From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 94 17:22:00 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Crypto Takes a Holiday (NYET, Children, etc.)
In-Reply-To: <199407312216.PAA14931@netcom6.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199408010021.RAA07035@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In fairness to the original proposal, it's worth remembering that his
purpose was not specifically to impose censorship on the net, but rather
to protect BBS operators (and net access providers) from legal liability for
providing pornographic and other questionable material to children.

Granted, his method for doing so did amount to a lot of laws and censor-
ship, and I can't agree with that any more than others here.  But the problem
isn't going to disappear under an onslaught of rhetoric.  As I said, I
can sympathize with concerned parents, and although my personal philosophies
would not support a censorship-based solution, not everyone will feel as

There is a movement afoot to hook schools up to the net, part of the general
"superhighway" initiative.  This is going to raise the public profile of the
adult material on the net and increase pressure for ways to limit the
access of youngsters to it.  One response we can have is to dig in our heels
against any censorship, and say, "don't put your school on the net if you
don't want your kids reading about bestiality."  From my experience, this
would be equivalent to saying "don't put schools on the net."  That will not
be a politically acceptable solution.

I really don't know what the ultimate resolution of this conflict will
be.  IMO, the Internet as it stands today is incompatible with the
conventional mores of much of society.  Either the Internet will be
bowdlerized, or perhaps split into "X-rated" vs "G-rated" sections.
Maybe a completely new internetwork is needed, one with more controls and
limitations.  Then perhaps the current internet could continue to exist
in close to its present form.

I know that some people are optimistic that the Internet will change
society rather than vice versa.  They hope that as more and more people join
the net that they will become tolerant of the much wider range of views and
practices than are common in most people's home towns.  But I don't think it
will come out this way.  Society is a lot bigger than the net, and the
character of the net will inevitably change as the membership changes.

In some ways this is reminiscent of our earlier debates about whether
society would be able to prevent the advent of widespread lawbreaking
due to Tim's conception of "crypto anarchy."  I have always been
skeptical that our software and ideas can really succeed in the face of
strong social opposition.  For similar reasons I think that the net
will be cleansed of pornography if people feel strongly enough about
it.  So I do see a lot of connections to crypto issues in this
debate.

Hal