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

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for
children, then you are in a state of denial.  However, while I don't
expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record straight
on your note.  I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems.  I think these
are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far less
ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by
the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of 

<META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">

I think this is quite different from RSACi or SafeSurf's system, for the
reasons mentioned by my missive to Jonah.  


   Jamie   <love@cptech.org>


Tim May wrote:
> 
> At 9:16 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >---------- 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
> 
> "Unambiguously inappropriate for children"?
> 
> No such thing. I can think of many, many things which many consider
> inappropriate for children (what age?), but which others, including
> myself,
> consider perfectly appropriate. I see no particular need to recite
> examples
> here.
> 
> Even with "obscenity," whatever that is (I seem not to know it when I
> see
> it, which would make me a poor Supreme Court Justice), that there are
> obscenity prosecutions and trials would seem to indicate that such
> materials are not "unambigously obscene."
> 
> The "mandatory voluntary" PICS/RSACi ratings, with penalties
> (presumably)
> for "mislabeling," just are another form of content control.
> 
> If they are truly voluntary, then people are free to say that a nudist
> site
> is appropriate for children, or not to label at all...the null label
> is
> just another label.
> 
> (Nudist sites, in realspace as well as cyberspace, are a classic
> example of
> the difficulty of judging "appropriate for children." Some
> jurisdicitions
> are attempting to legislate against children being in nudist camps.
> They
> would even claim that children seeing adults and other children nude
> is
> "unambiguosly inappropriate." Others disagree. So, how would their web
> site
> be labeled?)
> 
> The notion that something is "unambiguously" inapproprate, obscene,
> heretical, treasonous, whatever, is a flawed concept.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of
> laws.
> Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to
> Tyrants!"
> 
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital
> money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms,
> zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information
> markets,
> Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information
> superhighway."

-- 
_______________________________________________________
James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org