1996-01-25 - Re: V-chip?

Header Data

From: williams@va.arca.com (Jeff Williams)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 5507c41f0141a40735659f7154bbc80d4dc54d673a163a3d6508c65dbed002af
Message ID: <65534.297195739@va.arca.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-25 17:58:14 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 01:58:14 +0800

Raw message

From: williams@va.arca.com (Jeff Williams)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 01:58:14 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: V-chip?
Message-ID: <65534.297195739@va.arca.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tim May writes:

> Anyone telling me I have to rate my work, or submit it to a ratings agency,
> is aggressing against me. Now, if others rate my work (which is already
> happening with digest services such as "CP-Lite"), this is their business,
> not mine. But the V-Chip precedent is a precedent for the government to
> insist that all sorts of content be rated. This should be fought in a free
> society.

But what if they *ask* you nicely to label your work?

  "If you think your message is offensive, violent, or racist,
   would you please consider labelling it?"

I don't think I'd mind.  In fact, *optional* labels would make me more likely
to post such material, because I'd have some confidence that it would only be
read by people who want to read it. (And they could even find it more
quickly!)

There's nothing inherently wrong with labelling information. When messages
here are labelled [NOISE], I know to avoid them. This sort of
meta-information is helpful and good.

The precedent is what's troubling. Someone will probably try to mandate the
labels...Someone will try to write a law that says "Anyone who posts what I
consider offensive without a label is guilty." This is what should be
fought...not labels.

--Jeff






Thread