From: roy@sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:28:46 -0800 (PST)
To: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Subject: Re: PICS is not censorship
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961208154000.006adf40@netcom14.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <961208.231901.9L7.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In list.cypherpunks, shamrock@netcom.com writes:

> Let's put the question if something like PICS will be mandated aside for
> the moment. Do you agree that sites that deliberately mislabel their
> content, will eventually face legal action? If so, then PICS should not be
> considered truly voluntary.

A thought:  The way you word your question is likely the way any
regulation will be worded, to wit "mislabeling the content".  I wonder
what might happen to sites that deliberately label their content as
offensively as possible, even though the content is actually benign.
Certainly this is "mislabeling", but you want to bet whether this
inversion gets prosecuted?
- -- 
           Roy M. Silvernail     [ ]      roy@scytale.com
DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division
PGP Public Key fingerprint =  31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54  13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6
                Key available from pubkey@scytale.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMquiAxvikii9febJAQGzHgP/RQ1aKrc/sUr6YcSI3WUxtJgEMBo7SA48
sY6MF13HcZ12yRNrawp8Dfh5WGAesjCTPiOeNhQSVLNUlShr7U1aEJYFWmFPf9qM
HkMkZyEWlrMMRvOTc0AbQD3is7aQT4z0WUDwa8T+psRFc1FZYHmvtgm5Qah2FD+M
L8R8GxIoGdw=
=CtSM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----