From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:48:43 +0800
To: reagle@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
Message-ID: <01I4IG2VJRNI8Y5B50@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"reagle@MIT.EDU"  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr."  9-MAY-1996 15:07:09.24

>        I've figured out where my differences between myself and others
>lay. The _only_ system and service that I am aware of that is distributing
>PICS labels is RSAC. (http://www.rsac.org) They are what one could call an
>objective and non-arbitrary content rating system rather than an
>"appropriateness" system. "Appropriateness" systems will be valuable 3rd
>party systems when the vigilantes and fundamentalists wish to create label
>bureaus. For self labeling, if many people (main stream people) are going to
>use that system within their browser, it will have to have mind share. If
>it's going to have mind share, I think it would be advantegeous to it to be
>a descriptive label rather than "appropriate." Hence, much of the concerns
>I'm hearing aren't so worrisome to me.

	While that they aren't going for "this isn't appropriate" is to their
credit, they do have a lot of problems with the nonsensical nature of some
of their ratings; take a look at the definitions, for instance. (It's also
obvious that they simply copied them from their ratings of video games. A lot
of their HTML references for the definitions are messed up, incidentally.)
	A. In regards to aggressive violence, they appear to rate self-defense
as aggressive violence.
	B. They do _not_ rate depictions of violent games such as football and
rugby as aggressive violence.
	C. They define any sex between someone under 18 and someone above 18
as a "sex crime" - despite that the age for statutory rape varies considerably,
and is usually _below_ 18. They're thus defining it in the same category as
rape.
	D. They define bestiality, even if consensual, as a "sex crime." Again,
they're thus defining it in the same category as rape.
	E. They define "Any portrayal (words, speech, pictures, etc.) which
strongly denigrates, defames, or otherwise devalues on the basis of race,
ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, sexual oriention, or disability" as
"hate speech." This has to be the most PC definition I've seen in a while. If I
mention that someone is a Scientologist, and that their opinions are likely to
be unjustified because of this, then I've committed "hate speech" under this
definition. If I say that someone who is less intelligent - a disability - is
of lesser value in the long run, I've committed "hate speech" under this
definition. In other words, they're encouraging parents and others to block
out speech that isn't PC. I will give them credit for mentioning "honkey" as
an epithet; most PC types seem to cheer on non-white racists like the Nation
of Islam. (There, I just committed hate speech against the Nation of Islam -
I attempted to bring down their reputation.)
	F. They also define any "hate speech" that "advocates violence or harm"
as "Extreme Hate Speech" - which gets the highest rating. Somehow, I doubt that
they're going to want to rate pro-Affirmative-Action speech - advocating harm
to those not in the protected groups - as "Extreme Hate Speech."
	In other words, while they've got some good ideas (as you point out,
unlike the SafeSurf system they don't attempt to have a category for "overall
appropriate range"), they've got a lot more messed-up ones. I don't think I'll
be rating any of my content with them anytime soon, thank you very much. They'd
misclassify it as "hate speech" or "extreme hate speech" or some such nonsense.
	-Allen