From: Clay.Olbon@dynetics.com (Clay Olbon II)
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 07:37:09 +0800
To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: misunderstandings of PICS
Message-ID: <v01540b00adb6739de4bc@[193.239.225.200]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 5:31 PM 5/7/96, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote (in part):
>>my fear is that the supposed "failure" of self-ratings could be twisted
>>by its opponents as evidence that it is inadequate to deal with the
>>real problem.
>
>        I think your fears are a little too paranoid here, but maybe they
>aren't. The question is how much of this hoopola stems from fundamentalist
>thought police, or concerned but ignorant parents/congressmen. If
>self-labeling worked (which I see few cases in which it wouldn't) I can't
>see the concerned but ignorant being unhappy. Rather they'd be a bit better
>educated and feeling pretty secure their kids won't get their hands on
>naughty material. And then if self labeling had some failures, that's an
>incentive for others to provide third party services (as others have
>argued). PICS had to sell itself to the net as much as to the masses.
>Self-labeling appeals to the net, it may appeal to the masses, but there are
>other things in there to sweeten the deal for them if not.

I disagree - paranoia is warranted here.  One problem with our legislative
process is that is is vulnerable to emotional issues.  It is very easy to
bring up issues that sound horrible (child porn, terrorist info, flag
burning), then create legislation controlling them.  Being opposed to this
legislation for whatever reason brands you as "anti-family" or "soft on
crime".  It is clear to me that improperly labeled material will be paraded
before congress and the media as justification for stricter control over
this material.  Congressmen, not wanting to face attack ads claiming that
they support pornography (or terrorism, or whatever), will pass silly laws
such as the CDA.  It has happened before, it is naive to think that it will
not happen again.  There are only three solutions:

        1)  Vote in congressmen that support the first amendment.
        2)  Hope that judges protect our rights.
        3)  Deploy technological solutions that make any laws passed
            ineffectual.

The first solution is improbable and the second is risky.  Only the third
solution actually provides a method where we can really have an impact.  I
think PICS is a great idea, and I think it may have an impact on judicial
decisions.  It should be implemented because it puts the control over
information where it belongs, in the hands of the end-user.  I would hope
that it is a good-enough solution to avoid further control over the
internet, but I have my doubts.  Remember, if congress can try and
legislate against something as innocuous as flag burning, what else would
they be willing to do to curb our right to free speech?

        Clay

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Olbon II            | Clay.Olbon@dynetics.com
Systems Engineer         | ph: (810) 589-9930 fax 9934
Dynetics, Inc., Ste 302  | http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html
550 Stephenson Hwy       | PGP262 public key: on web page
Troy, MI 48083-1109      | pgp print: B97397AD50233C77523FD058BD1BB7C0
                     TANSTAAFL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------