about, and I do this as far as I can with all possible alternatives.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Seirawan, if the computer can see the end game or however you describe it, I mean, you know, this far down the line, how could a human being possibly compete?

MR. SEIRAWAN: Well, in fact, that's the exact point. You hit the nail squarely on the head. Garry Kasparov has never beaten a computer that hasn't anticipated his every move. The difference is although the computer can anticipate or even predict Garry's moves, the computer cannot understand or value, make a correct judgment as to the strength of Garry's moves, so in other words, even today, Deep Blue sees every one of Garry's moves, and yet, Garry can still beat the computer. To make a comparison, a very terrible one, if you had a child who went on a Halloween Party and got six candies and as a parent you said to the child, "Well, you can only eat three a day," and the child quickly calculates that it'll take it two days, and the child can't eat all the candies at once. The child begins to cry. And the computer will say, okay, you have three plus three makes six, two days, that's it. So for the computer, it doesn't understand the value of what it means to the child, and the same as in chess, the computer doesn't understand the value of the strength of the moves.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Tan, briefly, what is the value of all of this, the point?

MR. TAN: The point is really not for us is not chess, it's really, we are using chess as a model to understand how we solve complex problems like this with our large computers, and from that, we learn how to make better computers for the future.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: If Kasparov loses, what will this mean?

MR. TAN: This will mean a triumph for human ingenuity. Remember- -

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: A triumph for human ingenuity?

MR. TAN: Exactly.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But Kasparov will have lost.

MR. TAN: Will have lost, but, remember, the chess is a creative game. With this, we now have found a technology that can do the same thing just as well, and we can, therefore, use this technology to solve other complex problems which cannot be solved today.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Who's going to win?

MR. TAN: I believe we have a very good chance, and the game will be very close. It will be decided on Saturday, the last game.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Seirawan, quickly.

MR. SEIRAWAN: I definitely think Garry is going to do it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Okay. We have--we thank you both for joining us. CODA - THE COMPUTER ERA

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We have some thoughts on the computer at 50 now from our essayist and science contributor, Paul Hoffman, editor of "Discover" Magazine. Paul, you've been listening to Elizabeth's segment, as well as the one I just completed. What does that tell you about all this discussion about where computers are today, 50 years after their introduction into society?

PAUL HOFFMAN, Discover Magazine: Well, it's interesting how far we've come in 50 years. If you go back to that very first computer, the ENIAC, and that's why they're playing this computer chess match in Philadelphia, because that's where the ENIAC was created 50 years ago. You know, it took up a gigantic room. It weighed 30 tons. It had 17,000 vacuum tubes, you know, those big glowing tubes that used to power our television, and all of them had to be working at once for the computer to do anything. They were constantly blowing out like 4th of July fireworks, and it didn't work very well. That computer could do about a thousand calculations per second. Today, a computer that sits on a desk top or at home can do fifty thousand more calculations than that. So we have come a long way. And the IBM Deep Blue computer is an amazing accomplishment, that it's as good as the best chess masters at chess. But, remember, that computer is specifically designed to do chess. That's the only thing it can do. You and I are amateurs. We can do all sorts of things well. We can recognize the faces of people on streets. If I say to you, what's a flower that rhymes with hose, instantly you know I mean rose. No computer in the world can do that instantly.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So what are you saying? I mean, are we--are you saying that we're not anywhere close to the original goal?l

MR. HOFFMAN: Right. The original goal was to design computers that can think like you and I do. That's not been--no one's done anything like that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: To rival human intelligence.

MR. HOFFMAN: Exactly. Instead--and I don't mean to detract from these accomplishments, because it is an accomplishment, computer scientists have designed computers that are very good at specific tasks. A computer can decide where to drill for oil, and it will strike oil much more often than the geologist doing those same calculations. But it can't, you know, it can't speak, can't understand us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In our earlier debate, we heard some of the tensions that computers are creating, and we also, you know, have heard some of the hopes for the triumph of human ingenuity, as Mr. Tan put it. I mean, how do you see the tensions as well--and problems as well as the challenges?

MR. HOFFMAN: Well--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At this point.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay, one of the challenges, of course, as anyone who works in an office with computers knows, when you depend on them, and they crash, you have a problem. Even the computer that's playing Garry Kasparov crashed for 10 minutes yesterday. If they hadn't fixed it, it would have lost the game. We know that happens to New York traffic control systems. We know that happens to the phone system. So that's a little drawback in it, but you've got to realize now that computers are behind the scenes in our lives in all sorts of ways. If you have a pacemaker, there's a little computer chip inside it. Your car, it's designed by computers that run a factory. There are computer chips in the engine of a car that govern fuel ignition, that govern your brakes, so they're everywhere, not just sitting on your desks. I mean, the world has become entirely dependent on computers in a very subtle way.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And yet, the President today talked about trying to get computers in every school, and there's been this big debate about, you know, access, saying that, you know, people say that there is a have and have-not situation, where a small percentage of the people have computers and they have the advantages and a larger percentage, is that--don't have them--is that going to be a big problem in the future, you think?

MR. HOFFMAN: It's definitely a serious issue. I mean, you need to learn how to use a computer to go into today's job market. Kids need to learn them. There's wonderful educational software, and if your school has a computer, you can use it, and if your school doesn't, you're deprived. The question, though, is: How do we solve this? And it doesn't seem to me it's that hard. The price of these machines is coming down astronomically. I mean, remember when pocket calculators cost 200 bucks. Now they're just a few bucks. The same will happen with PC's, so if there's some sort of a collaboration between private industry and the government, we could get computers into poor schools and give every kid an equal opportunity.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Briefly, this is a terrible question to ask you, with just a few seconds left, but I mean, is there any succinct way to say where this whole technology is headed in the future?

MR. HOFFMAN: I think it's headed, the computers are going to be completely universal. Soon they'll be shrunk to the point where you may have a computer in your wallet. You go into a hotel, instead of checking in, it automatically sends you to a room, that card in your wallet will open the door to your hotel, and you'd get in, or instead of, you know, when you go through a toll booth, that computer in your wallet will deduct money from your account, rather than your throwing money into a little bin. That's being done in a piled way. So we're going to see more and more of computers.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And who's going to win, Kasparov, or Deep Blue?

MR. HOFFMAN: Kasparov.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Thank you. We'll see. FINALLY - BASIC TRAINING

MS. FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, the story of a man who thinks military discipline can improve Seattle's public schools. Rod Minott of public station KCTS-Seattle reports.

ROD MINOTT: John Stanford has said he'll do anything to get kids excited about learning. Recently, that pledge had him scaling the wall of a school gym.

JOHN STANFORD: Am I permitted to grunt?

MR. MINOTT: As teachers and students stood by in suspense, Seattle's new school superintendent inched upward. Stanford was using the climbing stunt to promote a pet project, increasing reading literacy in the schools. Even when he was forced to abort his climb, the ex-army general refused to concede surrender.

JOHN STANFORD: If you're like me, then any time you find something that's hard to do, what it is, is if you have encouragement to do it, ultimately you will do it. I will ring the bell one day. So I come--[applause]

PERSON SHOUTING: Everybody heard that, right? Everybody heard that.

JOHN STANFORD: So I'm coming back.

MR. MINOTT: Few doubted he would be back. Since taking the helm last Fall in Seattle's public schools, the 56-year-old Stanford has been a whirlwind of energy and ideas on reforming public education.

JOHN STANFORD, Seattle School Superintendent: All of this talk about all of this reform and all of the things that are going on in public schools and failing public schools, they won't fail if our citizens will get their priorities straight. Public education is the absolute key institution in the community. Let's treat them like that. Let's finance them, and give them the capacity to succeed.

MR. MINOTT: Stanford spent 30 years in military uniform. As an army general, he was responsible for moving troops and supplies to the Persian Gulf during the war with Iraq.

JOHN STANFORD: I'm having more fun now than I ever had in the army.

MR. MINOTT: After retiring from the military, he served in Atlanta as the Fulton County executive. Seattle then recruited him for his next mission: saving the city's public school system. Seattle's school board member, Don Nielsen, says it was important that Stanford was an outsider, someone with no prior educational experience.

DON NIELSEN, Seattle School Board Member: We have had a history of educators running school systems. We have to change the system. So it was much more important to me and I think my colleagues that we find a change agent, a visionary, a leader, who, who could mobilize the district. And he has done that. I mean, morale in this district has skyrocketed since he came.

JOHN STANFORD: If the Seattle public school system fails, this city will fail.

MR. MINOTT: Since arriving, Stanford has been sounding an alarm bell about what he thinks is at stake in the debate over public schools.

JOHN STANFORD: We cannot afford, they cannot afford to let this school system fail. The reason: If they let the school system fail, then we will produce in this city a 2 percent under-culture every year for a number of years and ultimately, you will spend your money for juvenile courts, jails, social services, judges, sheriffs, marshals, policemen, and that is paying for the negative side.

MR. MINOTT: Stanford's agenda for change includes some ambitious and controversial ideas, such as student uniforms and using report cards to grade principals.

JOHN STANFORD: We will not graduate from this system students who cannot mainstream in this society.

MR. MINOTT: He's also resurrecting exit exams, holding back students who cannot pass grade level.

JOHN STANFORD: It's just absolutely deplorable for a student to leave our system with the expectation that he or she will be able to get a job, or to go on to college, and find out that they're out there without the skills to be able to mainstream in this society. We have a responsibility to educate all them, all of our students, and we cannot push students on from grade to grade to grade without achieving.

MR. MINOTT: But Stanford also thinks it's the little things that count, that speak volumes about the school's responsiveness.

SPOKESMAN: [on phone] Good afternoon. Seattle school district.

MR. MINOTT: School staff are now required to answer phone calls by the third ring. And school administrators must spend one day a week in the schools, helping out with things like tutoring. Some like Nan Stavnshoj say it's been difficult juggling those duties with an already-busy schedule.

NAN STAVNSHOJ, Seattle School Administrator: There are some things that may not get done as quickly as I hope to get them done, but it does provide the connection and the meaning, you know, for us and why we are really here to serve these children.

MR. MINOTT: Problems in the Seattle school district mirror those of many other big cities. The dropout rate stands at about 15 percent, and recent scores on standardized exams have remained flat. Many middle class families have fled for the suburbs and private schooling, leaving behind a mostly minority and increasingly non-English-speaking Seattle student body. Over the past 20 years, enrollment has plunged by almost one quarter to 46,000 students.

ERIC GORBMAN: [talking to son] Let's get the geese back in.

MR. MINOTT: To reverse that decline, Stanford says he must convince parents, like Eric Gorbman, to return to Seattle's public schools. Gorbman moved his family to the suburbs five years ago so he could enroll his two sons in what he considered a better school district. Gorbman says he doubts Stanford will succeed in Seattle.

ERIC GORBMAN: I think that it's almost an impossible task. I think that the Seattle public school system is too large and there's just an entrenched bureaucracy there that'll never go away. My children are in a school system that has less than a quarter the number of students of the Seattle public schools and it just by virtue of its size can be a lot more responsive.

JOHN WILSON, "Seattle Weekly": And I think one of the great questions about Stanford remains: Does he know how to change something like a school district?

MR. MINOTT: Others like Seattle journalist John Wilson say Stanford's push for change will likely run into resistance from parents, teachers, and school principals.

JOHN WILSON: It's one thing to move an entire army from the United States and Europe into the Persian Gulf where you give the order and, by God, they move. It's another thing to try to move an entire school district, and you don't necessarily have that neat chain of command that you have in the military.

MR. MINOTT: Stanford's leadership faces another big challenge. Like other school districts, Seattle finds itself in a budget crisis. A $3 million shortfall this year is expected to balloon to $10 million in 1997. Stanford says that might mean closing up to 25 schools, a move that threatens to trigger protests. But Stanford remains upbeat that he can fix public education.

JOHN STANFORD: Good morning. How are you?

MR. MINOTT: That quest sends him on frequent surprise inspections. Recently, his target was a high school campus.

WOMAN: Tell 'em Mr. Stanford dropped in. He's on his way.

JOHN STANFORD: Okay. There he is. Well, good morning. How are you? Who's that following you in here, trying to sneak behind the board?

MR. MINOTT: Stanford's inspections are typically thorough, and they also allow him to talk to students, many of whom are upset about his call for school uniforms.

FEMALE STUDENT: What is your whole idea behind it? Is it that, you know, something like not wearing a hat to school, you know, this little, tiny bit of discipline is going to help us further on down the line?

JOHN STANFORD: Yes. There is something about a uniform that brings pride and respect for the organization to which they belong. It is not a matter of taking away anyone's personality or individuality.

MR. MINOTT: By late morning, Stanford has finished his high school tour. He says one encounter was especially pleasing.

JOHN STANFORD: That a young man in that classroom knew I didn't like hats, because when I got in there, he took his hat off.

MR. MINOTT: A small victory perhaps but to Stanford a sign his message and mission of making a difference appear to be on track. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, the Republican Presidential hopefuls debate tonight in New Hampshire, a co-chairman of Pat Buchanan's campaign stepped down following reports he attended white supremacist and militia meetings, and late today, a federal judge ordered the government not to enforce the new computer decency law. That law prohibits sending indecent material to minors over computer networks. We'll see you tomorrow night with Shields & Gigot, among other things. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.