Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu,
    chris_barr@cnet.com
Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups


Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are pretty
obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating system
that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web pages
would be a bad thing.  That said, it seems to me that there exist web
pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children.  Has CDT rejected
the idea of a very narrowly focused voluntary rating system that would
apply to those sites only?  I have in mind a simple voluntary tag of the
nature:  <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
that would only be used when the web site wanted to signal that it did not
want children to have access to the site?

It seems to me that a consensus to use this simple system would take the
steam out of the more ambitious (and troubling) PICs type systems, and
also do much to eliminate the market for filtering software.  I also think
it would make it easier for many libraries and schools to permit students
to have unrestricted access to the Internet. 

I know that some people think this simple tagging system is not among the
proposals seriously under consideration.  But why should we let RSAC or
large commerical entities like AOL or Microsoft control this debate?  In
any event, I was wondering what CDT's thoughts are on this. 

   James Love <love@cptech.org>


-------------------------------
James Love 
Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology 
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org
Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org