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

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Paul Bradley wrote:
> 
> > Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate
> for
> > children, then you are in a state of denial.
> 
> Please clarrify this for us: What sites would you classify as
> unsuitable
> for children? 


Let me you way out on a limb, and suggest the following entries, from an
infoseek search for the workd PICS, would be unabiguously inappropriate
for children.

--------------------------------

Pissing, Fisting and beastiality! We go to great lengths to bring you
the Good Old Fashioned ALL AMERICAN Pornography, Just Like Dad Used To
Watch! Unfortunately, We can't bring you everything!
55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xxxp.html     (Size 4.3K) 

Absolutely the RAUNCHIEST NASTIEST Barely Legal Anal Bitches ANYWHERE!! 
The ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and
gangbang action!!! 100% GUARANTEED free xrated pics Action!

55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html     (Size 4.5K)

-------------------------------------------------


> What would you define as being a child? 
> What
> justification
> do you give for supposing certain material to be unsuitable for
> viewing
> by a certain class of people?


    I don't think I need much justification to suggest that "the
ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and
gangbang action" is unsuitable for viewing by "a certain class of
people," --- namely children.  Do you seriously dispute this?  If so,
there isn't much point in debating this.  


> 
> > 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">
> 
> Would your vision of this be a mandatory system, or totally voluntary?
> Would clearly rating a site incorrectly be punishable in any way?


         What I suggested was a system where you either label it adult,
or you don't label it at all.  I certainly wouldn't think anyone would
get punished for labeling a site adult if it was suitable for children. 
As for a failure to label for adult content, I think the consequences
should be pretty obvious.  You have community and church groups pissed
off.  You have law enforcement officials from various countries pissed
off.  You have parents pissed off.  You have legislators pissed off. 
That's what is going on now.  Why one would want to encourage this is
beyond me.  Maybe fighting for the right to show  the "ultimate in anal,
double anal, double penetration" to children has redeeming value that I
don't appreciate.  

      There are lots of government and non-government sanctions that
could come into play for those who don't take reasonable steps to make
it easier to censor some content for children.  This is just the way the
world is.  It's like a state of nature.  It's human nature.  It is
undoubtely the majority view.  Even if one completely disagreed with the
idea of censoring "gangbang action" for children, you might find it a
good strategy, in order to avoid worse outcomes, such RSACi, Safesurf or
other PICS type rating systems.

     But if you think it is really important to fight for the rights of
9 year olds to see such materials in schools and libraries (where a lot
of the battles are being fought today), then go right ahead.  Good
luck.  

      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