cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-07-25 - Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)

Header Data

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Message Hash: 1ca6aebf5e9d747662d0b3bb520edc6a48c3c741327029c18a13053b06d2f71d
Message ID: <v03102802affe9889ff47@[207.167.93.63]>
Reply To: <v03102800affe90c52c47@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-25 18:14:24 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 02:14:24 +0800

Raw message

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 02:14:24 +0800
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <v03102800affe90c52c47@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <v03102802affe9889ff47@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 10:49 AM -0700 7/25/97, 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">

So long as it is completely voluntary, and I am free to label my sites as
"Suitable for children," whatever they contain, I have no problem with your
proposal.

(And marking my sites "suitable for children" may help me to recruit some
fine young lolitas to my nudist site, so I may actually _like_ your system.)

However, if you or Justice Rehnquist or Louis Freeh or Ralph Reed should
_disagree_ with my "voluntary" labeling of my site as "suitable for
children," and should then bring the courts into the process in a
prosecution or other action against me, then it will hardly be "voluntary,"
will it?

And since my standards of what is "suitable" and what is "not suitable" may
well differ from your standards, etc., why not just have an Office of the
Censor to resolve these issues so that I won't later be charged?

(I don't mean this as a cheap shot, by the way. I am sure you would recoil
in horror at the concept of an Office of the Censor. However, what other
option exists, given that I would otherwise have no idea what my site
should be "voluntarily" rated as? I happen to think my nudist web page is
indeed a good place for healty young lolita girls to come and hang out. My
values. Yours may be different.)


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."

Thread