From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <33D8E731.8A663470@cptech.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970725104808.22013B-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.

For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some,
extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not on
the extremes, but in the great grey center.

Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.

-Declan


On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:

> Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for
> children, then you are in a state of denial.  However, while I don't
> expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record straight
> on your note.  I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems.  I think these
> are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far less
> ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
> concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by
> the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of 
> 
> <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
> 
> I think this is quite different from RSACi or SafeSurf's system, for the
> reasons mentioned by my missive to Jonah.  
> 
> 
>    Jamie   <love@cptech.org>
> 
> 
> Tim May wrote:
> > 
> > At 9:16 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
> > >From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
> > >To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
> > >Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>,
> > fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu,
> > >    chris_barr@cnet.com
> > >Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups
> > >
> > >
> > >Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are pretty
> > >obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating
> > system
> > >that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web
> > pages
> > >would be a bad thing.  That said, it seems to me that there exist web
> > >pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children.  Has CDT
> > rejected
> > 
> > "Unambiguously inappropriate for children"?
> > 
> > No such thing. I can think of many, many things which many consider
> > inappropriate for children (what age?), but which others, including
> > myself,
> > consider perfectly appropriate. I see no particular need to recite
> > examples
> > here.
> > 
> > Even with "obscenity," whatever that is (I seem not to know it when I
> > see
> > it, which would make me a poor Supreme Court Justice), that there are
> > obscenity prosecutions and trials would seem to indicate that such
> > materials are not "unambigously obscene."
> > 
> > The "mandatory voluntary" PICS/RSACi ratings, with penalties
> > (presumably)
> > for "mislabeling," just are another form of content control.
> > 
> > If they are truly voluntary, then people are free to say that a nudist
> > site
> > is appropriate for children, or not to label at all...the null label
> > is
> > just another label.
> > 
> > (Nudist sites, in realspace as well as cyberspace, are a classic
> > example of
> > the difficulty of judging "appropriate for children." Some
> > jurisdicitions
> > are attempting to legislate against children being in nudist camps.
> > They
> > would even claim that children seeing adults and other children nude
> > is
> > "unambiguosly inappropriate." Others disagree. So, how would their web
> > site
> > be labeled?)
> > 
> > The notion that something is "unambiguously" inapproprate, obscene,
> > heretical, treasonous, whatever, is a flawed concept.
> > 
> > --Tim May
> > 
> > There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of
> > laws.
> > Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to
> > Tyrants!"
> > 
> > ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> > Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital
> > money,
> > tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms,
> > zero
> > W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information
> > markets,
> > Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
> > "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information
> > superhighway."
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________________
> James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
> P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
> http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org
> 
>