Re: PICS is not censorship

[furballs <furballs@netcom.com>]

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Thaddeus J. Beier wrote:

> tcmay@got.net ("Timothy C. May") sez
> > This is why I fear PICS. Democracy has run amok in the Western world, and
> > the various "herds" will vote to constrain the freedoms of other members of
> > the herd.
> > 
> > My Prediction: If PICS is used voluntarily by more than 80% of Net users to
> > label their Web pages and their writings, etc., then less than 3 years
> > later PICS will be mandated in the United States and other such countries.
> 
> PICS, or something like it, is the absolutely right response to calls
> for true Internet censorship.  People agreeing to a language, a way
> of communicating, is a good thing.
> 
> Did you object to HTML?  TCP/IP?  Other agreements that limited the way
> that people communicate?
> 
> I don't think that PICS will be mandated any more than those two standards
> are mandated, perhaps I'm naive, but I think that the social conventions
> will work in this case.
> 
> I suppose the a better solution would have been to have many competing
> private rating services, but PICS will work well, not put much load on
> the net, and is transparent and simple.  I like it.
> 
> thad

I disagree.

If people want a rating system, then they should voluntarily do it, not 
have it shoved down their throats "for their own good".

Your examples are bogus in the light of what PICS is and what TCP/IP is. 
One is a transport layer, the other a label for flagging. While both can 
control the flow of information, there is a big difference between the 
political behavior of the two as seen by the great unwashed who fain to rule 
over us.

TCP/IP to them means nothing becuase they do not understand it's relation 
to content. However, they do understand PICS as it's whole existence is 
to delineat and ultimately control content. They pushed the development 
of PICS and it's ilk for the express purpose of *control*. TCP/IP was 
developed for the express purposed of common ground for dissemination.

I would suggest you rethink the position. I'll give you a better example 
of why PICS *wont* work despite the Clintonista's claim of caring for 
children.

You remember Playboy. That magazine was a right of passage for many a 12 
or 13 year old boy who could get his hands on it. Could they buy it? No, 
that was against the law. So where did they get it? Dad, ofcourse. His 
subscription came every month, and "johnny" had no trouble finding it 
once Dad hid it. Or, it came by way of "johnny's" big brother's room; or 
a friend with the same circumstances at his home. 

Regardless of the smut laws on the books, regardless of how zealous the 
local constable was in rooting out the evils of pornography, you could 
find the magazine and pre-teens willing to look in many places.

Did the government ban Playboy? No.. So why do you think they are all 
fired up about banning smut on the Internet (which BTW is international 
in scope) ? I'll tell you why... control, plain and simple control of 
information.

Let's go back to one small piece of the CDA: the phrase "patently 
offensive". Now, I have yet to see a *consistent* legal defintion of 
obscene, much less "patently offensive".

Now, let's suppose that someone publishes a piece that says to the effect 
"I think that Clinton is a complete idiot because of policies 'X', 'Y', 
and 'Z'" and critiques them verbalizing reasons why these policies are a 
failure. What's to stop her majesty and Bill from saying "We are patently 
offended by this material"? Nothing. Nothing now. But, if the CDA is 
enforced, then it is not unreasonable to forsee another shade of grey 
come into being by making it a jailable offense to openly critisize the 
government's mandated policies as it goes to (Clinton's favorite 
euphemism) "National Security and the reputation of the United States 
amongst it's peers". (Not that we enjoy any peerage these days).

Any legal manuevering that restricts legitimate critism of the federal 
goverment's policies, actions, or positions diminshes the effectiveness 
of the First Amendment. If our elected officials can not be publicly 
chastized and shamed into enacting good policy or dispensing the will of 
the people, then we have a Republic in name only.

That is why the Consitutuion starts with "We the People of the United 
States..." not "We the Government of the United States..." That is why 
the First Amendment is about free speech and the Second Amendment 
concerns the right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers believed in the 
people's ability to "adjust" government when government became like 
George III.

On the surface, PICS seems harmless to the average person. It's the hue 
and cry "ofcourse we should protect our children!" From what? Themselves? 
Other people? Good Information? Bad Information? (choice your poison). 
More to the point, it is people wanting to alleveat their responsibility 
as parents from dealing with their children. They are willing to give up 
a portion of their free agency to try and avoid parenting and the 
government is only too eager to help.

One question: can you really legislate morality and make it stick?

...Paul