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

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 10:52 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.
>
>For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some,
>extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not on
>the extremes, but in the great grey center.
>
>Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.

I reject even the "we can agree that some, extreme, sites are unsuitable
for children" point.

If you don't want your children exposed to some material, stop them from
accessing the material.

Consider this, if the voluntary mandatory PICS/RSACi system gets deployed,
as I expect it will be (The Protection of Our Children Act of 1997, a sure
election winning issue), who will decide on what is a mislabeling?

And why should it be restricted to sexual issues?

Surely there are many good Christians (TM) who will argue that a site
devoted to "10 Reasons Jesus was a Fool" is "unambiguously inappropriate"
for their little Johnnies and Suzies.

And so on. The Net will end up recapitulating the battles which have raged
for several decades (and longer) about what materials are suitable or
unsuitable for children in school libraries.

Again, I view all of my writings, and my Lolita Recruitment Nudist Web
Page, as suitable for children of all ages, especially cute little
12-year-old girls!!!

(I'm not a perv, though, and I expect them to show some proof that they've
started to develop. In fact, I'll create a Web page devoted to how young
lolitas can prove they're developing womanhood. Obviously appropriate to
all.)

Seriously, if their parents don't want them exposed to this kind of site,
or to "sexual issues for young women," or "a boy's guide to older men," or
atheistic materials, or seditious, treasonous, Cypherpunkish materials,
then let those parents block access.

(And a "voluntary mandatory" label will not help, as folks like me will
_accurately label_ our material so as to appeal to these targets! Accurate
by our values. Here lies the real rub.)

Oh, and Declan's point that the real issues lie in the middle...well, tell
that to the Thomases, of Amateur Action. The real issues lie at the fringes.

--Tim May


Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article
(U.S. Statute 43-666-970719).
Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance
is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable
by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense,
and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself
not contain material in violation of the Act.

** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** :

Suitable for Children: yes  Age Rating: 5 years and up.
Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No  Hindus: Yes
Pacifists: No  Government Officials: No  Nihilists: Yes  Anarchists: Yes
Vegetarians: Yes  Vegans: No  Homosexuals: No  Atheists: Yes
Caucasoids: Yes  Negroids: No  Mongoloids: Yes
Bipolar Disorder: No  MPD: Yes and No  Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh?

--Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture,
regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering.
--Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of
color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article.

**SUMMARY**
Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1
Composite Age Rating: 45 years