Re:

[sar@box.cynicism.com]

At 10:32 AM 7/17/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 06:45 PM 7/17/97 +0200, Name Withheld by Request wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 frissell@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>> What ever happened to "de minimus non curat lex."  The social damage
>from a 
>>> misrated website is too trivial to be believed.  Punishing it is like 
>>> executing you for farting.
>>
>>  In some cases that may not be a bad idea :). But getting back to the
>>original point, if I'm going to be subject to jail for mislabeling my
>>pages (and how do you tell, given that some systems use a numeric rating? 
>>count the nipples and add the size of any erections?) then that would 
>>seem to be a good reason to move my Web site out of America. 
>>  Idependent rating systems are a good thing, and we've talked about them
>>here many times in the past (e.g. 'repuation markets'). A mandatory
>>requirement for web authors to rate their own pages is a hideous idea
>>which will simply move more of the Web overseas, helping to destroy the US
>>economy. 
>
>Furthermore, if you have no smut on you page, but you link to offensive
>content (rated or unrated) somewhere else, how does that rate?
>
>A while back on a whim, I created a page that is based on a type of ambush
>humor.  The link describes something in a way where you think you are going
>to one thing, but go to something entirely different.  If they push
>something where you have to label everything for the most clueless out
>there, it will ruin the whole page.  (I find the idea that I might get
>prosecuted for my Goth page absurd, but it is possible considering the
>clueless morons in power.)  The page (outdated links and all) is at
>http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/goth.html .
>
>Something else...  Why does the press refer to Gore in such terms that make
>him look like he is some sort of techno-nerd?  The man is totally without
>clues.  (I believe the proper term is "Connection to Clue-server refused by
>host.")  The "Information Superhighway" that he was pushing was a souped-up
>cable system for Ghod's sake!  (The extra bandwidth was going to be used by
>starting movies every 10-15 minutes instead of having to wait.)  The
>hearings on that were high clueless theatre...  Maybe Declan can due an
>article on how far removed Gore really is from the process.  (But that
>might offend his corporate masters...)
>
>  


What about a page saying "the hottest pics around" or "these girls must be
seen to be beliveved" or "want to see them take it all off?" but offering
no pictures the way most "porn" sites on the web do.
	How would you rate the implication that the page may contain sex or
violence if the site dosn't really contain much of anything. And if the
phrases themselves contain nothing objectionable would you have to rate the
implications?
	
	Maybe people should look on the bright side. Rating porn sites may keep
you from looking at 500 pages of links that contain no actualy pornography.
You could simply check the rating to see if there really is any sex. And
somebody could create an index that searches by rating, so you could seach
by sexual content. search for a 5 when you just want to see some skin , or
a 10 when you want to see a bit more.
	But of course people could just max the rating saying their site has more
sex than it actualy does. The powers that be would never stop them, who
would object to people saying their site is less suitable for children than
it really is.It would be like saying "this movie cant be rated r, they only
say fuck 3 times! send them all to jail for misrating the movie"