1996-05-08 - Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings

Header Data

From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: fec6687752c4854336418eddd377d13c6c9bd184262574fe54bcb8358c08afab
Message ID: <adb61de708021004cef3@[205.199.118.202]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-08 23:39:13 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 07:39:13 +0800

Raw message

From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 07:39:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
Message-ID: <adb61de708021004cef3@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 9:31 PM 5/7/96, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:

>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

Regarding this "(which I see few cases in which it wouldn't)" point, I have
a different view.

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.

Then we'll see what happens. (This is an old debate, here and on the
Cyberia-l list, to wit, what happens when people/perverts/libertarians
choose to subvert the voluntary ratings by deliberately mis-rating their
stuff? Or what if they genuinely believe, a la NAMBLA, that youngsters
should be exposed to certain things?)

I believe the whole debate about PICs-type ratings and other "voluntary
self-labeling" has taken us astray.

I don't see calls for authors to voluntarily self-rate their print works,
nor do I see calls for newspapers to have articles rated. Nor speech in
general. However, the drumbeat of "V-Chip" advocacy is now spilling over
into cyberspace.

I say it's a waste of our time to even be thinking or worrying about how to
implement an infrastructure for ratings. In fact, building such an
infrastructure could make later imposition of "mandatory voluntary ratings"
(Orwell would be unsurprised) a greater likelihood.


--Tim May

THE X-ON CONGRESS:  INDECENT COMMENT ON AN INDECENT SUBJECT, by Steve
Russell, American Reporter Correspondent....You motherfuckers in Congress
have dropped over the edge of the earth this time... "the sorriest bunch
of cocksuckers ever to sell out the First Amendment" or suggesting that
"the only reason to run for Congress these days is to suck the lobbyists'
dicks and fuck the people who sent you there," ....any more than I care
for the language you shitheads have forced me to use in this
essay...Let's talk about this fucking indecent language bullshit.







Thread