From: furballs <furballs@netcom.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f03963f3b11db79448ca62d0001ec2d3fe148b374b1d9ddfeb795bbb6ae42d77
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9612072304.A7118-0100000@netcom>
Reply To: <199612080515.VAA01745@hammerhead.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-08 08:37:21 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:37:21 -0800 (PST)
From: furballs <furballs@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:37:21 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PICS is not censorship
In-Reply-To: <199612080515.VAA01745@hammerhead.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9612072304.A7118-0100000@netcom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Thaddeus J. Beier wrote:
> tcmay@got.net ("Timothy C. May") sez
> > This is why I fear PICS. Democracy has run amok in the Western world, and
> > the various "herds" will vote to constrain the freedoms of other members of
> > the herd.
> >
> > My Prediction: If PICS is used voluntarily by more than 80% of Net users to
> > label their Web pages and their writings, etc., then less than 3 years
> > later PICS will be mandated in the United States and other such countries.
>
> PICS, or something like it, is the absolutely right response to calls
> for true Internet censorship. People agreeing to a language, a way
> of communicating, is a good thing.
>
> Did you object to HTML? TCP/IP? Other agreements that limited the way
> that people communicate?
>
> I don't think that PICS will be mandated any more than those two standards
> are mandated, perhaps I'm naive, but I think that the social conventions
> will work in this case.
>
> I suppose the a better solution would have been to have many competing
> private rating services, but PICS will work well, not put much load on
> the net, and is transparent and simple. I like it.
>
> thad
I disagree.
If people want a rating system, then they should voluntarily do it, not
have it shoved down their throats "for their own good".
Your examples are bogus in the light of what PICS is and what TCP/IP is.
One is a transport layer, the other a label for flagging. While both can
control the flow of information, there is a big difference between the
political behavior of the two as seen by the great unwashed who fain to rule
over us.
TCP/IP to them means nothing becuase they do not understand it's relation
to content. However, they do understand PICS as it's whole existence is
to delineat and ultimately control content. They pushed the development
of PICS and it's ilk for the express purpose of *control*. TCP/IP was
developed for the express purposed of common ground for dissemination.
I would suggest you rethink the position. I'll give you a better example
of why PICS *wont* work despite the Clintonista's claim of caring for
children.
You remember Playboy. That magazine was a right of passage for many a 12
or 13 year old boy who could get his hands on it. Could they buy it? No,
that was against the law. So where did they get it? Dad, ofcourse. His
subscription came every month, and "johnny" had no trouble finding it
once Dad hid it. Or, it came by way of "johnny's" big brother's room; or
a friend with the same circumstances at his home.
Regardless of the smut laws on the books, regardless of how zealous the
local constable was in rooting out the evils of pornography, you could
find the magazine and pre-teens willing to look in many places.
Did the government ban Playboy? No.. So why do you think they are all
fired up about banning smut on the Internet (which BTW is international
in scope) ? I'll tell you why... control, plain and simple control of
information.
Let's go back to one small piece of the CDA: the phrase "patently
offensive". Now, I have yet to see a *consistent* legal defintion of
obscene, much less "patently offensive".
Now, let's suppose that someone publishes a piece that says to the effect
"I think that Clinton is a complete idiot because of policies 'X', 'Y',
and 'Z'" and critiques them verbalizing reasons why these policies are a
failure. What's to stop her majesty and Bill from saying "We are patently
offended by this material"? Nothing. Nothing now. But, if the CDA is
enforced, then it is not unreasonable to forsee another shade of grey
come into being by making it a jailable offense to openly critisize the
government's mandated policies as it goes to (Clinton's favorite
euphemism) "National Security and the reputation of the United States
amongst it's peers". (Not that we enjoy any peerage these days).
Any legal manuevering that restricts legitimate critism of the federal
goverment's policies, actions, or positions diminshes the effectiveness
of the First Amendment. If our elected officials can not be publicly
chastized and shamed into enacting good policy or dispensing the will of
the people, then we have a Republic in name only.
That is why the Consitutuion starts with "We the People of the United
States..." not "We the Government of the United States..." That is why
the First Amendment is about free speech and the Second Amendment
concerns the right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers believed in the
people's ability to "adjust" government when government became like
George III.
On the surface, PICS seems harmless to the average person. It's the hue
and cry "ofcourse we should protect our children!" From what? Themselves?
Other people? Good Information? Bad Information? (choice your poison).
More to the point, it is people wanting to alleveat their responsibility
as parents from dealing with their children. They are willing to give up
a portion of their free agency to try and avoid parenting and the
government is only too eager to help.
One question: can you really legislate morality and make it stick?
...Paul
Return to December 1996
Return to ““Timothy C. May” <tcmay@got.net>”