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

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

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.


> 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. 

> >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?

 
> (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?


> This means that parents cannot count on any labelling system to
> protect
> their children from finding sexual material, atheistic material, drug
> advocacy material, bestiality advocacy material, and recruitments for
> homosexuality.
> 
> (For the sake of this argument I'm avoiding inclusion of actual images
> of
> things like bestiality and the like, as these may or may not run afoul
> of
> the "obscenity" laws. Not that I support obscenity laws. But all of
> the
> other things are mostly protected under the First Amendment, and
> labelling
> is not required.)

  
         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.


> 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").  

   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)?  

 
          Jamie

-- 
_______________________________________________________
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