From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 06:05:45 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: PICS & CyberAngels
In-Reply-To: <01I4A3GEC4UU8Y56P8@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <199605041600.JAA01162@netcom14.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


EAS:
>	In view of the discussion of the possibility of PICS being required
>by law, plus that about the CyberAngels, I thought people might find it
>interesting that the CyberAngels home page has on it as one of their
>"responsibilities" making sure that all pages with sexual content - that
>pornography fetish again - have PICS or other (such as Safesurf...) ratings
>that would permit censorship of them.
>	If parents want to keep their children from seeing sexual material,
>that's the problem of the parents - it shouldn't be the problem of anyone else.
>If something I put out offends someone (e.g., some political speech I've made),
>that's the problem of the person it offends. Sexual material is no different.

this seems to suggest a misunderstanding of PICS either by you or
the "CyberAngels". PICS does not require any particular action by page owners
and is entirely based on that principle (there is a pretty good
argument it would be unconstitutional, impractical, idiotic, etc. if
it didn't). it defines a standard by
which ratings servers and queries are constructed and formatted.
anyone can rate any information. if the CyberAngels want to rate
all kinds of pages in cyberspace and set up their own rating service,
more power to them. the ratings do not restrict those who do not
choose the restrictions.

I hope we can get a new conventional wisdom going, in which people
who rant about saving children from the evils of cyberspace are
told to shut up and go start their own rating service. they can
blacklist as many sites as they want. but the real test will be
whether anyone CARES what they think.