Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 10:00 AM -0700 12/3/97, David Honig wrote:
>At 12:46 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will
>>never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has
>>highlighted the tensions between the different types of
>>Net-advocacy groups here in Washington.
>
>
>I'm sure the Feds are happy that their Good Cop (Clinton) / Bad Cop (Freeh)
>routine
>is having the divisive effect they planned, and making sacrifices seem
>acceptable.

And made many people clamor for self-policing software.

I have always advocated filtering and self-selection of articles,
magazines, television, movies, restaurants, etc. As such, Web filters are
fine things. If one _only_ wants to read articles favorable to Scientology,
or critical of Catholics, or catering to certain sexual interests, hey,
find some filter services or program your own....

However, the drumbeat is being heard that such filter services may not be
fully "voluntary," inasmuch as the Government is "assisting" in their
development, as the current confab shows. (One wonders what the reaction
would be if Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and other government officials
helped organize a conference on how *religions* can help police themselves
and avoid incorrect thoughts? "Churches must learn to police themselves and
avoide heresies, so that government action will not be needed.")

And there are some who want "mislabelling" made a crime. Thus, if I claim
that my site and my words are suitable for children, and someone (like
Janet Reno) disagrees, I could be charged with "misrepresentation."

This is a wedge to demolish free speech, this "accuracy in labelling"
business. Religions could be forced to "accurately label" their messages.
Speech could be shut down while courts debate whether "misrepresentation"
occurred. As the saying goes, "What is truth?"

And even if truth can be determined, truth is not a requirement for free
speech. (Truth in courtrooms and in contract situations are of course
different situations than ordinary free speech, in speaking, writing,
publishing, and broadcasting.)

(Yes, I am opposed to FDA and SEC rules on truthful speech, unless
contracts are involved. If Joe wants to advertise his Magic Elixir, let
him. Reputations and ratings services (truly free ones, that is) are the
key to bad speech.)

So, the government should just bow out completely, as it is inappropriate
for government to be involved in any way with speech rating.

"Congress shall make no law..." should really be interpreted as "Government
should not get involved at all in...."

But of course government has wiggled and connived its way into speech in
many ways. From the catch-all excuse of "regulating commerce," to the
increasing number of restrictions on commercial speech, on speech in
violation of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, to selective prosecution for
threats and RICO conspiracy and on and on....


--Tim May


Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article
(U.S. Statute 43-666-970719).
Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance
is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable
by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense,
and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself
not contain material in violation of the Act.

** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** :

Suitable for Children: yes  Age Rating: 5 years and up.
Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No  Hindus: Yes
Pacifists: No  Government Officials: No  Nihilists: Yes  Anarchists: Yes
Vegetarians: Yes  Vegans: No  Homosexuals: No  Atheists: Yes
Caucasoids: Yes  Negroids: No  Mongoloids: Yes
Bipolar Disorder: No  MPD: Yes and No  Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh?

--Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture,
regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering.
--Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of
color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article.

**SUMMARY**
Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1
Composite Age Rating: 45 years