From: rick hoselton <hoz@univel.telescan.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 14:10:50 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: self-ratings
Message-ID: <199605082327.QAA26350@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Timothy C. May writes:
>Should "voluntary self-criticism" become widespread, I expect to rate all
>of my posts as suitable for children of all ages, suitable for
>hypersensitive feminists, suitable for Jews and Gentiles alike, and so on.
>Regardless of whether I'm advocating post-birth abortions or forced
>encheferation of Muslim girls.

Not me.  If someone doesn't want to be offended, then I would rather they 
never read anything from me, ever.  I share family, race, culture, and 
backround with my father, and there have been times when I offended him 
unintentionally.  One person liked me enough to marry me, but I occasionally 
offended her, too.  Imagine how easily I might offend a stranger.  Better to 
take no chances at all.  If somebody wants a rating system, then they should
just 
consider everything I have to say as "X-rated" in EVERY category, just to be
safe.  
And that's a policy that everyone on the net should follow.  If this self
rating 
system becomes mandatory, I think the cypherpunks should cooperate fully, by 
notifying ALL sites that are not self-X-rated if they can find ANYTHING that 
ANYONE might EVER find offensive.  Better safe than sorry.  Nobody will be 
prosecuted for saying they have an offensive site, even if they don't.  Imagine 
a prosecutor trying to prove that NOBODY could POSSIBLY be offended by my 
newsgroup postings!  But many people will be prosecuted for not identifying 
their sites as offensive.  

Now, if everyone follows my advice, the net may become very boring for those 
who have their filters set on, but congress will NEVER make "being boring" 
against the law.  If mandatory-self-rating ever becomes the law, cypherpunks 
can definitely promote true justice by strictly interpreting it and supporting 
it completely.