"What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?"

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

After reading several of James Love's posts, I think we are either just
talking at cross purposes, or that he hasn't thought carefully about the
constitutional issues. Maybe both. In any case, this'll probably be my last
response to his points.

At 7:56 AM -0700 7/28/97, James Love wrote:
>Tim May wrote:
>> It is this "crap" and "consequences" we are talking about.
>
>     This "crap" and "consequences" are what is happening before your
>eyes.  Law enforcement efforts, new legislation, complaints by church
>groups, parents -- pressure on Yahoo and other searching sites, etc.,
>being called names.

Of course. But some of this "crap" and "consequences" are what we are
fighting, as they are applications of force which make the "voluntary"
labelling standards hardly voluntary at all. If "law enfrorcement efforts"
and "new legislation" are not considered coercion, what is?

And in another post, you cited some sexual material as an example of what
you claimed was "unambiguously adult" material. Now you may think this, and
maybe even may think this, in terms of my personal views, but NAMBLA is
certain to disagree, which means the "unambiguously" part is ipso facto
false. So, again I make the point that a Board of Censors or somesuch must
get involved...I am not advocating this, just reiterating that your point
that official censorship is not needed because some materials are
"unambiguously adult" is incorrect.

I urge you to carefully think about these issues.

>
>> There is no requirement that one's writings be labelled as "adult."
>> Leastwise, I've read a lot of stuff in my life, and very rarely (if
>> ever)
>> have I seen much of it labelled as "adult" material.
>
>      Why label it then?  I won't.  I think people should resist labels
>on text.  99 percent of the concerns over web pages has to do with
>graphics..... I would suggest dealing with the most obvious and
>legitimate complains, but drawing a line where it made sense too.

I wasn't saying I planned to label my writings. I was making the point that
if "crap" and "consequences" (such as the law enforcement actions and
legislation you yourself mention above) befall those who mislabel their
sites, then surely this will not be confined to images alone. The "fisting
and pissing" stuff you cited in another message will be equally unsuitable
for children--many will claim--even if it is in the form of stories,
attempts to recruit, etc.

We have already seen this in the SurfWatch and KiddySafe filter debates,
where the inclusion of certain words is enough to get a site blocked.
(Understand that I am not arguing against KiddySafe's "rights" to do this,
only noting that words are clearly as important to some folks as images.)


>
>> >their back.  Those that didn't use the label could just put up with
>> the
>> >consequences, whatever they are.  I would expect (and hope) that the
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Such as the multiple years in prison that each of the Thomases got?
>
>     I don't know the Thomases, but did they get "multiple years in
>prison" for mislabeling?  Or for something else?

You should acquaint yourself with the Thomas case, as in "Amateur Action."
Any search engine will turn up lots of details.


>
>> (Again, just what is "mislabelling"? If I feel all children should be
>> exposed to sexual materials, or "Huckleberry Finn," whose standards am
>> I
>> supposed to use if not my own?)
>
>
>     Why would you want to label a book?  There isn't a demand for this
>in bookstores and libraries.  Why do this on the Web?

I give up. Really. You seem determined to miss nuances.

I was not making an argument for labeling books...far from it. I was making
the point that many would like to see online materials comparable to "Huck
Finn" labeled. And that this is clearly wrong.

Not wrong if folks want to truly voluntarily label a site containing "Huck
Finn" as being "unsuitable for children" or "offensive to some colored
people," or whatever floats their boat. But wrong if "crap and
consequences" befall anyone who _fails_ to warn children away or who
deliberately "mislabels" (!!) their "Huck Finn" site as being "suitable for
children" when some religious or parents group thinks otherwise.

(To forestall Jim's likely literalist question, "Why do you think "Huck
Finn" is unsuitable for children?," let me state that I don't think it is.
But many school boards and minority groups have said they think it is, and
so it provides a good example of where the voluntary self-labeling is
ambiguous. And, like I said, even the "fisting and pissing" is apparently
ambiguous to NAMBLA.)


>         I think labeling of text, in general, is a very bad idea.  I
>can imagine some cases where authors might want to
>label some text with an adult tag.  But I don't really think this is
>something that should be encouraged.  I don't think this is the hot
>button issue that graphics (and films) are.

We agree. None of us are encouraging it. At least none of us on the
Cypherpunks list, I don't think. You're missing the real point.

The vast majority of Web sites which are now being blocked by the various
Net.nanny filters are mostly of _text_ ! These are the sites discussing
teen pregnancy, birth control, homosexuality, early childhood sexual
experiences, medical advice, incest topics, and so on. Very seldom are
_images_ involved.

The notion that "voluntary self-labeling" would apply only to sites
carrying images is laughable. That you would argue that text-only sites
would not be subject to the "voluntary self-labeling" of PICS/RSAci shows
that you simply haven't thought about this much.

(The recent debate about news organzations being perhaps exempted from
self-labeling their online news is indicative of this...their online
releases are almost solely text, and "adult" images play almost no role in
their products. And yet there is active debate about whether they'll have
to label their stuff. Think about it.)



>
>> As long as ratings are completely and full uncoerced, fine. It's the
>> "crap"
>> and "consequences" you speak of that worry me. If one of the pieces of
>> crap
>> is  a $100K civil fine for mislabelling, or one of the consequences is
>> 5
>> years in jail, then it ain't a voluntary system, is it?
>

>   Well, one might see various forms of mandatory labeling.   And indeed
>one might see more and more pressure for more and more complex and
>objectional forms of labeling (labeling that seeks to provide more and
>more "information" about the content").

Ah, you admit that the "voluntary" labeling will likely become
not-so-voluntary.

>   What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
>parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
>sexual acts?  Good luck.  Or to suggest something which addresses the
>obvious problems, and takes the steam out of the more ambitious labeling
>systems?  Or to hope that the status quo survives because it is too
>difficult to construct an alternative (the stategy that most
>antilabeling people seem to be relying upon)?

I have no "strategy" for dealing with the censorious tendencies of parents,
just as I have no "strategy" for solving problems they have with their
children watching too much television, or playing video games too much, or
hanging out with the wrong crowd.

These are problems for _them_ to solve, not for me, and not for the government.

(I can't believe I have to explain this.)

>_______________________________________________________
>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

It is really scary that someone with your shallow understanding of the
basic, core issues of liberty and constitutionality is apparently a
lobbyist in Washington.

But not surprising.

--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."